Judgment and Decision-making About Socio-scientific

Judgment and Decision-making About Socio-scientific Issues: One Basis for a Cross-faculty Approach For Learning about Climate Change1 Dietmar Höttecke1, Corinna Hößle2, Ingo Eilks3, Jürgen Menthe2, Maria Mrochen3, Helen Oelgeklaus2, Timo Feierabend3, 1

University Hamburg, 2University Oldenburg, 3University Bremen, Germany

Education concerning sustainable development is closely related to the fostering competency in making well-informed, self-reflected judgments and decisions. This paper begins with an analysis of what making such a judgement or decision might mean in the context of climate change. It also discusses the fact that enabling students to make proper judgments is an educational challenge. Therefore, we must distinguish between personal and discursive issues in order to label the level of personal engagement. Furthermore, three areas of discourse concerning climate change will be described: the media, science and policymaking. Each of these aspects is relevant for decision-making and responsible citizenry in this field. We will further argue that knowledge about the internal logic of all three dimensions is necessary to make correct decisions on discursive issues. An empirically-based model of moral judgment demonstrates that norms, values and knowledge are essential aspects of an argumentative structure. The paper closes with brief insights into a project ‘climate change before the court’. This project focuses on the development of lesson plans including role-play scenarios in order to take into account the above-mentioned aspects and integrate them into science teaching.

Socio-scientific reasoning and decision-making about climate change During the welcoming ceremony of the international climate conference 2009 in Copenhagen, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Nobel Peace Price Laureate Rajendra Pachauri stated: “The evidence is now overwhelming that the world would benefit greatly from early action, and that delay would only lead to costs in economic and human terms that would become progressively high. The IPCC has been able to provide substantial evidence through its

I. Eilks & B. Ralle (eds.): Contemporary science education, 179-192 © 2010, Shaker, Aachen, Germany

Höttecke, Hößle, Eilks, Menthe, Mrochen, Oelgeklaus & Feierabend assessments that science provides us with a basis for undertaking changes that this conference must urgently initiate.” (Pachauri, 2009)

Scientists widely agree that climate change affected or even generated by humankind exists. For many researchers, the question of whether climate change actually exists has already been settled and has shifted to the question of how to react to and cope with the consequences. Scientists, policy makers, and NGOs supporting environmental protection measures all over the world keep demanding changes in the global economy, the attitudes of citizens and altered moral conduct conducive to more sustainable ways of living. While the message of the IPCC supports the fact that we urgently need to prevent climate change and mitigate its consequences, the problem arises of exactly how such changes might best be initiated. The economy, science, technology, policy-making and agriculture will all have to support a change towards more sustainable ways of existing. On the other hand, democratic societies depend heavily on active citizenship and the constructive participation of all people, including students, who are both citizens of the present and the future. The fact that “the world” is under considerable time-pressure to act now contrasts sharply with the fact that the development of the educational systems responding to societal needs is normally slow and time-consuming. Several scholars support educational change which promotes sustainable development (e.g. de Haan et al., 2008). UNESCO itself has therefore announced a “Decade of Education” for sustainable development in order to substantially support this movement: “Education for sustainable development aims to help people to develop the attitudes, skills and knowledge to make informed decisions for the benefit of themselves and others, now and in the future, and to act upon these decisions” (UNESCO, 2010).

This idea seems to be highly convincing at first glance. Do we really have any other choice than following UNESCO’s advice? Even if we as educational researchers and educators really agree with such educational change, we still must clarify what an adequate attitude might be, which types of decision-making skills are teachable in order to make well-based, balanced judgments, and which sorts of knowledge best support decision-making processes in one context of sustainability or another. Research results have been quite sobering up to now. Bögeholz (1999) indicates that the relationship between environmental attitudes and action-taking is weak. Psychological research has shown that most people usually view “the benefit of themselves and others” as an unbalanced proposition. Additionally, cooperatively based strategies of action inherently presume a person’s confidence in the cooperative orientation of others (Ernst, 1997). Stated more clearly: Why should I avoid producing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, if I don’t trust others to follow the same rules with the same benevolent motives which I am supposed to act upon? If I cannot explicitly trust in others saving energy, avoiding carbon dioxide production or even changing their personal lifestyles, I am understandably less willing to unilaterally protect our shared environment on behalf of

