View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Development and Testing of a Curriculum to Improve Decision-Making Skills in Middle and High School Students

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Development and Testing of a Curriculum to Improve Decision-Making Skills in Middle and High School Students
Language: English
Authors: Shelton, Tricia (ORCID 0000-0001-8335-5349), Benatowicz, Corinne, Healy, Pat, Ryan, Neal D., Cameron, Judy L. (ORCID 0000-0003-4707-4421)
Source: Mind, Brain, and Education. Feb 2023 17(1):53-60.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 8
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
High Schools
Descriptors: Curriculum Development, Decision Making Skills, Middle School Students, High School Students, Student Participation
DOI: 10.1111/mbe.12339
ISSN: 1751-2271
1751-228X
Abstract: Adolescence is a key developmental period for developing and strengthening brain circuits that underlie effective decision-making skills, which profoundly impact lifelong health and academic, professional, and economic achievement. But decision-making skills are learned rather than inherent. School presents an ideal environment for the direct instruction and frequent practice of decision-making skills, however, finding time in the school day is a challenge for contemporary educators. We have developed a learning curriculum that involves active student participation to strengthen decision-making skills that is sufficiently flexible and adaptable to be utilized in a wide variety of content-specific classwork. Using this curriculum, students show evidence of improved decision-making skills, including increased consideration of the number of factors that are relevant to their decision, the resources needed to make a particular decision, and both the short-term and long-term consequences of decisions.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1368463
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHHixxoUJs4GahIvQpKdfFMAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCYyafiniNpAb3Yx-gIBEICBm51RJoMYBOB90JMTAcox4KPPUbXkE6W76_9MwNAdioWZ686Kv3F3d3Eep0mI3xXExVBzzeKf4z17XiNEKqUmm78NVI-PzsdIORi14UQXRCxyaMlwO4JSAgByiZ8KDaOO1oZwUe5owoR3s7JiXqmBTt2gEBYIbi7CIOn6fyNAdoRSbkAoSxIlulUfx2JS5kYdYZNjzlTzpJLp3Uzm
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0162088595;[309x]01feb.23;2023Feb28.05:30;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0162088595-1">Development and Testing of a Curriculum to Improve Decision‐Making Skills in Middle and High School Students </title> <p>Adolescence is a key developmental period for developing and strengthening brain circuits that underlie effective decision‐making skills, which profoundly impact lifelong health and academic, professional, and economic achievement. But decision‐making skills are learned rather than inherent. School presents an ideal environment for the direct instruction and frequent practice of decision‐making skills, however, finding time in the school day is a challenge for contemporary educators. We have developed a learning curriculum that involves active student participation to strengthen decision‐making skills that is sufficiently flexible and adaptable to be utilized in a wide variety of content‐specific classwork. Using this curriculum, students show evidence of improved decision‐making skills, including increased consideration of the number of factors that are relevant to their decision, the resources needed to make a particular decision, and both the short‐term and long‐term consequences of decisions.</p> <p>We present a curriculum to strengthen decision‐making skills that involves mapping of the decision‐making process and is sufficiently universal to provide educators flexibility and adaptability to be utilized in a wide variety of content‐specific classwork. Using this curriculum, students show evidence of improved decision‐making skills, including consideration of an increased number of factors relevant to their decision, the resources needed to make a particular decision, and both the short‐term and long‐term consequences of decisions.</p> <p>A successful life trajectory is based on sound decision‐making skills. Significant choices can have profound influence on academic, professional, and economic achievement (Kaskaya, Calp, & Kuru, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref1">12</reflink>]). These measures of success are powerful predictors of lifelong well‐being, ranging from health to personal fulfillment. Youth who learn to visualize the connection between their behaviors and consequences are better prepared to weigh options and opportunities in both daily activities and at crucial milestones (Knight, Dansereau, Becan, Rowan, & Flynn, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref2">14</reflink>]). Accordingly, strong decision‐making should be thought of as an essential aptitude leading to a superior quality of life.