Research in Science Education 34: 97111, 2004.

2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Analysis of Korean High School Students Decision-Making Processes in

Solving a Problem Involving Biological Knowledge

Jung-Lim Hong1 and Nam-Kee Chang2

1 Joongkyung High School
2 College of Education, Department of Biology Education, Seoul National University
Abstract
In this study, the cognitive characteristics of students decision-making processes centered on phases,
difficulties, and strategies are analysed in the personal dailylife context involving biological knowledge. The subjects were first year science and general high school students in Seoul, Korea; 6 female
students and 7 male students. The students decision-making processes were analysed by thinkaloud and participant observation methods. On the whole, the students decision-making processes
progressed in following order: recognizing a problem, searching for alternatives, evaluating the
alternatives, and decision. During the decision-making processes, the above phases were repeated
by trial and error. Students preferred noncompensatory rules that did not allow trade offs among
alternatives for decisions, rather than compensatory rules of selection. Students had a tendency to
have difficulties in analysing the difference between initial state and desirable state of the problem,
organising biological knowledge-related problems, and clarifying values as selective criteria. Even
students who had high achievement and more positive science-related attitudes did not apply biological knowledge to search for alternatives, and could not utilise scientific values as selective criteria
very well. We discuss the implications of these results for teaching of decision-making in respect to
scientific literacy.
Key Words: biological knowledge, decision-making process, scientific literacy

Most science educators agree that a central purpose of modern science education is
to foster scientific literacy. For example, the National Research Council (1996, p. 22)
in designing science education standards in the US indicated that scientific literacy
is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for
personal decision-making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic
productivity. Ramsey (1993) also stated that the purpose of science education was
to foster social responsibility and so the secondary science curriculum should deal
with personal and societal problems. That is to say, the scientific literacy consists
of three dimensions that are knowing the facts and information about science and
technologies, combining scientific concepts and scientific processes for its formation,
perceptions of nature of science, and role of science in individual life and society.
Ultimately theses three dimensions contribute to fostering abilities of understanding
and application of scientific knowledge and processes in decision-making followed
in political, cultural and economic activities. Therefore, the decision-making process
must play a major part in any science curriculum (Watson, 1980), and many stud-

98

J.-L. HONG AND N.-K. CHANG

ies to develop strategies helping students decision-making are required in science

education.
Even though many science educators acknowledge the importance of decisionmaking, few studies of this process have been performed. What little work there is
has been in limited domains and contexts. In Korea, there have not been studies
related to students decision-making. Aikenhead (1989) has examined the nature
of decision-making in science classes. Kortland (1992) used a normative decisionmaking model along with small-scale interviews to aid curriculum development in
environmental decision-making. Some have evaluated materials designed to help
students decision-making (Aikenhead, 1991; Dreyfus & Jungwirth, 1980; de Jager
& der Loo, 1990). Beyth-Marom, Fischoff, Jacobs, and Furby (1991) criticised some
decision-making programs for adolescents. They indicated that there was some similarity among the principles of the models proposed. Normative decision-making
models proposed in studies focus on how people should make choices. Normative models do not provide insight into psychological processes, therefore they are
not appropriate to real decision-making processes of most people. The cognitive
process and difficulties which decision-makers experience in real situations can not
be considered within them. Ratcliffe (1997) also indicated these problems and attempted to explore the skills, knowledge and values which pupils used to make
judgements about scientific issues. In science education, the primary task to enhance
decision-making abilities should be helping students cognitive difficulties in making
decisions in real situations.
So, the focus of the present research is to analyse students cognitive processes,
difficulties, and strategies in decision-making, and then to discuss the implications
for teaching students to make scientifically literate decisions. We also attempt to
analyse decision-making processes by verbal protocols, using process-models. The
process models are concerned with the dynamic aspects of decision-making, with the
heuristics and algorithms that people use in dealing with decision problems (Ableson
& Levi, 1985). They focus on how decisions are made in terms of the underlying cognitive processes. The information-processing approach to human problem
solving, in particular, has been viewed as highly applicable to decision behavior.
Ericsson and Simon (1984) suggested that protocols may be an appropriate method
for identifying processes that are in focal attention. In this method, students are
required to think aloud as they undertake a decision task. The protocols often provide additional information about the attractiveness values and relative importance
of attributes of things selected, as well as the underlying decision rules being used
by subjects.
In this study, we had the subjects carry out an analytical decision process involving
biological knowledge in a personal dailylife context. The content of the problem
exists in the real lives of students, instead of a complex issue such as a biosocial problem. We believe that this analysis also provides insight into socioscientific issues,
relevant to teaching guidelines. The specific research questions are as follows:
1. Through what phases do students make decisions, and what difficulties do students have at each decision-making phase?

