Investigating socioscientific decision-making of high school biology students based on gender and area coverage
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt20251522Keywords:
Socioscientific, High School Student, Biology, EducationAbstract
Introduction: Socioscientific decision-making involves the process of analysing complex problems, seeking relevant information, building arguments, applying critical thinking skills, and integrating diverse perspectives to arrive at a Solution. This study aims to explore the extent to which gender and geographical location affect students' socioscientific reasoning.
Research method: it uses a quantitative research approach with a quantitative ex-post facto design. The research population consisted of all tenth-grade students in West Kalimantan Province. The sample for the study consisted of 912 students selected from public and private high schools. in Pontianak Municipality, Teluk Keramat District, and Paloh District, West Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. Participants were recruited using purposive random sampling. Students are then categorized based on gender and regional coverage. Gender criteria are visualized in men and women, while the criteria for regional coverage are urban (Municipal) and rural (District).
The results of the study showed that male students significantly outperformed female students in socioscientific decision-making. This difference is evident in the quality of the arguments and explanations provided by male students in their essay responses, demonstrating a deeper understanding of the issue.
Conclusion: that there is a gap in socioscientific decision-making ability between students in urban and rural areas. The study revealed that urban students tend to have stronger socioscientific decision-making skills compared to rural students
References
1. Cecilie T, Dorothy C, Olsen S. Lifelong learning among older professionals : How competence strategies and perceptions of professional learning affect pastors ’ participation. 2019;93–102. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12325
2. Rapanta C, Botturi L, Goodyear P, Guàrdia L, Koole M. Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal: Post-pandemic Challenges for Higher Education. Postdigital Sci Educ [Internet]. 2021;3(3):715–42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1
3. Bohm M, Barkmann J, Eggert S, Carstensen CH, ... Quantitative Modelling and Perspective Taking: Two Competencies of Decision Making for Sustainable Development. Sustainability [Internet]. 2020; Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/6980
4. Rachmatullah A, Ha M. Examining high-school students’ overconfidence bias in biology exam: a focus on the effects of country and gender. Int J Sci Educ [Internet]. 2019;41(5):652–73. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1578002
5. Neuwirth LS. Reimagining higher education during and Challenges and opportunities. 2020;(2059).
6. Casad BJ, Franks JE, Garasky CE, Kittleman MM, Roesler AC, Hall DY, et al. Gender inequality in academia : Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM. 2020;(April):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.24631
7. Zeyer A. Gender, complexity, and science for all: Systemizing and its impact on motivation to learn science for different science subjects. J Res Sci Teach. 2019;55(2):147–71.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21413
8. Fang SC, Hsu YS, Lin SS. Conceptualizing Socioscientific Decision Making from a Review of Research in Science Education. Int J Sci Math Educ. 2019;17(3):427–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9890-2
9. Sztramko N, Med BMC, Methodol R, Sztramko SEN, Belita E, Traynor RL, et al. Methods to support evidence ‑ informed decision ‑ making in the midst of COVID ‑ 19 : creation and evolution of a rapid review service from the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2021;1–10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01436-1
10. Coglianese C, Starobin SM. Social science and the analysis of environmental policy. Rev Policy Res. 2020;37(5):578–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12376
11. Hamidah N, Indartono S. The Policy of Commercialization Abolition in Indonesia Equality Education Effort: The Explanation of the Coleman’s Report. In: 2nd International Conference on Social Science and Character Educations (ICoSSCE 2019). Atlantis Press; 2020. p. 103–6. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200130.022
12. Lase D, Waruwu E, Zebua HP, Ndraha AB. Peran inovasi dalam pembangunan ekonomi dan pendidikan menuju visi Indonesia Maju 2045. Tuhenori J Ilm Multidisiplin. 2024;2(2):114–29. https://doi.org/10.62138/tuhenori.v2i2.18
13. Rante N SV, Wijaya H, Tulak H. Far from expectation: A systematic literature review of inclusive education in Indonesia. Univers J Educ Res. 2020;8:6340–50. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2020.082273
14. Hasugian JW, Gaurifa S, Warella SB, Kelelufna JH, Waas J. Education for children with special needs in Indonesia. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing; 2019. p. 12172. DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/1175/1/012172
15. Shanta S, Wells JG. T/E design based learning: assessing student critical thinking and problem solving abilities. Int J Technol Des Educ [Internet]. 2022;32(1):267–85. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09608-8
16. Miranda J, Navarrete C, Noguez J, Ramírez-montoya M soledad. The core components of education 4 . 0 in higher education : Three case studies in engineering education. 2021;93(February). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107278
17. Mahanal S, Tendrita M, Ramadhan F, Ismirawati N, Zubaidah S. The Analysis of Students’ Critical Thinking Skills on Biology Subject. Anatol J Educ. 2019;2(2).