</p> <p>However, decision‐making skills are learned rather than inherent, and students without robust critical thinking competencies are at a substantial disadvantage (Weller, Levin, Rose, & Bossard, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref3">29</reflink>]). Given its consistent routine and specified curricula, school presents an ideal environment for the direct instruction and frequent practice of decision‐making skills. Yet, identifying how and when to incorporate development of decision‐making skills into an already compacted school day can be a definite challenge for contemporary educators. For example, high‐stakes testing has placed an enormous amount of pressure on school educators and leaders to produce high student achievement (Moran, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]). In many contemporary classrooms, test‐taking drills are central to daily lesson objectives, with the integration of complex thinking skills, such as decision‐making, being placed on the fringes of core curricula (Blazar & Pollard, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>The teenage years are ideal for teaching decision‐making skills. Decision making is a process of complex reasoning, and brain circuits originating in the frontal cortex play an important role in decision‐making processes (Rushworth, Noonan, Boorman, Walton, & Behrens, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref6">25</reflink>]). These circuits have their plastic period, in which they are strengthened by frequent use, from around 11 to 25 years of age (Giedd et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>]). Although brain circuits can be strengthened by frequent use after their plastic period, strengthening requires much greater repetition and does not have as robust of an effect as during the plastic period. Thus, adolescence is an important time for using and thus strengthening brain circuits for decision‐making skills. Moreover, building decision‐making skills is particularly important in adolescence because teenagers show a greater inclination to conform to their peers along with a higher predisposition to impulsivity and thus participate in high‐risk behaviors more frequently than adults (Knight et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref8">14</reflink>]). Adolescents with training in decision making have reported they have more control over their lives, clarification of personal goals and values, are more able to search for information and evaluate options (Teuscher, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref9">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Educators can employ two very distinctive practices to teach critical thinking skills, such as decision making. One approach is to allow critical thinking skills to develop naturally as students construct knowledge through their experiences (Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref10">11</reflink>]). The second approach is teacher‐led instruction of critical thinking processes (Heijltjes, Van Gog, Leppink, & Paas, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref11">9</reflink>]; Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref12">11</reflink>]; Tiruneh, Verburgh, & Elen, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref13">28</reflink>]). Several studies suggest that teacher‐led instruction leads to more sophisticated reasoning skills (Heijltjes et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>]; Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]; Tiruneh et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref16">28</reflink>]). Further, when critical thinking skills are embedded in subject matter, content ambiguities challenge students to grapple with contextual implications. Such engagement yields greater retention and application of skills (Alsaleh, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>]; Tiruneh et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref18">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Sternberg ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref19">26</reflink>]) has offered one example of a critical thinking curriculum. In his <emph>Balance Theory of Wisdom</emph>, Sternberg ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>]) advocated motivating students to consider their knowledge through the lens of their experience and to seek balance among multiple components of understanding, including competing interests, responses, and consequences, and the varied significance of such elements on individual circumstances. He recommends a teaching approach seated in a core curriculum that uses model texts to prompt discussion, reflection, and advocacy.</p> <p>Similarly, the decision‐making curriculum that we present here can be embedded in traditional core coursework. Initial instruction teaches specific decision‐making strategies and offers direct instruction on their use. However, the strategies are sufficiently adaptable to provide educators flexibility and applicability to content‐specific classwork. For instance, a mathematics teacher might model a decision‐making strategy to show how to select an algorithm to solve a problem, while a literature teacher might incorporate the decision‐making strategies to help students predict the course of action of a character.</p> <p>The decision‐making curriculum that we present here can be used both in school and in other settings, such as in youth groups that are engaging youth in thinking about their personal life decisions. Youth engagement is heavily linked with individual relevance (Clark, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref21">4</reflink>]). When learning is personally meaningful, youth are more attentive, and understanding is more lasting (McNair, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref22">15</reflink>]). Further, youth who are taught to see connections between learning and their personal worlds are more likely to apply the skills they learn to their daily circumstances (Alemdar et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>]). With this in mind, the lessons provide learning prompts with relevance to adolescent interests. Throughout the curriculum, students are asked to incorporate their own experiences with decision making.