ANALYSIS OF KOREAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS DECISION-MAKING

99

2. What strategies do students prefer to use when making choices?

3. What difference in the decision-making process is there according to students
levels of achievement and attitude?
Development of Decision-Making Task
The decision task of selecting digestive aids in a personal dailylife context was
developed in this study. The information sheets on digestive aids were also supplied
to the students. Information sheets are organised in a way similar to digestive usage
instruction, and included the manufacturers description, dosage, ingredients, efficacy, and price, while the names of commercial enzymes were replaced with general
enzyme names. The task in this study was as indicated in Figure 1.
You have returned home after dinner with your family at a beef rib restaurant. You ate
too much and suffered indigestion. You decided to take digestive aids and went to a
pharmacy. A pharmacist recommends to you three kinds of digestive aids. The usage
instructions of three the digestive aids are as follows. Which one will you choose?
Figure 1: Selective digestive aids tasks.

Subjects
The subjects were first year high school (15 years old, tenth grade in secondary
school) students in Seoul, Korea; 6 female students and 7 male students. Five of
the students were from a science high school that provides a more intensive science
curriculum than general high school, while the remaining were from a general high
school. The students volunteered for the research.
They had previously learned scientific content related to presented decision-making tasks, for example, nutrition and digestion, during middle grades, but they had
been not learned the decision-making program itself. They had eight sessions relating
to the following in second grade of middle school: some essentials (carbohydrates,
fats, protein, vitamins, minerals, and water), the digestive systems of humans (the
oral cavity and esophagus, the stomach, the small intestine, the liver and pancreas,
and large intestine), the chemistry of digestion (carbohydrate digestion, fat digestion,
protein digestion), integration and control of the digestive process, and absorption
of digested nutrition. As a whole, they had been instructed by traditional teaching
methods centered on explaining scientific concepts.
At first, a test of biology achievement as a cognitive factor and Test of ScienceRelated Attitudes (TOSRA; Fraser, 1981) as an affective factor possibly affecting
decision-making were administered.
The students were classified into three groups based on level of biology achievement test scores: four high-level students (above average scores), four mid-level

100

J.-L. HONG AND N.-K. CHANG

students (average scores), and five low-level students (lower than average scores).
By using a science-related attitude test, they were divided into two groups: eight students with positive attitudes (above average) and five students with negative attitudes
(lower than average).