Judgment and decision-making about socio-scientific issues

sustainable development and/or conduct of life. Decisions and actions taking sustainability into account suffer from an additional problem. Any benefits of avoiding or reducing carbon dioxide emissions, for example, will take effect in the far future and probably somewhere else on the globe. The here and now are thus largely irrelevant. This demands a level of altruistic self-sacrifice for the benefit of strangers which most individuals are unable – or unwilling – to achieve. The idea of a European driving an energy efficient car so that people in distant Bangladesh won’t be flooded out within the next 50 years might be compelling as long one’s orientations are cooperative instead of competitive. But, such end results are not tempting to competitive pragmatists. The argumentation also suffers from being attractive mainly on an emotional level. Judgments and decisions towards more sustainable ways of living must be based on strong convictions and attitudes on the one hand and on processes of rational reasoning on the other. How modern cultures are supposed to achieve strong, reason-based convictions in a growing atmosphere of philosophical relativism remains unclear. Additionally, research has indicated substantial problems of making reason-based judgments. Haidt (2001) points out that people follow a strong tendency of intuitive decision-making. If moral reasoning occurs, it will be used to justify a decision made post-hoc, quickly, effortlessly, or even spontaneously. Everyday strategies of judgment and decision-making presume a kind of intuitive cognition, but do not guarantee proper reasoning. While the result of such cognitive processes is accessible to consciousness, the underlying processes hardly are. Such intuitive strategies might lead to a strong bias of judgments and decisions, which are biased by personal opinions and are based on resources from the affective and emotional domain (Bell & Lederman, 2003; Simmons & Zeidler, 2003; Walker & Sadler, 2007). Stated differently: In a world where no absolute, objective truths are acknowledged or even reflected upon, both meaning and ethics are flexible, self-defined entities. Consensus and cooperation under such circumstances is difficult or even impossible.

Höttecke, Hößle, Eilks, Menthe, Mrochen, Oelgeklaus & Feierabend

Fig. 1: Levels of judgment What does all of this mean for education? First of all it is a challenge to support students in developing their own strategies for judging and decision-making based on conscious reasoning. The shift from intuitive towards more reason-based strategies implies critical reflection upon one’s own stances, recognizing one’s own prejudices and developing skills for reflecting one’s own bias and intuitions (Gebhard, 2007; Oulton, Dillon & Grace, 2004). As research into the psychology of decision-making has indicated (Jungerman, Pfister & Fischer, 2005) different levels of reflection about making judgments can be identified. A normative model of making a judgment based on these findings (Fig. 1) comprises three levels from intuitive to constructive judgment. The model uses the example of choosing which sort of wine a person will buy. This process can proceed via different levels of cognitive load and sophistication. Students should be prepared to choose between differing cognitive strategies, based on the specific requirements of the problem and the particular context they are facing. Therefore, competency in judgment and decision-making on socio-scientific issues includes both the choice and the application of suitable, adequate strategies for to the problem at hand. Ratcliffe (1997) presented a decision-making structure based on normative as well as on descriptive models. She points out the relevance of six key elements comprising 1) the identification of possible options, 2) the development of suitable criteria for comparing options, 3) clarification of relevant information, 4) a survey of advantages and disadvantages, 5) making a choice based on a previous analysis, and 6) critical reflection


