Do you feel students are more likely to be deliberative or nondeliberative decision-makers?

 

 

Module Two: A Perspective on Decision-Making

 

This module provides the basic concepts of values learning and explores the concept of content-centered learning with the basic overview of decision-making approaches developed by Robert Stahl. Stahl developed the concept of content-centered learning in the 1970s to explore issues that might be considered ‘subjective’ in social studies. The result produced unique approaches for students to explore systematic information in the Rank-Order, Force-Choice, Negotiation, Invention, or Exploration formats. This module briefly highlights such strategies.

 

Module Notes: Why the Decision-Making Process?

 

As human beings, we cannot escape the need to make decisions. We continually encounter situations and information to which we respond by making decisions. For example, teachers and students continuously decide about the content to be studied, how to behave, and what is worth learning. At other times, we make decisions to initiate, manage, or explore situations and information in a proactive sense. For example, teachers may allow students to choose what materials they want to examine and how they want to study them rather than merely have students react to the materials they are given.

 

Although we all make decisions, we do not all make the same, even in nearly identical situations. How two people will structure a decision-making situation and construct the procedures they use varies with such factors as organization, relevant information, current needs, the degree of objectivity, and the perceived focus, consequences, or outcomes of their actions. One person may be haphazard, whereas a second person is deliberate, systematically organizing himself or herself and processing information to arrive at appropriate, reasoned decisions. Students must develop, refine, and practice using appropriate and structured decision-making schemes, a distinct scheme for each strategy. They also need a perspective that enables them to approach decision-making situations more deliberately, soundly, and rationally than they currently do.

 

There are numerous reasons why they need such a perspective to go along with specific decision-making strategies. Deliberative decision-makers are more likely to make good decisions after considering the situation, available information, options, and implications. The more critical the decision, especially when embedded within a problem-solving situation, the more the individual needs to take adequate time and process relevant details other than just what decisions to make.

 

In situations requiring essential decisions, the skilled decision maker systematically and continually takes time to think through relevant details toward making the best decision possible. This consideration frequently involves locating more information, defining terms, generating lists of suitable options, selecting standards and reasons for making the most appropriate decision(s) and exploring who and what may be affected by the decision. The decision is part of an integrated series of steps that move individuals toward their goals within the context of the situations in which they live.

 

In situations requiring important decisions, deliberative decision-makers take time to locate and consider systematically relevant information before making the best choice or choices possible. They know that making the decision is only one step of a series of interrelated steps that move individuals toward making a good choice(s). They also accept that the final decision usually implies action will be taken; i.e., the decision itself is often a descriptor of the actions that one or more persons are to, should, must, or will carry out. Before making their decisions, deliberative decision-makers look at the long and short-range consequences and how the decision may affect people and things. Amid their deliberations, these persons tend to empathize with others within the situation and those who may be affected by the consequences of the final decision, whatever it may be.

 

On the other hand, nondeliberative (or “hasty”) decision-makers focus much more on the immediate choice. They fail to consider the options available adequately and to spend sufficient time generating and studying possible other options. They typically ignore or discount long-range, even short-range, consequences. They ignore serious consideration of how the decision and subsequent actions may affect others and themselves. They also tend to avoid seeking new information, reflecting upon data contrary to their present perceptions and views, and resisting exploring alternative interpretations, conceptions, and viewpoints. Their orientation frequently fails to consider the situation adequately, the available and findable information, and even appropriate standards for making the most (or a more) appropriate decision. For this reason, nondeliberative decision-makers frequently reface similar situations in the future or encounter a more significant number of less desirable consequences of their earlier decisions in future situations.

 

Lacking these prior considerations, nondeliberative decision-makers continually run into unexpected consequences and implications of their decisions — many of which they neither desired nor were prepared to encounter. Hasty or nondeliberative decision makers quite often (a) are unprepared for many of the consequences of their own decisions; (b) are less committed to adhering to their decisions once made; (c) take less responsibility for their own decisions; (d) blame fate, chance, others, or other things for unfavorable and less favorable results; and (e) have higher levels of negative emotions for more extended periods after they make their decisions than their more skilled, deliberative counterparts. Hence, in their haste to use inappropriate strategies, these individuals make generally ineffective and unsatisfying decisions. Consequently, they find themselves having to deal with unanticipated, often negative, results of their decisions, which in turn lead to more significant and prolonged feelings of anxiety, frustration, and uncertainty— even panic and fear.