Data Collection and Analysis

The verbal protocols were used to trace the decision-making process. Verbal protocols were collected while the subjects were working on the task of making a decision.
The subjects were asked to think-aloud and to report every passing thought.
The students practiced the think-aloud method for two weeks. During this time,
the TOSRA was administered, and a biology achievement test was completed, both
using the think-aloud method. During the next two weeks, the complete cognitive
processes of decision-making for selecting digestive aids were recorded by an audio tape recorder, and observations were also made of students actions. Paper and
pencils were provided to help students thinking processes.
The recorded audio-tapes were transcribed into protocols. The field notes during
observation, and written works by students, were also used to support the analyses.
The protocols were segmented (each sentence was either a simple sentence or an
independent clause in a more complex sentence), and then each segment was coded.
The coding system for analysing the data was based on the general coding system related to decision-making (Bettman & Park, 1980) and problem solving (Puff, 1982),
and it was extended to this study by considering detailed behaviors that appeared in
students decision-making processes. The framework of decision-making behaviors
used for coding the data appears in Table 1.
The results of the analysed protocol presented in Table 2 are in units of students
different thinking process and behavior shown in Figure 2. All of the protocols
were analysed by two coders independently. In this study, interjudge agreement level
between two coders was .95, far higher than the satisfactory levels of interjudge
reliability reported by Bettman and Park (1980) of .75.
The decision-making strategies were analysed on the basis of Ableson and Levis
(1985) classifying scheme. Decision rules are characterised as either compensatory
or noncompensatory. In compensatory choice rules, a poor evaluation on one attribute may be compensated by a positive evaluation on another attribute. For example, the following hypothetical characteristics may be considered when choosing
an automobile: price, safety, and economy. In choosing an automobile, the decision
maker may sacrifice some economy for an increase in safety, or may accept an automobile that is unattractive on safety and economy if its price is sufficiently low. On
the other hand, in noncompensatrory rules this is not possible. Noncompensatoy rules
do not allow trade-offs among attributes and thus are suitable when commensurability is absent (e.g., poor economy of an automobile makes it an impossible choice).
The decision maker has a minimum acceptable level for each attribute and immediately rejects an alternative if it falls below this level. Once rejected, the alternative is
omitted from all further consideration.

ANALYSIS OF KOREAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS DECISION-MAKING

101

Table 1
Coding Scheme of Decision-Making Process
Phase

Subphase and behavior category

C. Recognising a Problem.
Recognising the differences
between initial state and
desired state, and identifying
the problem to decide

C1. Recognition of problem to decide

C1.1. Reading the problem situation
C1.2. Reading the problem and underlining key
points
C1.3. Writing knowledge related to the situation
C2. Identification of problem
Consideration of criteria for resolution of the
problem

S. Searching for alternatives.

Gathering information of
practical alternatives

S1. Organisation of knowledge corresponding to the

problem being solved
S1.1. Considering types of digestive enzyme
corresponding to nutrition
S1.2. Considering the effects of digestive enzymes
S1.3. Considering digestive enzymes and digestive organs that are affected
S2. Gathering information
S2.1. Reading each digestive usage instruction,
underlining or writing during reading it
S2.2. Identifying principal and secondary information included in digestive usage
instructions
S2.3. Concentrating on understanding about
the principal information

E. Evaluating the
alternatives.
Evaluating and examining
each alternative

E1. Comparing and analysing alternatives

E1.1. Comparing characteristics, components,
effects, and price of digestive aid
E1.2. Temporary evaluation of alternatives
E2. Totally evaluating each alternative by attributes
E2.1. Totally ranking each digestive aid for
characteristics, components, effects,
price etc.
E2.2. Evaluating by establishing minimum
cutoffs

D. Decision

D. Selection of digestive aid

C1 S2.1 S2.3 S2.1 S2.1 S2.3 S2.1 S2.1 C2 C2 C2 E1.1 E1.2 E1.1 E2.1 E2.1 E2.1 D
C1
S2
C2
E1
E2
D
C1.1 S2.1 S2.1 S2.1 S2.1 C1.1 S2.1 S2.2C2 C2 C2 E1.2 C2 C2 E1.2 E1.2 E2.1 E2.1 E2.1 E2.1 D
C1 S2
C1 S2 S2
C2 E1 C2
E1
E2
D
C1.2 S2.1 C2 S2.1 S2.1 S2.1 C2 E1.2 S2.1 S2.1 S2.1 S2.1 S2.1 S2.1 E1.1 E1.1 E1.1 E1.2 E2.1 D
C1 S2 C2 S2
C2 E1 S2
E1
E2 D

Kyung

So

Jin

Sequence of detailed behavior of decision-making

Sequence of classified decision-making phase based on detailed behavior

Student

Table 2
Examples of Analyzed Protocols

102
J.-L. HONG AND N.-K. CHANG

ANALYSIS OF KOREAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS DECISION-MAKING