18. Tamam B, Corebima AD, Zubaidah S, Suarsini E. An investigation of rural-urban students’ critical thinking in biology across gender. Pedagogika. 2021;142(2):200–17.
19. Lin X, Featherman M, Brooks SL, Hajli N. Exploring Gender Differences in Online Consumer Purchase Decision Making : An Online Product Presentation Perspective. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-018-9831-1
20. Tsemach E, Zohar A. The intersection of gender and culture in argumentative writing. Int J Sci Educ [Internet]. 2021;0(0):1–22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1894499
21. Ardwiyanti D, Prasetyo ZK. Fostering Decision-Making Skills Through Socio-Scientific Issues in the 2013 Curriculum. 2021;513:6–13. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201230.075
22. Genisa MU, Subali B, Habibi H. Decision-Making Style Profiles of Pre-Service Biology Teachers in Socio-Scientific Issues. … J Eval Res … [Internet]. 2021; Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1313139
23. Ge T, Wang L. Multidimensional child poverty, social relationships and academic achievement of children in poor rural areas of China. Child Youth Serv Rev [Internet]. 2019;103(April):209–17. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.06.007
24. Liu J, Peng P, Luo L. The Relation Between Family Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement in China: A Meta-analysis. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09494-0
25. Jia X, Wang Z, Huang F, Su C, Du W, Jiang H, et al. A comparison of the Mini-Mental State Examination ( MMSE ) with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment ( MoCA ) for mild cognitive impairment screening in Chinese middle-aged and older population : a cross- sectional study. 2021;1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03495-6
26. Kurilovas E. Computers in Human Behavior On data-driven decision-making for quality education. Comput Human Behav [Internet]. 2020;(January):105774. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.003
27. Radberg KK, Lundqvist U, Malmqvist J, Hagvall O. From CDIO to challenge-based learning experiences – expanding student learning as well as societal impact ? Eur J Eng Educ [Internet]. 2020;0(0):1–16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1441265
28. Wahono B, Chang CY, Khuyen NTT. Teaching socio-scientific issues through integrated STEM education: an effective practical averment from Indonesian science lessons. Int J … [Internet]. 2021; Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500693.2021.1983226
29. Iruka IU, DeKraai M, Walther J, Sheridan SM, Abdel-Monem T. Examining how rural ecological contexts influence children’s early learning opportunities. Early Child Res Q [Internet]. 2020;52:15–29. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.09.005
30. Aljassim N, Ostini R. Health literacy in rural and urban populations: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns [Internet]. 2020;103(10):2142–54. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.06.007
31. Yanti PG, Ibrahim N, Rahman F. Nationalism study of primary students in the border area of West Kalimantan-Indonesia and Malaysia. Int J Sci Technol Res. 2019;8(12):682–6.
32. Hernández-Ramos J, Pernaa J, Cáceres-Jensen L, Rodríguez-Becerra J. The effects of using socio-scientific issues and technology in problem-based learning: A systematic review. Educ Sci. 2021;11(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100640
33. Castro-Lopez A, Cervero A, Galve-González C, Puente J, Bernardo AB. Evaluating critical success factors in the permanence in Higher Education using multi-criteria decision-making. High Educ Res Dev [Internet]. 2022;41(3):628–46. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1877631
34. Munika C, Suwarjo S, Sutanti N. Validation of the Mindset Scale in the Indonesian Context: a Rasch Model Analysis. Int Online J Educ Teach [Internet]. 2022;9(4):1458–69. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1353981.
35. Ben-Horin H, Kali Y, Tal T. The Fifth Dimension in Socio-Scientific Reasoning: Promoting Decision-Making about Socio-Scientific Issues in a Community. Sustain. 2023;15(12):1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129708
36. Holcomb TS. Examining Inter-Rater Reliability of Evaluators Judging Teacher Performance: Proposing an Alternative to Cohen’s Kappa. 2021;
37. Noroozi O, Banihashem SK, Taghizadeh Kerman N, Parvaneh Akhteh Khaneh M, Babayi M, Ashrafi H, et al. Gender differences in students’ argumentative essay writing, peer review performance and uptake in online learning environments. Interact Learn Environ [Internet]. 2023;31(10):6302–16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2034887
38. Anwar Y, Susanti R, Ermayanti. Analyzing scientific argumentation skills of biology education students in general biology courses. J Phys Conf Ser. 2019;1166(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1166/1/012001
39. Baytelman A, Iordanou K, ... Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues. J Res … [Internet]. 2020; Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tea.21627
40. Sparks RA, Jimenez PC, Kirby CK, Dauer JM. Using Critical Integrative Argumentation to Assess Socioscientific Argumentation across Decision-Making Contexts. Educ Sci [Internet]. 2022; Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/12/10/644
41. Ke L, Sadler TD, Zangori L, Friedrichsen PJ. Developing and using multiple models to promote scientific literacy in the context of socio-scientific issues [Internet]. Science & Education. Springer; 2021. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-021-00206-1