on the process undertaken. According to our model (Fig. 1) decisions based on a procedure taking all these elements into account belongs to the level of constructive judgment. Because this level is quite demanding, we should not expect students to choose such a demanding strategy in all contexts and for all problems they are facing. Intuitive strategies enable quick and effortless judgments and decision-making in everyday contexts. Therefore, they are effective and valuable on their own. This aspect stresses again the pedagogical need for developing competencies which enable people to make adequate choices out of a wider range of strategies they have at their disposal. Education for sustainable development has to avoid projecting a “right or wrong” message about the results of judgments and decisions. Instead, pedagogical strategies should be less authoritative and less transmission-based as Jickling and Wals (2007) have pointed out in their critical reappraisal of the idea of education for sustainable development. Accordingly, de Haan et al. (2008) depict school as a public institution for interdicting ideas and overwhelming students. They argue that as long as we assume that any suitable reasons exist for justifying such a pedagogical strategy, a rationale of explicitly revealing the strategy to the students would be better than asking them to follow it blindly. Otherwise, as Jickling and Wals (2007) have stated, the danger of “Big Brother Sustainable Development” occurs. We argue here for an emancipatory approach which enhances (self-)critical reasoning, judgments and decisions on socioscientific issues in various contexts of climate change. Nevertheless, we also account for the high level of time-pressure which all actions preventing or mitigating climate change - including pedagogical actions - encounter. Discourse about climate change, the private, and the public There are manifold decision-making fields in the context of climate change. In order to structure the multiplicity of possible situations, we classify personal issues ranging from discursive to public relevance. Personal relevance issues are concerned primarily with the private sphere of individual decision-making based on one’s own actions in an every-day context. Discursive relevance on the other hand is directly immersed in larger societal and/or political contexts. Discursive questions are normally concerned with the ramifications of actions taken by others. Table 1 provides some examples. Tab. 1: Examples for situational classes Issues of personal relevance:

Issues of discursive relevance:

Do I have to relinquish eating meat for the sake of climate protection? Should I vacation on Mallorca if I have to fly there or should I abstain from flying? Should I encourage my parents to save

Do we really need a more effective policy against climate change? Should policy makers legislate against cars which consume too much energy? Should society support higher kerosene

Höttecke, Hößle, Eilks, Menthe, Mrochen, Oelgeklaus & Feierabend energy at home or is this meaningless? taxes as a correct means to reduce the CO2 emissions of aircraft?

Of course both situational classes in Table 1 show some overlap. Doubtless, scientific discourse about climate change under certain conditions may highly influence judgments and decisions in the private sphere. Nevertheless, the division portrayed above is mainly justified by the fact that the issue is either concerned with oneself or with others. As long as judgments and decisions affect one’s own behaviour, the actions or options we should consider contain a high degree of personal involvement. This might lead to heightened reliance on intuition or a high degree of bias which affects the decisionmaking process. In contrast, discursive relevance issues are much easier to categorize as reason-based, since the temptation to follow one’s own unreflected bias is lower. This is a plausible assumption, however, the idea is currently suffering from clear lack of empirical evidence. If we define reason-based judgments or decision-making related to climate change as an educational objective, we are confronted with three major discourses: the media, policymaking, and science. Each of them follows its own rules. Nevertheless, they do exhibit areas of overlap and they do affect one another. The necessary knowledge and evidence for evaluating the question of whether policy makers should legislate against cars consuming too much energy, for example, are hardly communicated directly to the public. Instead, information is passed on through television, web-based resources like YouTube, or the print media. Making an informed decision therefore includes evaluation of the media themselves and their purported reliability. One must recognize that the media do not present authentic views on how science actually functions while producing evidence, forming theories or using models. The media follow their own rules and logic to produce newsworthy reports. They are guided by both strong self-interest in gaining maximum attention and ratings and also by entertainment value. This presents a substantial problem when reporting on climate change, since its effects are only visible after decades and are much less newsworthy than the daily weather, for instance. Abstract scientific findings must therefore be transformed into a chain of events stretching through the past, present and future (Weingart, 2000). According to this logic, the media follow different reporting strategies when summarizing the science of climate change. As discursive analysis has previously established (Weingart, 2000), media reports about climate change consistently employ strategies either promoting hysteria, spanning a range of prognoses all the way from complete catastrophe to actively downplaying any risks, or accusing science of a conspiracy. Furthermore, the public deals with a tremendous amount of information coming from sceptics of human-created climate change. YouTube in particular offers plenty of videos of varying quality which are influenced by such a perspective. The relevance of YouTube and similar Internet sources of information has clearly been on