</p> <hd id="AN0162088595-2">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162088595-3">Participants</hd> <p>There were two phases of testing the decision‐making curriculum we developed. In Phase 1, the curriculum was tested with 89 teens who were 9th–11th grade students, ranging from 14–16 years of age, approximately 60% female. Teens were either participating in the Upward Bound program (Epps et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref24">6</reflink>]) (<emph>n</emph> = 71), a national program for teens from low‐income families that prepares them for succeeding in applying for college admission, or in a half‐day teen summer camp program (<emph>n</emph> = 18). In Phase 2, the curriculum was tested with 86 middle school students attending a summer camp program (<emph>n</emph> = 26) or in middle school classrooms during the school year (<emph>n</emph> = 60). These students were in 6th–8th grade, 11–13 years of age, and approximately 40% female. The protocol for this study was reviewed and ruled exempt by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Pittsburgh because no identifying information was collected from the participants.</p> <hd id="AN0162088595-4">Curriculum Development</hd> <p>The curriculum focuses on four significant elements of the decision‐making process: recognizing decision points, limiting options, identifying short‐ and long‐term outcomes for self and others, and leveraging resources effectively. The curriculum is designed to create a salient introduction to systematic approaches for structuring decisions, including strengthening decisional self‐efficacy and applying decision rules (Parker & Fischhoff, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref25">22</reflink>]). The decision‐making tasks used in this curriculum help the student address "cardinal" decision issues, including recognizing that a decision needs to be made, that they have agency in that decision, selecting a means of making the decision, recognizing courses of action, identifying salient outcomes, and eventually choosing a course of action (Yates & Angott, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref26">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the curriculum, four graphic organizers that are hands‐on decision‐making tools are introduced to the students, and they are then allowed to choose an appropriate decision‐making tool to use in decisions they make in a variety of subject areas. The Decision Tree is a tree‐resembling graphic that showcases multiple decision paths and the accompanying costs and benefits of making each decision (Figure 1a,b). The graphic with multiple paths shown in Figure 1a allows students to map the consequences of various initial decisions. The use of a more simplified decision tree, as shown in Figure 1b, teaches students to recognize that each decision choice has different consequences. The Decision Square is a graphic organizer designed to encourage a student to consider how their beliefs and values influence their decision‐making process, the resources they will need to make various decisions, and the impact of the decision on themselves and others (Figure 2). The Decision Wheel is a more complex graphic organizer that encourages the student to consider both the short‐term and long‐term consequences of a decision (Figure 3). The 5Ws chart is a graphic organizer (Figure 4) that requires the student to consider <emph>who</emph> is affected by the decision, <emph>where</emph> they can get the information needed to make a knowledgeable decision, <emph>when</emph> the decision needs to be made, <emph>what</emph> resources are needed for the decision, and <emph>why</emph> is the chosen decision is a good one.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/309X/01feb23/mbe12339-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="mbe12339-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 (a) Typical decision tree graphic organizer. (b) Decision tree with pros and cons graphic organizer." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/309X/01feb23/mbe12339-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="mbe12339-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Decision Square graphic organizer." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/309X/01feb23/mbe12339-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="mbe12339-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Decision Wheel graphic organizer." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/309X/01feb23/mbe12339-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="mbe12339-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 5W's Chart graphic organizer." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Although the curriculum was designed to be used in many different types of classes or discussion situations where students are reading information and are asked to make decisions, in order to test the effectiveness of the curriculum, we developed a set of scenarios that youth could read, evaluate, and make a decision about that would allow us to determine the quality of their decision‐making skills both before they were introduced to the curriculum (i.e., a pre‐test) and after they had practice using the graphic organizers (i.e., a post‐test). We designed decision‐making tasks that we felt were relevant to teens and where there was appeal to all of the options that were provided to the students (Table 1).