103

(Reading the situation of the task/ C1.1)(Reading A while underlining/

S2.1)(Reading B while underlining/S2.1) (See the effect and efficiency of A and
B/S2.1) (Read C/S2.1)(Read the situation of the task again/C1.1)(After reading the
characteristics of A,B, and C/S2.1) I think Basic digestion of 3kinds were all kept in
order/S2.2, I had good feast in steak rib restaurant/C2, its not like I had bad digestion
before/C2. Overeating was the cause of bad digestion/C2. My appetite is not bad, I
was full and suffered indigestion, lack of appetite/C2. Feeling expansion of stomach,
getting rid of gas seems unnecessary/C2.
Therefore A is not the one/E1.2, In steak rib restaurant I consume a lot of ribs and
vegetable/C2. Hope that protein and vegetable are degraded in balanced portion/C2.
Digestive Aids works well on basic digestion/C2. A has a lot of description about
gas but seems to be unnecessary/E1.2. B discusses a lot about fat, plants, and cellulose, because B thinks food made of fat starch degrades protein well/E1.2. When
comparing B and C, B seems to digest steak efficiently E2.1/, and also vegetable and
cellulose as well/E2.1. By looking at characteristics of B, eating steak ribs and vegetable seem better for digestion/E2.1. Also the important thing is the price, Costing
100won/E2.1. Therefore I choose B/D.
Figure 2: Example of analyzed verbal protocol.
Results
The results showed that the decision-making processes were not systematic. The
students preferred the noncompensatory choice rules which do not allow trade offs
among alternatives for decisions. Even the students who achieved high test scores
or those with more positive attitudes could not apply biological knowledge, or not
utilise scientific values as selective criteria very well.
Table 3 shows the overall decision-making processes of subjects. In general, the
decision-making processes were not systematic, but rather based on trial and error.
They repeated the phases of searching for alternatives (S21S23) two or three
times, then passed through evaluating alternatives (E1E2) and then decided. The
students skipped the phase identification of problem (C2) which would have enabled them to clarify the problem, and immediately went on to searching for alternatives. Therefore, when they did not understand the problem clearly, they reread
the task, and returned to the recognising a problem phase as a way to search for
alternatives. For example, subjects Jin, Sung, and Eun came back to the C1 phase
after passing through the S2 phase, and then identified a problem (C2). Kyung, Joo,
Hye, Suk, So, and Soo did not directly go to the C2 phase after C1 phase. Kew had
even none of the C2 phase in his decision-making process. On the other hand, Jin,
Suk, and So repeated the C2 phase many times. This shows that recognising a problem is not performed thoroughly at first. They were not prepared at the searching
for alternatives phase to interpret alternatives for choice. This result is consistent
with previous research. In complex mathematical problem solving, middle schoolage students had errors of planning elements in solving problems (Vye, Goldman,

Achievement
level
high
high
high
high
middle
middle
middle
middle
low
low
low
low
low

Students

Kyung
Kew
Ji
Joo
Gun
Hye
Jin
Suk
Sung
Dae
Eun
So
Soo

positive
positive
positive
negative
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
negative

Attitude
level

Table 3
Summary of Decision-Making Processes of the Students

C1-S2-C2-E1-E2-D
C1-S2-S1-E1-S2-E1-S2-E1-S2-E1-S2-E1-E2-D
C1-S2-E1-C2-E2-D
C1-S2-C2-S2-E1-S1-E2-D
C1-S2-E1-C2-E1-E2-D
C1-S2-C2-S1-S2-S1-S2-E1-E2-D
C1-S2-C1-S2-C1-S2-C2-E1-C2-E1-E2-D
C1-S2-C2-S2-C2-S1-E1-E2-D
C1-S2-C1-E1-C2-E1-E2-D
C1-S2-E1-C2-S1-E1-E2-D
C1-S2-C1-S2-C2-S2-E2-D
C1-S2-C2-S2-C2-E1-S2-E1-E2-D
C1-S2-C2-S2-E1-S2-E1-E2-D