the rise, especially for the emerging generation of so-called “digital natives”. This fact stresses the importance of individual analysis and decision-making competency when dealing with information presented in the media. Reconsideration of the role of scientific evidence for personal decision-making on socio-scientific issues in the context of climate change reminds us that most people usually do not have any direct access to science. Instead, the public is confronted with media transmission of “pre-chewed”, transformed and sometimes even misrepresented scientific knowledge and evidence. Often such news reporting glosses over the uncertainty and complexity extant in the scientific endeavour and reduces them to unrealistic statements projecting certainty and simplicity. Within the discourse of policy-making, the uncertainty and complexity of scientific evidence somehow have to be transformed into logically-grounded decisions and regulations. Whereas the discourse of science is guided by an interest in credibility and trustworthiness, the discourse of policy-making is guided by an interest in legitimacy (Weingart, 2000). Moreover policy-makers are (mis)informed, guided or even affected by stakeholders of several kinds, including pressure groups within the economy and other fields of enterprise. The pedagogical consequences for personal judgment and decision-making processes dealing with discursive relevance issues are as follows:  The role of scientific evidence is rather restricted, since the public usually has no direct access to science or the complex ways in which it functions;  A judgment or decision must be based on informed, self-reflected reception of any media reports. The quality, reliability and trustworthiness of the media must be carefully estimated and categorized;  The role of stakeholders and special interest groups has to be considered and taken into account, for instance for a new law or regulation which is under parliamentary consideration; and  The role of ethics and morals has to be taken into account in addition to the roles played by scientific evidence (even that transformed by media) and by special interest groups and stakeholders. The latter aspect will be stressed strongly by the concept of moral judgement, which is of enormous importance especially in biology education. Learning about moral judgment The German Standards of Science Education emphasize judgement (or evaluation) as an important competence in addition to scientific knowledge. But, the different science subjects of Biology, Chemistry and Physics describe this competency differently and do not actually agree on a definition of exactly which judgement competency is to be


acquired. Although differences of opinion exist within the three science domains, the general orientation was intended to lead to a more multidimensional view of judgement and evaluation competency in all three science subjects. The foci are different, e.g. Chemistry has a stronger view of societal boundedness and Biology focuses more on the moral and ethical dimensions of judgement and evaluation. The latter will serve here as an example. In biology classes, students have to learn to take an active role as reflective and responsible individuals when involved in ecological and ethical decision-making. Therefore the standards of biology education of the German KMK (2004) emphasize “moral judgement” as one of four main competences. Students should be able to:     

Participate in social discussions; Consider different perspectives; Assess different lifestyles with respect to health and nature; Connect different ways of acting with ethical values; Develop their own opinion and consider different social and individual ethical values; and  Make a reflective moral judgement while considering alternatives

When the standards were published, there was an urgent need to define the competence of moral judgement more precisely by reflecting upon its theoretical foundation. In addition empirical studies were necessary needed to clarify which dimensions of moral judgement students actually show in detail and also how this competence develops over the course of time and teaching efforts. Finally, a model had to be developed which depicted and explained the different levels of each dimension of moral judgement and their development. According to the results, students’ competencies can be assessed and teaching material can be developed to stimulate the development of students’ moral judgement. The model was developed within a three-step process. 1st Step: The theoretical model and the dimensions of moral judgement The aim of ethical reflection is the ability to make informed, reason-based and responsible judgments. Which dimensions might such judgment competency be comprised of? In order to answer this, several previously-published moral judgement models from the fields of the didactics of philosophy, policy and biology were reviewed and fitted into the ‘dimensions of ethical judgment’ model. The model describes seven dimensions of moral judgment, which will be presented in the following section. Although there is wide-reaching overlap among the separate dimensions, they aid us in describing in a detailed manner exactly which aspects should be considered whenever someone is making a reflective moral judgment. Awareness of the moral relevance of a situation: The awareness of the issue of morality is the precondition of any ethical reflection. It implies both sensibility towards the moral