42. Cenek J. Gender stereotypes in organizations. J Educ Cult Soc. 2020;4(1):30–7.
43. Fowler SR, Zeidler DL. College Students’ use of Science Content During Socioscientific Issues Negotiation : Evolution as a Prevailing Concept. ProQuest Diss Theses [Internet]. 2010;(1970):1–169. Available from: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1970
44. Shasha-Sharf H, Tal T. Energy Policy as a Socio-Scientific Issue: Argumentation in the Context of Economic, Environmental and Citizenship Education. Sustain. 2023;15(9):1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097647
45. Nurtamara L. The importance socio-scientific issues of in biology learning preparing students as a 21st century society. J Phys Conf Ser [Internet]. 2019; Available from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/2/022070/meta
46. Mukherjee D, Chakraborty S, Jena LK, Hasan KK, Debnath R, Mitra S. Efficacy of Online Training of the Elected Representatives of Local Rural Government: A Focus Group Study. J Educ Cult Soc. 2023;14(1):415–32.
47. Auziņa A. Teacher Competences for Facing Challenges of Globalisation in Education. J Educ Cult Soc. 2018;9(2):24–37.
48. Hung M, Smith WA, Voss MW, Franklin JD, Gu Y, Bounsanga J. Exploring Student Achievement Gaps in School Districts Across the United States. Educ Urban Soc. 2020;52(2):175–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124519833442
49. González-Falcón I, García-Rodríguez MP, Gómez-Hurtado I, Carrasco-Macías MJ. The importance of principal leadership and context for school success: insights from ‘(in)visible school.’ Sch Leadersh Manag [Internet]. 2020;40(4):248–65. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1612355
50. Cayubit RFO. Why learning environment matters? An analysis on how the learning environment influences the academic motivation, learning strategies and engagement of college students. Learn Environ Res [Internet]. 2022;25(2):581–99. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09382-x
51. Astalini, Kurniawan DA, Darmaji, Ikhlas M, Kuswanto, Perdana R, et al. Attitude and Self-confidence Students in Learning Natural Sciences: Rural and Urban Junior High School. Univers J Educ Res. 2020;8(6):2569–77. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080640
52. Bagrıacık Yılmaz A, Karataş S. Why do open and distance education students drop out? Views from various stakeholders. Int J Educ Technol High Educ [Internet]. 2022;19(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00333-x
53. Nawab S, Sami U, Irshad G, Malik Muhammad S, Usman F. The Effect Of Militancy On Education And Its Socio-Economic Consequences: A Case Study Of Tehsil Safi And Halimzai Of Mohmand Agency. J Educ Cult Soc [Internet]. 2021;(2):172–91. Available from: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=93431
54. Garrecht C, Eckhardt M, Höffler TN, Harms U. Fostering students’ socioscientific decision-making: exploring the effectiveness of an environmental science competition. Discip Interdiscip Sci Educ Res. 2020;2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-020-00022-7
55. Vazquez VP. Learning outcomes in CLIL programmes: a comparison of results between urban and rural environments. Porta Linguarum Rev Int didáctica las lenguas Extranj. 2018;(29):9–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.54020
56. Abe EN, Chikoko V. Exploring the factors that influence the career decision of STEM students at a university in South Africa. Int J STEM Educ. 2020;7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00256-x
57. Cebesoy UB, Rundgren S nu C. Embracing socioscientific issues-based teaching and decision-making in teacher professional development. Educ Rev [Internet]. 2021;00(00):1–28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1931037
58. Lombard F, Schneider DK, Merminod M, Weiss L. Balancing emotion and reason to develop critical thinking about popularized neurosciences [Internet]. Science & Education. Springer; 2020. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-020-00154-2
59. Suwono, H., Rofi’Ah, N. L., Saefi, M., & Fachrunnisa, R. (2021). Interactive socio-scientific inquiry for promoting scientific literacy, enhancing biological knowledge, and developing critical thinking. Journal of Biological Education, 57(5), 944–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.2006270
60. Siburian O, Corebima AD, . I, Saptasari M. The Correlation Between Critical and Creative Thinking Skills on Cognitive Learning Results. Eurasian J Educ Res. 2019;19(81):1-16. doi:10.14689/ejer.2019.81.6
61. Nur S, Zubai̇Dah S, Mahanal S, Rohman F. ERCoRe Learning Model to Improve Creative-Thinking Skills of Preservice Biology Teachers. J Educ Gift Young Sci. 2020;8(1):549-569. doi:10.17478/jegys.673022.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Handy Darmawan, Susriyati Mahanal, Herawati Susilo, Sueb (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