Decision-making process

8.0
17.4
7.5
18.4
14.4
5.3
8.1
7.0
9.2
9.1
13.5
8.4
5.3

Decision-making
time (min)

104
J.-L. HONG AND N.-K. CHANG

ANALYSIS OF KOREAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS DECISION-MAKING

105

Voss, Hmelo, & Williams, 1997). Middle school-age students who score extremely
well on standardised mathematics achievement tests also had difficulties in determining the data that are relevant to solving particular subproblems and successfully
formulating computational procedures for such subproblems. In previous research
of Kuhn, Black, Keseleman, and Kaplan (2000), it was shown that adolescents had
difficulties in understanding of the objective of inquiry tasks.
In the phase of searching for alternatives (S21S23), students used verbal expressions presented in information sheets rather than biological knowledge as a normative for searching. The presented task is a problem of overeating meat, so the
important thing to select digestion aids is what enzymes are contained in it. As shown
in Figure 3, eight out of thirteen students did not recognise that the characteristics
of digestive aids presented in the information sheets were related to the ingredients of the digestive aids. Therefore, if the manufacturers descriptions of different
digestive aids contained different expressions, then students believed the products
to be different, even though they contained the same enzyme. These findings are
consistent with the well-established idea that experts represent problems at a deep
level, whereas novices represent them only on the surface features (Chi, Feltovich,
& Glaser, 1981). Findings of Chan, Burtis, and Bereiter (1997) also support that
students react to isolated words or respond to the salient surface features of the text
statements in problem solving.
Soo: The characteristics of digestive aids A and B seem alike, (comparing the ingredients in A and B) A and B have lipase and amylase. If one eats meat, protein and
lipid would be better absorbed- - - - since A does not include an expression saying It
can decompose protein and lipid, I would not buy A. I will buy either B or C.
So: (while reading characteristics of B, underlined It prevents the effects of contents
enzyme from decreasing, It helps to decompose foods made of lipid and starch, and
absorption in the intestine, - - - - - decomposes cellulose of vegetables, hemicellulase) over-eating, indigestion, promotion of digestion - - - -. The efficacy of digestive
A is more correct.
Figure 3: Examples of verbal protocols 1.
In the evaluating alternatives phase (E11E12), most of the students compared the
alternatives without a clear understanding of the attributes to be compared. In order
to compare digestive aids properly, comparing the ingredients of digestive aids is
necessary. Nevertheless most of them did not compare ingredients by concrete operations such as one to one comparison. Only one student compared the ingredients
of the digestive aids mathematically, while the rest of them did not. Similar results
have been found in previous research tracing decision-making processes. The middle
school students who were engaged to make decision of pro and con for capital punishment used few selective criteria rather than considering all respects such as human
rights, dignity, protecting society from criminal acts, and deterring crime (Kuhn et
al., 1997). In her other research (Kuhn, Black, Keseleman, & Kaplan, 2000), it was
found that students who used controlled comparison strategies as the hallmark of