relevance of situations and the ability to recognize and to express the morality of an ethical issue. Usually, an awareness of morality occurs intuitively in the first instance (Haidt, 2001). For instance, a student who is unaware of moral issues might answer: “Well, why shouldn’t we just build offshore wind parks?” By doing this, no reasons for this opinion are ever considered. We actively searched for specific contents of moral awareness, for instance, whether students interpret specific dilemmas either as individually or as socially relevant problems. Awareness of one’s own personal attitude: The second dimension is a precondition for taking a stance on a problem. One cannot reflect on an ethical problem or weigh up the various roles and perspectives involved before having recognized and reflected one’s own opinion, its sources and formation. With regard to increased reflection on the lower levels, personal opinions are not conscious, nor can they be exhaustively discussed or explicitly expressed. On a higher level of reflected thought, the root causes and logic of one’s own opinion (and those of others) can be specifically named and explained. Argumentation: Argumentation refers to the degree of argumentative consistency. Its guideline is the syllogism: Both a normative and a descriptive assumption are combined consistently towards a final judgement as a conclusion. The process of argumentation also includes the ability to describe pros and cons with its typical arguments. Assessment: This dimension implies the ability to indicate and describe ethical values, which are connected to the ethical problem under consideration. The students should also be able to explain why and in which way these values are touched upon. Reflection of perspectives and consequences: Both dimensions are essential for a reflected judgement and evidence wide overlap. The ability to switch between perspectives is the precondition of being able to reflect on consequences. The number and quality of consequences evaluated depends on personal ability to recognize a plurality of perspectives and to interrelate them. The ability to anticipate and empathize with various viewpoints is also involved in both dimensions. Ethical knowledge: “Basic Ethical Knowledge” is another precondition for reflected moral judgement and therefore overlaps with other dimensions. It implies the ability to define the terms “morals”, “ethics”, “values” and “norms”, including the skill of distinguishing between different ethical traditions. Furthermore, distinguishing between descriptive and normative statements and recognizing naturalistic fallacies are also key skills in this area.

Moral judgement:


2nd Step: Empirical development of different dimensions of moral judgement Our empirical studies focussed on how students judge moral dilemmas like organic transplants, pre-implantation diagnostics and clinical research on animals. Roughly one hundred students have been interviewed for this purpose in two different studies (Mittelsten-Scheid & Hößle, 2008; Reitschert & Hößle 2007). These interviews were analysed following the methods used in qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2000). Interview data were analyzed by deductively generating categories from the theoretical model of moral judgement described above. We found that students’ moral judgment concerning the dimensions of assessment, argumentation and reflection upon perspectives and consequences can be divided into several levels (Tab. 2-4). These categories presented in the table should help teachers to diagnose and foster students’ competencies concerning moral judgement.

Table 2. Dimension Argumentation: How do students argue? Level

Description

Examples

I

Pros and cons can’t be described.

I don’t like offshore wind farms.

II

Pros and cons can be described.

I don’t like offshore wind farms because they disturb the birds and the tidal areas.

III

Pros and cons can be described and I’m against wind energy converters, compared with each other by considering because tidal areas are at risk and the different perspectives. technology is still in the developmental stages. But I know that we can also possibly save our energy reserves for the coming years if it proves reliable.


Table 3. How do students connect ethical values with ethical conflicts? Level

Description

Examples

I

One ethical value can be connected to the Building offshore wind parks will be to our presented ethical conflict. benefit.

II

Two ethical values can be connected to the It is to our benefit, but on the other hand presented ethical conflict. new problems will also arise. Birds might possibly be killed if they fly or migrate through the wind parks.

III

More than two ethical values can be connected to the ethical conflict. Students are also able to recognize that one and the same value could be used from different point of views.

On the one hand, birds could fly through the wind parks and be hurt. On the other hand we would have enough energy for the next few years. It benefits us and we do not need to depend on other countries for energy.

Table 4. How do students consider different perspectives and indicate consequences? Level

Description

Example

I

Consequences for directly involved persons can be described (egocentric).