</p> <p>1 TABLE Examples of Two Decision‐Making Scenarios That Were Used As Pre‐tests and Post‐tests in Phase 1 Testing</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Decision‐making scenarios used in Phase 1 testing</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>You have been invited to go to a birthday party for one of your closest friends. Her parents have planned a very special evening at a nearby hotel. At the party, everyone will have access to the hotel swimming pool, virtual reality games, and indoor go‐karting. There will also be a DJ for dancing and tons of great food. You are really excited to go, and your friend is counting on you being there.The party, however, is scheduled the same evening as your grandparents' 50th anniversary banquet. The banquet is 3 hr away in the next state and your whole family is renting a charter bus and traveling there together. Your grandparents are special to you. You can remember how when you were eight‐years‐old you spent a week with them in the summer. Even now, they always remember to send you $20 on your birthday. Your father reminds you that several members of your extended family, many of whom you have not seen since you were very young, will be at the banquetYour parents recognize both these activities are important to you and give you permission to make your own decision. What do you do?</td></tr><tr><td>You just received your report card for the fall semester. You earned a poor grade in science. Several months ago your parents told you if you did not raise your grade in science, you would be grounded until your class average improved. This Friday, there is a big football game and party. Your parents have already given you permission to go, but you are fearful that when they see your science grade, they will change their minds. What would you do?</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0162088595-9">Protocol for Testing the Curriculum</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162088595-10">Phase 1 Testing</hd> <p>In Phase 1 testing, a half‐day session on decision‐making was given to high school age teens in two different settings. Students were first given a pre‐test to evaluate their baseline decision‐making skills. In the pre‐test they were asked to write their decision and explain why they had made the decision. Students were then introduced to the concepts of decision points, short‐term and long‐term consequences of decisions, the fact that many decisions require resources, and the impact of decisions on self and others. They were then given a set of scenarios and asked to work in pairs to use the graphic organizers to map their decision‐making choices. At the end of the half‐day session, about 3 hr after the pre‐test, they took a post‐test, in which they were asked the same question as in the pre‐test but asked to use a graphic organizer to help them make the decision. They were also asked to rate the graphic organizers on a 1–10 scale, with 10 being the highest score. The session ended with a group discussion in which different groups were given the opportunity to describe how they mapped various decisions. The goal of this discussion was to introduce students to various ways different people think about decision‐making, and to inform the investigators about the student's rationales for their decision‐making.</p> <hd id="AN0162088595-11">Phase 2 Testing</hd> <p>In Phase 2 testing, middle school aged youth participated in a half‐day session on decision making, as described in Phase 1 (<emph>n</emph> = 26), or in an hour classroom session on decision‐making (<emph>n</emph> = 60). In Phase 2 testing, new scenarios were designed in which there was no obvious choice that an authority figure would prefer (Table 2). Students were also given different scenarios for the pre‐test and post‐test. All other aspects of testing were similar to Phase 1 testing, including ending with a post‐test discussion.</p> <p>2 TABLE Examples of Two Scenarios That Were Used in Pre‐tests and Post‐tests in Phase 2 Testing</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Decision‐making scenarios used in Phase 2 testing</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>A new student in school is having a party. Although many of your classmates are planning to attend, your best friend was not invited. When you ask if you can bring along your friend, the party host tells you that your friend was purposefully excluded. The new student is becoming very popular in school, and you really want to get to know her better. What would you do?</td></tr><tr><td>You ask a good friend to prom and they say yes. A couple weeks later, a new person starts school and you really like them. The new student is very shy, but since you are in many of the same classes, you have become very close and have even started to develop a crush on them. They say that they have never been to a prom, but if they do not get a date they will not go. You would love to be their date, but you can tell that the person you already asked is very excited to go with you. What do you do?</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0162088595-12">Evaluation of the Decision‐Making Curriculum Assessments</hd> <p>Evaluation of pre‐ and post‐tests considered five components of the decision‐making process. These were how many factors overall did the student consider? How many factors that mattered to the main character of the scenario did the student consider? How many factors that mattered to others in the scenario did the student consider? How many resources were needed that the student considered? And, how often did the student consider the long‐term consequences of the decision? Two points were given for each of the five components, for a total of 10 points possible. Three independent scorers scored these five components of each pre‐ and post‐test, and the mean score was used to evaluate each test. One scorer had a background in education curriculum development, one scorer had a background in the neuroscience of brain development and one scorer had a background in military testing. The comparison of each component pre‐ versus post‐test was analyzed by Wilcoxin tests, with <emph>p</emph> ≤ .05 considered significant.