106

J.-L. HONG AND N.-K. CHANG

skilled scientific reasoning, did not achieve desirable levels of problem solving. That
result also was consistent with the results of the presented study.
The noncompensatory rules were the strategies of choice by nine students, and
four students used negotiated noncompensatory and compensatory rules. The nine
students who used noncompensatory rules selected superior alternatives, or excluded
one by first comparing the attributes such as manufacturers description, ingredients,
and efficacy. That is, by selecting superior alternatives or excluding unsatisfactory
alternatives, the students reduced the number of alternatives to choose from. Then,
they selected the one of two alternatives, that had better efficacy or ingredients. Some
students used compensatory rules in which they considered many attributes simultaneously for two alternatives after using noncompensatory rules. The examples of the
strategies for selection are shown in Figure 4.
Suk: Because of indigestion caused by beef ribs, it must be digested in the stomach
and should be decomposed into protein. So that the protein must be decomposed in
the stomach- -, protein, pepsin- - - (comparing characteristics of A, B, C) at least A
has pepsin, I will select A.
Kyung: (while rereading efficacy of B) Beef has lipid, and it would be good if a
digestive aid can decompose lipid and protein. And I had vegetables, too. Because
B has a lot of descriptions about efficiency of digesting protein and lipid, I will
choose B.
Ji: (seeing characteristics of C) C can get rid of gas, enhance decomposition of
cellulose- - - - - - -. A seems to have some effects, but not quite enough. (studying
B and C carefully) Between B and C, they can digest carbohydrate, protein and lipid.
Decomposing cellulose is secondary, because I had beef ribs. B is 100 won. C is 200
won. (Seeing task context again) got full and indigestion- - - - - -. C has three actions,
removal of gas, facilitation of digestion, and secretion of pancreatic fluid. And B
has facilitates digestion, removal of gas, but no secretion of pancreatic fluid- - - - - -.
Though more expensive, I will buy C.
Figure 4: Examples of verbal protocols 2.
Only five students among 13 students applied their biological knowledge to decision-making processes. The students did not consider that enzymes must be included in digestive aids. They did not compare the composition of enzymes and its
quantities to digestive aids. Four of the eight students who achieved at a high or
middle level of knowledge applied their biological knowledge to decision-making
processes. They constituted fifty-percent of above middle level students. Only one of
the five students in the low-level group went through the phase of applying biological
knowledge. They constituted twenty-percent of the low level group. One of the five
students who went through this phase belonged to the high-level group in achievement but belonged to the less positive group in attitude. The other one belonged to
the low level group in achievement but belonged to the group with a more positive
attitude. But none of the low-level students in both achievement and attitude went

ANALYSIS OF KOREAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS DECISION-MAKING

107

through this phase. On the other hand, one of the high level students in achievement
and attitude did not apply biological knowledge.

Implications for Teaching about Decision-Making

Considering these results, the students appear to have their own criteria and processes for selection which are not related to perceptions of usefulness of scientific
knowledge and values learned from school. If we suppose that cognitive structures
exists in a schema to perform decision-making, this suggests that decision-making
structures constructed through interaction with the environment can not be easily
changed, as childrens knowledge and concepts are not easily changed after learning science at school (Driver & Easley, 1978). When students face decision-making
problems they solve the problem by empirical knowledge, which exists apart from
scientific knowledge, and this usually does not produce the best consequences. Gilbert
(1991) discussed how mental systems believed and argued that the acceptance of
an idea is part of the comprehension process. In other words, students employing a
knowledge-building activity, which involves treating new information as something
problematic that needs to be explained, are able to avoid premature assimilation
of new information, to bracket their beliefs, and to create a temporary context to
make sense of the new information (Chan, Burtis, & Bereiter, 1997). This means
that interpreted knowledge by self-regulation is more useful than direct assimilation
knowledge in problem solving.
Making a scientifically literate decision is a complex process involving the application of scientific knowledge, inquiry skills and value clarification skills (Aikenhead, 1985). The results also showed the belief that students having high achievement
and positive attitudes will make decisions in a more scientifically literate way, is
not formulated clearly. Baron, Granato, Spranca, and Teubal (1993) also indicated
that when many children enter adolescence, they are still making many errors in
decision-making, suggesting that schools must provide special programs for enhancement of decision-making abilities, as with many other logical abilities. Therefore, for thoughtful and rational decision-making, well planned teaching strategies
and learning activities are required.
If the students facing complicated problems are to apply biological knowledge
promptly, it is not the rote ability to match the knowledge on a simple, restricted
problem situation that is important, but rather the ability to analyse the situation
and to identify the conditions pertaining to scientific principles. Unlike the problems
encountered by students in a classroom, many individual and social problems are
not clearly constructed with respect to scientific principles. So, students have problems understanding the relevant scientific principles in such cases. If students learn
appropriate scientific principles to solve problems, then complicated and obscure
problems should become simpler and clearer. Science teachers should therefore support students to analyse problems and to identify the relevant scientific knowledge to
be applied. This may be a strategy of selection among alternatives. The application