One consequence will be that we’ll have enough energy so that we can drive our cars.

II

Consequences for (in)directly involved persons can be described (sociocentric).

We would have enough energy, but another consequence is that we’ll eventually destroy our natural assets.

III

Consequences for society can be described.

We will have a better electric power supply as a result, but at the same time tidal areas will be at risk. This may lead to changes in biodiversity so that following generations may never get to know many species. The consequences of such intervention are difficult to predict.

3rd Step: Developing teaching material stimulating the growth of moral judgement Based on these results, teaching material has already been developed which stimulates the growth of moral judgement among students. Some of the materials became part of the project described in the next chapter.


‘Climate change before the court’ – A cross-faculty project Moral judgment and decision-making about issues related to climate change is a crossfaculty competence, which should play an important role in current education. That is why we undertook the interdisciplinary project “Climate change before the court” , which focuses on how students evaluate issues in the context of climate change (Eilks et al., in print; Feierabend & Eilks, 2010). The aims of the project are:    

Development of research-based and well-evaluated teaching material Implementation and publication of teaching materials Transfer of the results to informal education efforts Fostering students’ moral judgment and competency for informed and reasonbased decision-making  Investigating teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge  Investigating teachers’ ideas, concepts and attitudes towards judging and decision-making as an educational objective in their field of teaching The developmental process is based on the Participatory Action Research model of science education as presented in Eilks and Ralle (2002). Here, researchers and science teachers collaborate in four different groups, each one focusing on one of the subjects of biology, chemistry, physics, and politics. During monthly meetings the groups develop, evaluate and refine teaching material following the model for a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to science teaching as described by Eilks, Marks and Feierabend (2008) or Marks & Eilks (2009). All teaching scenarios include learning about the basic scientific explanations behind the phenomenon of climate change. At the same time all lesson plans aim at stimulating moral judgments and socio-critical reflections of the socio-scientific debate on climate change. This is done in all lesson plans by including role-playing or management-game activities, in which authentic problems are discussed and judged as per Feierabend & Eilks (2009). This study uses the example of a related project on bioethanol as a fuel source, which was presented in another pilot study. Table 5. Overview of the project lesson plans Textual approach Biology

Science content

Role-playing scenario

Authentic magazine cover and article

e.g. the relationship between food production and the emission of greenhouse gases

A school’s decision not to offer any meat in the school restaurant

Chemistry

Satirical YouTube-video on the effects of climate change

e.g. use of conventional and renewable fuels for cars and their comparison

Raising the minimum age for a driver’s licences to 21

Physics

Presentation on climate

e.g. discussing heat

Stopping the import of

Judgment and decision-making about socio-scientific issues change and its potential effects Politics

TV report on the concurrency between food and fuel production

absorption by gases and the radiation budget of the earth

fruits transported to Europe via air cargo Establishing a new law for compulsory admixing of bioethanol to fuels

Currently four different lesson plans have been developed for each of these four subjects. The foci of the lesson plans differ somewhat due to the special point-of-views of the respective subjects. Different scenarios were chosen with a correspondingly different role-playing structure for the activities. A short overview of the different lesson plans can be found in Table 5. All of the lesson plans led to intense debates within the classes. Teachers and students alike were positive about the inclusion of the topic and the methods which allowed intense debate and controversy. The question as to what extent these activities also potentially foster the competencies of decision-making, moral judgement and sociocritical reflections (e.g. in related examples presented by Eilks (2002)) is currently under investigation. Researchers are using recorded student feedback and group discussion data as a basis for further evaluation. References Bell, R. L., & Lederman, L. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377. Bögeholz, S. (1999). Qualitäten primärer Naturerfahrung und ihr Zusammenhang mit Umweltwissen und Unwelthandeln. Opladen: Leske und Budrich. de Haan, G., Kamp, G., Lerch, A., Martingnon, L., Müller-Christ, G., & Nutzinger, H. G. (2008). Nachhaltigkeit und Gerechtigkeit. Grundlagen und praktische Konsequenzen. Schriftenreihe der Europäischen Akademie zur Erforschung von Folgen wissenschaftlich-technischer Entwicklungen, Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Eilks, I. (2002). Teaching 'biodiesel': a sociocritical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching, and students' first views on it. Chemistry Education: Research Practice, 3(1), 67-75. Eilks, I., Feierabend, T., Höttecke, D., Hössle, C., Menthe, J., Mrochen, M., & Oelgeklaus, H. (in print). Bewerten Lernen und Klimawandel in vier Fächern – Erste Einblicke in das Projekt „Der Klimawandel vor Gericht“. Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht. Eilks, I., Marks, R., & Feierabend, T. (2008). Science education research to prepare future citizens – Chemistry learning in a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (eds.), Promoting successful science learning – The worth of science education research (pp. 75-86). Aachen: Shaker. Eilks, I., & Ralle, B. (2002). Participatory Action Research in chemical education. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (eds.), Research in chemical education - what does this mean? (pp. 87-98). Aachen: Shaker.