 

Although prior considerations can never eliminate all negative consequences and feelings, the deliberative decision maker values conscious, reflective pre-decision considerations because these efforts significantly reduce the probability of such negatives and increase the likelihood of more positive decisions and consequences in which they can live within the many tomorrows that follow each decision.

 

After their decisions have been made, Deliberative decision-makers tend to feel more comfortable, secure, and satisfied with their decisions than hasty, impulsive, or nondeliberative decision-makers. Because they consciously consider the context and the situation, the available information, the relationship of the situation to other people and things and other alternatives, and the implications of their decisions before the actual decision, deliberative decision makers have already prepared themselves to live with many of the consequences of their decisions. They feel relatively satisfied with their decisions, even when the situation or setting requires restrictive, unpleasant, or less-than-optimal options.

 

Deliberative decision-making is a learned way of approaching the making of decisions. Because it is learned, it can be taught and mastered within school settings. Individuals can learn to think and decide deliberately when they have appropriate procedural information to guide their thinking processes. Making informed, appropriate decisions is a fundamental goal of schooling and hardly requires arguments. We believe that teachers and students can acquire and learn to use procedure-based decision-making strategies. Because we hold this belief, we will present six decision strategies students can learn, and teachers can teach. We also believe that teachers and students can simultaneously use classroom episodes like those described here to pursue cognitive processing and intellectual, practical, and academic goals. Finally, we believe teachers can follow the guidelines provided throughout this book to develop student learning episodes like those included here using their subject matter content.

 

The following section introduces the five decision-making strategies built into the learning episodes included later in this book. Students must use these strategies to complete these episodes within academic classroom settings.

 

Five Decision-Making Strategies:

 

Brief Definitions

 

Five distinct decision-making strategies students can learn to use are integrated into the structured learning episodes in this book. These are not the only decision strategies people use, but they are frequently employed in school and out-of-school settings when people have to resolve conflicts, solve problems, and make decisions. There is no hierarchy to these strategies. Instead, they represent five alternative strategies for making decisions given the situation’s context, conditions, and needs (Stahl & Stahl, 1995).

 

A description of each decision strategy is provided below. Teachers can use these descriptions to help students stay “on task” while learning and practicing these five strategies as they complete the classroom tasks required within each episode.

 

The Rank Order Decision Strategy

 

This strategy is proper when individuals have a situation, problem, or dilemma where the options available to them are:

· all specifically stated;

· limited in number and limited to only those specified;

· homogeneous options, i.e., either all “good” or all “undesirable” options;

· all clearly stated or recognized within the situation and context in which they find themselves;

· the only ones that can be considered and decided upon in the situation, and

· to be selected regarding the priorities of the individual or group so that they are arranged in order from most to least preferred.

 

This decision strategy is proper when individuals must decide based on the priority of the alternatives relative to one another as determined by the decision-makers. In these situations, individuals must accept that the only options available are those provided and that each option is independent of the others. In many of these situations, the individual must accept that his or her first choice may not be available when needed or may not work to resolve the problem. If it is unavailable or does not work as expected, the person’s second-ranked choice will be considered for its availability or effectiveness. This priority procedure is followed for all available options until all have been ranked. In other words, the individual rates particular options regarding their priority, importance, value, or usefulness to her or him in that situation, at least at that moment.

 

In nearly all rank-order situations, individuals operate as though their final, personal, or group choices will be accepted in order of each option’s rank relative to the rankings of all the options. Typically, when asked to rank-order options, they operate as though their top-ranked choice will always work or will be obtained; hence, they pay little attention to their rankings of the remaining options.

 

The perspective for rank ordering options used in this book reminds students to continually select the highest priority option from the remaining alternatives, even down to the final two options to be prioritized. This strategy forces individuals to continually consider the relative importance of some alternatives to one another in the context of a particular problem or situation. Each student must assign a specific priority value to each option in every instance.

 

The Forced-Choice Decision Strategy

 

This strategy is proper when individuals have a situation, problem, or dilemma where the options given to them are:

· all specifically stated;

· limited in number and limited to only those specified;

· homogeneous options, i.e., either all “good” or all “undesirable” options;

· all clearly stated or recognized within the situation and context in which they find themselves and

· the only ones that can be considered and decided upon in the situation.

 

In such situations, individuals are required to make a choice and be required to choose from a limited number of known specific alternatives (usually 3 to 6 in number). In these decision situations, the person must accept that refusing to make a decision puts the matter out of his/her hands and almost always increases the risk of a worse consequence than any of the options already available. At the same time, they must also accept that their consideration or selection of other options is unacceptable and a waste of time. In forced-choice situations, the person must select only one option (i.e., the most appropriate) from all those available. Forced choice situations do not allow individuals the opportunity of the luxury of inventing other options or combining given options; hence, spending time trying to do so actually reduces the time the person can spend on the options that can be selected. Once this decision is made, the other alternative options are no longer available.