108

J.-L. HONG AND N.-K. CHANG

of scientific knowledge is an important skill, because it also enables students to

understand what must be assessed in evaluating the alternatives phase (E1E2).
Heyworth (1999) also indicated that application of knowledge is important for problem solving and that major differences between novice and expert secondary school
students are in their conceptual understanding.
The decision making process also requires gathering scientific information, which
is related to the application of scientific knowledge. In the evaluating the alternatives phase, the teacher should help students to logically compare the alternatives
with each other. By doing this, data interpreting skills are consolidated, because it
is essential to systematically evaluate alternatives based on attributes. That is to say,
the skills of mathematical comparison, graphing, interpreting charts, summarising
analysed data are needed.
In Korea, even though there have been many trials to develop the science curriculum in respect of STS, a curriculum for teaching of decision-making in various contexts is not developed yet. In other countries, several studies have proposed decisionmaking models to assist students makng decisions in science classes (Mertens &
Hendrix, 1982; Rowland & Adkins, 1992; Fullick & Ratcliffe, 1996). However,
these are too structured and complex because they weight the procedure of decisionmaking toward what ought to produce the best outcomes. Considering the results of
this study suggest that to help students make decisions, teaching strategies should
be directed to enhancing students understanding of the nature of decision-making
processes and to the consolidation for skills needed in each phase of the process. It is
not necessary to have students follow structured procedures and specific choice rules
such as cost-benefit analysis, but rather to let them develop systematic procedures
and selective criteria by themselves. Kuhn (2001) indicated that exercise of strategies at the performance level feeds back and enhances the metalevel understanding
which will guide subsequent strategy selection and hence, performance. This can
be considered in decision-making problems. That is, teaching strategies encouraging meta-decision making are needed. Specially, criteria for selection are important
components to solve decision-making problems. Since the ability to resolve conflicts
between choices during decision-making is limited by individual information-load,
if the degree of conflict is high because too many things are obscure or must be
considered, then the decision-making is performed by intuition. In each of the phases,
students did not solve the conflictive context effectively because they were confused in selecting criteria and not familiar with needed skills. At this time, value
clarification skill enables students to adopt which selective criterion among many
alternative criteria for choice. The selected criteria will function as clues to resolve
the conflictive contexts by reducing individual information-load. It is important that
students accept the scientific values such as objectiveness of scientific method, accuracy, reliability and validity of data in their value systems, and utilise them to solve
problems.
As we saw in the results, students also preferred the noncompensatory rules which
required less information-load than compensatory rules. Ultimately, the strategy for
selection is related to values, as well. The cost-benefit analysis, one type of compensatory rule, is frequently utilised in STS decision-making programs (Sthahl &

ANALYSIS OF KOREAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS DECISION-MAKING

109

Sthahl, 1995; Fullick & Ratcliffe, 1996) but it may be not useful in real situations.
In order to generate optimal conditions for choice, it is more desirable that merits
and defects of various choice rules are introduced rather than any choice rule being
directly presented to the students. Decision-making problems are mostly value-laden.
From individual problems in daily life contexts, such as selecting a diet, to problems
related to biotechnology in socioscientifc, the important thing is to have values as
selection criteria. When teachers intend to help students select or accept values,
value clarification skill is important. As students understand the process of value
clarification, they will effectively solve decision-making problems. They can understand what is to be compared with each other, how to rank the choices among these,
and how to utilise choice rules. In the technological age many value-laden issues
related to life are raised. In order to examine many life-ethical problems, people
must use both biological knowledge, and their value systems. In Korean culture,
there has been a tendency to deal emotionally or not openly with problems such as
AIDS, surrogate mothers and internal organ trade. Therefore, programs for helping
students to make decision-making about life-ethical problems must be included in
the biological curriculum, and teachers must make special efforts to help students
improve their decision-making problems.
It seems likely that various factors such as personal habits, attitude, and disposition influence decision-making. We frequently see that there is little connection
between knowledge and implementation. It is desirable that many decision-making
problems in various contexts be provided in the science curriculum. It is expected
that the experiences and skills for decision-making thus developed can be transferred
to decision-making processes in more complicated problems such as socioscientific
issues.
Correspondence: Jung-Lim Hong, Mapo-Gu Dowha 2dong, 121-774, Woosung
apartment 3-1112, Seoul, Korea
E-mail: hjl65@netian.com