Höttecke, Hößle, Eilks, Menthe, Mrochen, Oelgeklaus & Feierabend Ernst, A. (1997). Ökologisch-soziale Dilemmata. Psychologische Umweltverhaltens. Weinheim: Beltz.

Wirkmechanismen

des

Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2009). Learning chemistry and mimicking political decision-making processes - A Participatory Action Research study evaluating a lesson plan on the use of bioethanol as a fuel. Paper presented at the 7th ESERA Conference, Istanbul, Turkey. Feierabend, T., & Eilks, I. (2010). The climate change before the court – An interdisciplinary project to promote students’ perception of the relevance of science teaching and their skills of communication and evaluation on socio-scientific issues. In J. Holbrook, M. Rannikmae, R. Soobard, B. Cavas & M. Kim (eds.), Innovation in science and technology education: research, policy, practice (3rd World conference on science and technology education) (pp. 78-81), Tartu: University of Tartu. Gebhard, U. (2007). Intuitive Vorstellungen bei Denk- und Lernprozessen: Der Ansatz "Alltagsphantasien". In D. Krüger & H. Vogt (eds.), Theorien in der didaktischen Forschung. Ein Handbuch für Lehramtsstudierende und Doktoranden. Berlin: Springer. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 118, 814-834. Jickling, B., & Wals, A. E. J. (2007). Globalization and environmental education: looking beyond sustainable development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 1 - 21. Jungermann, H., Pfister, H.-R., & Fischer, K. (2005). Die Psychologie der Entscheidung. Eine Einführung. München: Spektrum. KMK (2004). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Bildungsabschluss. München: Luchterhand. Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching: concept, examples, experiences. International Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 4(2), 131-145. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1. Retrieved February 01, 2007, from www.qualitative-research.net/fqs. Mittelsten-Scheid, N., & Hössle, C. (2008). Wie Schüler unter Verwendung syllogistischer Elemente argumentieren. Eine empirische Studie zu Niveaus von Argumentation im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 14, 145165. Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423. Pachauri, R. (2009). Speech on the occasion of the welcoming ceremony at Copenhagen December 7, 2009. Retrieved June 15, 2010, from www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/cop%2015/RKP-welc-cercop15.pdf. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182. Reitschert, K., & Hößle, C. (2007): Wie Schüler ethisch bewerten. Eine qualitative Untersuchung zur Strukturierung und Ausdifferenzierung von Bewertungskompetenz in bioethischen Sachverhalten bei Schülern der Sek. I. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 13, 125-143. Schweizer, D. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). An investigation of student engagement in a global warming

Judgment and decision-making about socio-scientific issues debate. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1): 75-84. Simmons, M. L., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific Issues. In D. L. Zeidler (ed.), Ther role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 81-94). Dordrecht: Kluwer. UNESCO (2010). UNESCO’s leadership www.unesco.org/en/esd/mission.

role.

Retrieved

June

15,

2010,

from

Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387-1410. Weingart, P., Engels, A., & Pansegrau, P. (2000). Risks of communication: Discourse on climate change in science, politics and mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 261-283.