 

The Forced-Choice decision strategy enables individuals to make appropriate decisions where only a limited number of equally desirable or undesirable alternatives are provided.

 

The Negotiation Strategy

 

This decision strategy is proper when individuals must decide where the only alternatives available to them are known and where they must agree to give up specific options to gain others they want. More specifically, this strategy is proper when individuals have a situation, problem, or dilemma where the options available to them are:

· all specifically stated;

· limited in number and limited to only those specified;

· homogeneous options, i.e., either all “good” or all “undesirable” options;

· all clearly stated within the situation and context in which they find themselves;

· the only ones that can be considered and decided upon in the situation, and

· to be divided into individuals willing to give up to gain other options that they consider more important.

 

In these situations, the person or group must divide the alternatives into three specific groups or classes of options (i.e., alternatives that are most desirable, least desirable, and those not included in either of these two groups). In effect, individuals using this strategy invent three distinct classes or groupings of options. They place options into three classes based upon (1) those that they most want, (2) those they are willing to give up to get what they most want, and (3) those options that are neither the most desired nor the least acceptable in the situation.

 

In these negotiation situations, individuals operate in a “compromise” or “bargaining” mode where they must decide what they most want to obtain and are most willing to give up to secure their most prized options. To do this “classification of options” well, the person or group must systematically negotiate with themselves (or within themselves) to sort all the known options into the three classes or groups described above.

 

This strategy forces individuals to consider the relative importance of alternatives when they give up something they may want or need to gain, preserve, or protect other things they see as even more critical. Students often need to apply compromise, bargaining, and negotiation concepts and strategies to make decisions about many everyday life situations.

 

The Invention Decision Strategy

 

This decision strategy is proper when individuals are to make a decision and are “free” to make any decision that is consistent with and appropriate for the particular situation or problem. In some of these situations, individuals may be provided with possible options. They may select one or more of these. They may choose to reject them all. They may combine some alternatives to form choices they like better than those presented or available. In all cases where this strategy is relevant, individuals are free to invent or generate any appropriate decision they want that fits the context of their situation. In other words, while they are free to invent a decision, they cannot ignore or reject the context of the situation, the likely personal and social consequences of the decision, and the actions that follow.

 

Given the constraints and limitations, this decision strategy focuses on individuals constructing or inventing the most appropriate decision to respond to and resolve the situation before them. For this reason, the Invention strategy has also been labeled the “open-ended” or “free-response” strategy. This strategy enables students to invent decisions in situations where they have a great deal of flexibility in what decision(s) they can make.

 

The Exploration Decision Strategy

 

This strategy is proper when individuals encounter written or visual information or a situation they want to examine and consider in greater depth to form a reasoned response. In these situations, individuals need to generate and ask appropriate questions to focus and guide their comprehension of the subject matter content, context, and situation; their decisions about the relevancy of this information, situation, and context to one or more issues, concepts, events, or decisions; the alternatives, consequences, and criteria they could or should consider relative to the information, issue, and situation they encountered; and their preferences, emotions, and value choices as they perceive them to be relevant in the situation.

 

This decision strategy includes a set of questions the person asks and then answers for himself or herself about what is being studied or is to be learned. These questions represent at least four broad types of thinking: Conceptual, Relational, Decisional, and Affective (discussed in module three). These four types of thinking are transferable to various situations and data. Students should master the ability to generate questions relative to these four types of thinking to guide their inquiry and learning. While the episodes here include sets of questions, teachers should see these as examples of the kinds of questions students should learn to ask their own.

 

REQUIRED ASSIGNMENTS FOR MODULE 2

Online Web Discussion – Read each of the questions below.  After doing so, select all questions to focus your discussion.  Please make one thoughtful, original posting (a direct response to your chosen question) and at least one thoughtful response to a classmate’s posting. 

Original Student Response is due by Thursday, 25 January, at 11:59 p.m.

Response to a peer(s) is due by Monday, 29 January, no later than 7:00 a.m.

 

Question #1: After reading the module notes and based on your experience in the classroom (or reflecting on your experiences when in school – do you feel students are more likely to be deliberative or nondeliberative decision-makers? Why?

 

Question #2: After reading the module notes and examining examples of each of the four decision-making strategies outlined, do you believe it could foster the levels of decision-making outlined in module two? Why do you believe this to be the case?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.