References
Ableson, R. P., & Levi, A. (1985). Decision making and decision theory. In
G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 231309). New York: Ramdom House.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1989). Decision-making theories as tools for interpreting student
behavior during a scientific inquiry simulation. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 26(3), 189203.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science.
Science Education, 69(4), 453475.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1991). Logical reasoning in science and technology. Toronto,
Canada: Wiley.

110

J.-L. HONG AND N.-K. CHANG

Baron, J., Granato, L., Spranca, M., & Teubal, E. (1993). Decision-making biases
in children and early adolescents: Exploratory studies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
39(1), 2246.
Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and
phase of the choice process on consumer decision process: A protocol analysis.
Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 234248.
Beyth-Marom, R., Fischoff, B., Jacobs Q. M., & Furby, L. (1991). Teaching decisionmaking to adolescents: A critical review. In J. Baron & R. Brown (Eds.), Teaching
decision making to adolescents (pp. 1959). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of
conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 140.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J. , & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation
of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121152.
de Jager, H., & van der Loo, F. (1990). Decision making in environmental education: Notes from research in the Dutch nme-vo project. Journal of Environmental
Education, 22(1), 3342.
Dreyfus, A., & Jungwirth, E. (1980). A comparison of the prompting effect of outof school with that of in-school contexts on certain aspects of critical thinking.
European Journal of Science Education, 2(3), 301310.
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and Paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science
Education, 5, 6184.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Verbal protocol analysis. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Fraser, J. B. (1981). Test of science-related attitudes. Victoria, Australia: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Fullick, P., & Ratcliffe, M. (Eds.). (1996). Teaching ethical aspects of science.
Southampton, UK: The Bassett Press.
Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How metal systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107
119.
Heyworth, R., M. (1999). Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice
students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. International Journal of
Science Education, 21(2), 195211.
Kortland, J. (1992). Environmental education: sustainable development and decisionmaking. In R. Yager (Ed.), The status of STS reform efforts around the world
ICASE year book (pp. 3239). Petersfield, UK: ICASE.
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know?. Psychological Science, 12(1), 18.
Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keseleman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of
cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction,18(4),
495523.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287315.
Mertens, T. R., & Hendrix, J. R. (1982). Responsible decision making: A tool for
developing biological literacy. The American Biology Teacher, 44(3), 148152.

ANALYSIS OF KOREAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS DECISION-MAKING

111

National Research Council. (1996). National Education Standards. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.
Puff, C. R. (1982). Handbook of research methods in human memory and cognition
(pp. 246250). New York: Academic Press.
Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education reform movement: Implications for social
responsibility. Science Education, 77(2), 235258.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the
science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167182.
Rowland, P. M., & Adkins, C. R. (1992). Developing environmental decision-making
in middle school classes. Paper presented at the meeting of the world congress
for education and communication on environment and development, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada (ED361168).
Sthahl, N. N., & Sthahl, R. J. (1995). Society and science: Decision making episodes
for exploring society, science, and technology. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Vye, N. J., Goldman, S. R., Voss, J. F., Hmelo, C., & Williams, S. (1997). Complex mathematical problem solving by individuals and dyads. Cognition and
Instruction, 15(4), 435484.
Watson, F. (1980). Science education for survival. In C. P. McFadden (Ed.), World
trends in science education. Halifax, Canada: Atlantic Institute of Education.