</p> <hd id="AN0162088595-13">RESULTS</hd> <p>In Phase 1 testing, three graphic organizers were used during the training session: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>) the decision tree, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>) the decision wheel, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>) the 5 W's chart. The mean rating on a 1–10 scale of how the students liked using the graphic organizers was 7 ± 2.09, 8.4 ± 3.09 and 7.5 ± 2.11, respectively. When asked if they would use the graphic organizers in a decision they needed to make in their real life, some of the answers were, "I would use it for a big decision, like choosing different colleges or even courses," "I would use it when I have a crisis and need advice," and "I would use it to steer my life toward a successful future."</p> <p>Surprisingly, there was very high uniformity in the way the students answered the questions on the pre‐test. Ninety one percent indicated that they would go to their grandparents' anniversary party or tell their parents about their poor grade in science (Table 1). In the post‐session discussion period, we asked why students had chosen these answers, and they indicated that they assumed these were the answers we hoped they would choose. They further explained that because we were adults, both teachers and likely parents, we would think like teachers and parents. Moreover, when they got the post‐test with the same question as they had answered on the pre‐test, very few used the graphic organizers to map their decision, but rather they simply wrote that they would make the same decision as they had indicated in the pre‐test. We realized from this discussion that the testing strategy would need to be revised to not include options that could be viewed as "expected" by authority figures. And we also realized that students needed to be given different questions on pre‐ versus post‐tests. We instituted these new strategies in Phase 2 testing.</p> <p>In Phase 2 testing with 86 middle school students, new scenarios were utilized (Table 2) in which we believe that youth would not think authority figures would favor one answer as preferable to another answer. And, different questions were given in the pre‐ versus post‐tests. The time between the pre‐test and post‐test was 2 hr for the summer camp testing and 1 hr for the classroom testing. Using the graphic organizers in the post‐test, there was a significant increase in the total number of factors students considered when making decisions, the number of factors considered that pertained to the main character in the scenario, the number of times resources needed for making the decision were considered, and the number of times the long‐term consequences of making the decision were considered (Figure 5). In each case, the number of students considering the main character, the resources, and the long‐term consequences increased from pre‐ to post‐test (72%–85%, 2.4%–20%, and 17%–43%, respectively). In no case was there a difference in results between the summer camp and classroom testing. The only component that did not show a significant increase was the number of factors students considered when thinking about the effects of the decision on other characters beside the main character, and this number was consistent in the pre‐ and post‐tests. The calculation of Cohen's D ranged from 0.45 for consideration of resources, to 1.4–1.55 for the other three decision‐making measures, indicating effect sizes ranging from moderate to large for the decision‐making training.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/309X/01feb23/mbe12339-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="mbe12339-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Results of pre‐test and post‐test assessments in Phase 2 testing. Data is reported as mean ± standard deviation. Asterisks indicate a significant difference between pre‐ and post‐tests." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0162088595-15">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The results of this study suggest favorable outcomes for the use of the decision‐making curriculum in school environments. Using this curriculum, students showed evidence of improved decision‐making skills including considering an increased number of factors relevant to their decision, and increased consideration of resources needed to make a particular decision, and increased consideration of both the short‐term and long‐term consequences of decisions. This evidence supports the curriculum's potential in encouraging decision making that is explicitly evidence‐based, which may be of significant interest to advocates of teaching this form of critical thinking to prepare students for scientific professions where such decision making is valuable or to become informed voters in a democratic society (Perkins, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref30">24</reflink>]). The content of the decisions tested in our inquiries, however, lies outside of any explicitly political or scientific context.</p> <p>Although the tests reported here describe how the use of graphic organizers to map decisions significantly improved youth consideration of a number of features of structured decision‐making, further assessments would be needed to fully understand how this curriculum impacts all aspects of structured decision making as well as impacts the neural systems underlying decision‐making. The use of a longitudinal design to track decision self‐efficacy (O'Connor, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]), applying of decision rules (Parker, Bruine de Bruin, Fischhoff, & Weller, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref32">21</reflink>]), and how engaged youth are in decision‐making (Dessart, Veloutsou, & Morgan‐Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref33">5</reflink>]), as well as assessments of attention, executive function, and recall fluency (Zelazo et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref34">31</reflink>]), would be useful in achieving this goal. Such research designs use variations of paper‐pencil tasks, self‐reporting, and computer‐based activities to measure the retention of effective decision‐making practices, as determined by data tracking measures of task planning, choice interest, and selection analysis.</p> <p>Decision‐making is recognized to be a complex, dynamic process that is much better learned by breaking the task down into simpler processes (Gonzalez, Fakhari, & Busemeyer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref35">8</reflink>]). Both the structure and routine of school provide a practical environment for direct instruction in critical thinking skills. The applicability of the proposed strategies allows for the integration of specialized decision‐making instruction within core academic content. Further, the use of a trained educator to model and lead discussions is certainly a significant asset in the student learning process.</p> <p>This curriculum has potential use in community‐based settings as well. Afterschool programming, community center youth groups, and faith‐based organizations could serve as appropriate implementation settings for the proposed curriculum. These community sites often serve as an extension of the school community and can reinforce positive school outcomes and support youth and their families. Further, in many vulnerable communities, these community sites function as protective factors for adolescents with a multitude of academic and social needs (Kingston, Mihalic, & Sigel, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>]). Community‐based settings are uniquely equipped to promote vested interests among adolescent youth.</p> <p>Although the student population of public schools continues to diversify (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref37">19</reflink>]), the vast majority of educators are white, middle‐class females (NCES, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>]). Cultural differences in the backgrounds of students versus teachers can contribute substantially to conflict between school and student cultures, or cultural dissonance, which affects discipline policies, special education placement, and teacher‐student interactions in profoundly negative ways (Milner, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref39">16</reflink>]). By contrast, community‐based organizations are more likely to be staffed by leaders with whom youth identify in some way. Such a connection between adolescents and adults is known to prompt engagement (Holcomb‐McCoy, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref40">10</reflink>]; Pearrow, Zoino‐Jeannetti, & Minami, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref41">23</reflink>]). Role model endorsement of decision‐making strategies may increase the use and application of these behaviors among youth. In addition, the community‐based settings themselves can create a relevancy for the development of decision‐making behaviors. The use of familiar people and places in decision‐making scenarios can increase the authenticity and relevance of the decision‐making tasks. Perhaps most importantly, the schedules of community‐based organizations tend to have greater flexibility than those of traditional schools, allowing more time for open discussions of the impact of various decisions on youth and the community in which they live.</p> <hd id="AN0162088595-16">Limitations</hd> <p>While these data have potential usefulness in a variety of classroom and community settings, we note significant limitations to this research. First, direct instruction in the decision‐making curriculum was brief. Ideally, students would have several weeks to engage and practice with the decision‐making tools. However, in both phases of this research, students were taught and tested on the tools in a single session (45–60 min). Second, the decision‐making curriculum was tested with students outside of typical public school settings. Students in after school and summer school programming as well as private, parochial schools participated in the curriculum testing. Finally, the curriculum testing was limited to a single state. Extended instructional implementation and testing with students in more traditional, public school settings, or from different areas of the country could yield different results. Consequently, generalizability is limited.</p> <hd id="AN0162088595-17">CONFLICT OF INTEREST</hd> <p>The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.</p> <ref id="AN0162088595-18"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref23" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alemdar, M., Moore, R. A., Lingle, J. A., Rosen, J., Gale, J., & Usselman, M. C. (2018). The impact of a middle school engineering course on students' academic achievement and non‐cognitive skills. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 6 (4), 363 – 380. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.440339</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref17" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alsaleh, N. J. (2020). Teaching critical thinking skills: Literature review. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 19 (1), 21 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Blazar, D., & Pollard, C. (2017). Does test preparation mean low‐quality instruction? Educational Researcher, 46 (8), 420 – 433.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref21" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Clark, L. (2016). Making literacy relevant to adolescent learners. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 8 (1), 35 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref33" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan‐Thomas, A. (2016). Capturing consumer engagement: Duality, dimensionality and measurement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32 (5–6), 399 – 426.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref24" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Epps, S. R., Jackson, R. H., Olsen, R. B., Shivjl, A., Roy, R., & Garcia, D. J. (2016) Upward bound at 50: Reporting on implementation practices today (NCEE 2017–4005). Washington, DC : National Center for Education Evaluation, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., Castellanos, F. X., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., ... Rapoport, J. L. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2 (10), 861 – 863. https://doi.org/10.1038/13158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref35" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Gonzalez, C., Fakhari, P., & Busemeyer, J. (2017). Dynamic decision making: Learning processes and new research directions. Human Factors, 59 (5), 713 – 721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817710347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref11" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Heijltjes, A., Van Gog, T., Leppink, J., & Paas, F. (2015). Unraveling the effects of critical thinking instructions, practice, and self‐explanation on students' reasoning performance. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 43 (4), 487 – 506.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holcomb‐McCoy, C. (2011). A smoother transition for black teens. Educational Leadership, 68 (7), 59 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan, E. J. (1992). An interactive strategy for the instruction of critical thinking in the middle school. Washington, D.C.: Retrieved from ERIC database, (ED351321).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaskaya, A., Calp, S., & Kuru, O. (2017). An evaluation of factors affecting decision making among fourth grade elementary school students with low socio‐economic status. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9 (4), 787 – 808.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kingston, B. E., Mihalic, S. F., & Sigel, E. J. (2016). Building an evidence‐based multitiered system of supports for high‐risk youth and communities. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86 (2), 132 – 143. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight, D., Dansereau, D., Becan, J., Rowan, G., & Flynn, P. (2015). Effectiveness of a theoretically‐based judgment and decision‐making intervention for adolescents. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 44 (5), 1024 – 1038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐014‐0127‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNair, E. L. (2017). Personalizing learning. Knowledge Quest, 46 (2), 28 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milner, H. R. (2019). Race to improve teacher education: Building awareness for instructional practice. American Educator, 43 (3), 13 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moran, R. M. R. (2017). The impact of a high stakes teacher evaluation system: Educator perspectives on accountability. Educational Studies, 53 (2), 178 – 119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2017.1283319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Educational Statistics. (2020a). Characteristics of public school teachers. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clr.asp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Educational Statistics. (2020b). Racial/Ethnic enrollment in public schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cge.asp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor A.M. (2002). User Manual Decision Self‐Efficacy Scale My Confidence in Making an Informed Choice. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User%5fManuals/UM%5fDecision%5fSelfEfficacy.pdf, accessed January 28, 2021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, A. M., Bruine de Bruin, W., Fischhoff, B., & Weller, J. A. (2018). Robustness of decision‐making competence: Evidence from two measures and an 11‐year longitudinal study. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31, 380 – 391.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2005). Decision‐making competence: External validation through an individual‐differences approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 1 – 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearrow, M. M., Zoino‐Jeannetti, J., & Minami, T. (2016). Social capital: Similarities and differences between future educators and urban youth leaders. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 26 (3), 266 – 282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2015.1050104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perkins, D. N. (2009). Decision making and its development. In E. Callan, T. Grotzer, J. Kagan, R. E. Nisbett, D. N. Perkins & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Education and a civil society: Teaching evidence‐based decision making. (pp. 1 – 28). Cambridge, MA : American Academy of Arts & Sciences.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rushworth, M. F. S., Noonan, M. P., Boorman, E. D., Walton, M. E., & Behrens, T. E. (2011). Frontal cortex and reward‐guided learning and decision‐making. Neuron, 70 (6), 1054 – 1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.05.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Why schools should teach for wisdom: The balance theory of wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psychologist, 36 (4), 227 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3604_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teuscher, U. (2003). Evaluation of a decision training program for vocational guidance. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 3 (3), 177 – 192. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IJVO.0000006585.21787.0e</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tiruneh, D. T., Verburgh, A., & Elen, J. (2014). Effectiveness of critical thinking instruction in higher education: A systematic review of intervention studies. Higher Education Studies, 4 (1), 1 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weller, J. A., Levin, I. P., Rose, J. P., & Bossard, E. (2012). Assessment of decision‐making competence in preadolescence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25 (4), 414 – 426. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.744</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yates, J. F., & Angott, A. M. (2012). Aiding judgment and decision making. In A. Dhami, A. Schlottmann & M. Waldmann (Eds.), Judgment and decision making as a skill:Learning, development, and evolution. (pp. 259 – 287). Ambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zelazo, P. D., Anderson, J. E., Richler, J., Wallner‐Allen, K., Beaumont, J. L., & Weintraub, S. (2013). II. NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): Measuring executive function and attention. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78 (4), 16 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Tricia Shelton; Corinne Benatowicz; Pat Healy; Neal D. Ryan and Judy L. Cameron</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref41"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1368463
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Development and Testing of a Curriculum to Improve Decision-Making Skills in Middle and High School Students
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shelton%2C+Tricia%22">Shelton, Tricia</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8335-5349">0000-0001-8335-5349</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Benatowicz%2C+Corinne%22">Benatowicz, Corinne</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Healy%2C+Pat%22">Healy, Pat</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ryan%2C+Neal+D%2E%22">Ryan, Neal D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cameron%2C+Judy+L%2E%22">Cameron, Judy L.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4707-4421">0000-0003-4707-4421</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Mind%2C+Brain%2C+and+Education%22"><i>Mind, Brain, and Education</i></searchLink>. Feb 2023 17(1):53-60.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 8
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Development%22">Curriculum Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making+Skills%22">Decision Making Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Participation%22">Student Participation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/mbe.12339
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1751-2271<br />1751-228X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Adolescence is a key developmental period for developing and strengthening brain circuits that underlie effective decision-making skills, which profoundly impact lifelong health and academic, professional, and economic achievement. But decision-making skills are learned rather than inherent. School presents an ideal environment for the direct instruction and frequent practice of decision-making skills, however, finding time in the school day is a challenge for contemporary educators. We have developed a learning curriculum that involves active student participation to strengthen decision-making skills that is sufficiently flexible and adaptable to be utilized in a wide variety of content-specific classwork. Using this curriculum, students show evidence of improved decision-making skills, including increased consideration of the number of factors that are relevant to their decision, the resources needed to make a particular decision, and both the short-term and long-term consequences of decisions.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1368463
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1368463
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/mbe.12339
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 53
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Participation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Development and Testing of a Curriculum to Improve Decision-Making Skills in Middle and High School Students
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shelton, Tricia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Benatowicz, Corinne
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Healy, Pat
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ryan, Neal D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cameron, Judy L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1751-2271
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1751-228X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 17
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Mind, Brain, and Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1