Social:
Author: Robbie Marsden
School/Organization:
Vaux Big Picture High School
Year: 2025
Seminar: Introduction to Cognitive Science: Uncovering the Machine in the Mind
Grade Level: 6-12
School Subject(s): Social Emotional Learning
What lessons can be learned through tenets or theories of cognitive science that can help high school students understand the science behind decision making, and be more equipped to make better decisions in their everyday lives and beyond? This unit is intended for high school football coaches, many of whom may not be certified teachers, to be able to coach the whole child, enhancing socio-emotional learning through discussion, warm up, and team building activities that grapple with cognitive science and decision making. This unit focuses on three major lenses for students to look at decision making through, connecting cognitive science theory to everyday practice–and ultimately their high school football experience. These categories are Time, Others, and Outcome; or as I am referring to them in the following unit, the “TOO Method.” The “Time” category is an extension of the Linear Ballistic Accumulator Model. The “Others” category is an extension of Game Theory, while the “Outcome” category stems from Utility Theory. With these universally accessible activities for middle and high school football coaches across the country, elevate on field performance through prioritizing your young people’s understanding of the “machine in the mind!”
Did you try this unit in your classroom? Give us your feedback here.
During the 2019-2020 school year Vaux Big Picture High School, in only its third year of existence, was given the green-light to begin forming its own, first ever high school football program to kick-off in Fall 2020 with me as its first ever head coach. That dream-come-true soon became a nightmare in March 2020, when the population of the world would be confronted with a new normal as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Starting a football program in the Philadelphia Public League is already quite a tall task. Two shortened seasons went by in a blink, complete with bi-weekly tests and masks underneath face-masks. Finally, with the pandemic football experience in the rearview mirror, the Vaux Cougars collected their first win in program history in September 2022, coincidentally in the Philadelphia Eagles High School Game of the Week. Since then, the team has made gradual progress in on-field performance, but most notably in off-field culture. Coaching the Vaux Cougars is one of my proudest professional achievements, but also one of my greatest life stressors. I took on this endeavor to provide an opportunity for our students to play and learn from the game of football, although their experience is far from equitable. We have never had stable access to outdoor or indoor facilities or funding for equipment replenishment or enhancement. Basic essentials are provided, and everything else falls on grassroots fundraising efforts. These institutional variables aside, our kids also face the systemic challenges of living in a neighborhood stricken with violence and poverty. I have grown as a coach, my kids have grown as football players, but it is our ultimate goal to foster a culture that builds better young men that will become leaders that can begin breaking the chains of the systemic oppression they were born into. This unit is intended to support the cognitive development of the student-athletes of the Vaux Cougars football team, specifically in regard to the science of decision-making. My hope is that my student-athletes will be able to understand the basics of decision-making science, apply it to their short-term experience on the field, and ultimately use this knowledge to build resilience to withstand the long-term pressures of life off of the field. Rationale & Alignment This unit is aimed to supplement robust social emotional learning into the existing high school student experience. Vaux is a member of the Big Picture Learning network, which incorporates different learning competencies in addition to state standards. The Pennsylvania Department of Education launched the Social Emotional Learning and Career Ready Skills standards in 2019 “to address the social and emotional competencies students need to empower themselves to successfully navigate relationships within their family, school, college, and/or career as well as” “apply the knowledge, attitudes and skills necessary to understand and manage emotions.”[1]Big Picture Learning also incorporates four major social emotional competencies that they refer to as “Developmental Assets” “that enable young people to develop into successful and contributing adults.”[2] The major asset, or competency, that this unit falls under is “Social Competencies,” which includes: Planning and Decision Making, Interpersonal Competence, Cultural Competence, Resistance Skills, and Peaceful Conflict Resolution.[3]At a macro level, the Pennsylvania Department of Education acknowledges the importance of Social Emotional Learning skills, and at a micro level, Big Picture Learning model at Vaux is predicated off of teaching not just academic concepts with rigor and relevance, but also meaningful interpersonal and intrapersonal life lessons. A unit that is building an understanding of and competency in strong decision making can be an impactful asset to the the practice of my extra-curricular team, but also to the social emotional pillars that Vaux Big Picture High School’s advisory model is built upon. At first, it was hard to wrap my head around creating curriculum rooted in cognitive science to high school students in the classroom, let alone high school student athletes outside of the classroom. Suddenly, it clicked. I asked myself: What lessons can be learned through tenets or theories of cognitive science that can help high school students understand the science behind decision making, and be more equipped to make better decisions in their everyday lives and beyond? As I did my research, I narrowed down these categories to encompass three major lenses for students to look at decision making through: Time, Others, and Outcome; or as I am referring to it in the following unit, the “TOO Method.” The “Time” category is an extension of the Linear Ballistic Accumulator Model. The “Others” category is an extension of Game Theory, while the “Outcome” category stems from Utility Theory. Please allow me to connect the dots between practice and theory below. The Linear Ballistic Accumulator Model refers to how the accumulation of evidence over time can influence a decision. In short, the more time one has to accumulate, or gather, evidence, the more sound of a decision can be made. Without any sort of variable at play, the more time, the more information accumulation, the better! “When the amount of evidence in either accumulator reaches a response threshold, the decision corresponding to that accumulator is produced, and the decision time is the amount of time taken to reach the response threshold.”[4] In a game situation, time is always counting against the participant–with opposing players quite literally in pursuit of blocking the desired outcome. This crunch for time will force faster, rushed decision-making. Conversely, with proper preparation and protection, “the longer integration time allows the correct response to overtake the incorrect response, so these slow responses are mostly correct.”[5] Student-athletes can learn from the LBA model to promote thorough, rational decision making in their everyday lives. Simultaneously, they can grapple with the impact time constraints, both by moment-to-moment circumstance and professional/academic deadlines, can have on decision making. What, then, is the point of practice and repetition? To limit the impact time constraints, by way of the LBA model, can have on your decision under duress! The more a movement, skill, play, or time situation is practiced, the better equipped the student-athletes are to make good decisions when optimal time is quite literally dwindling. Game Theory refers to the potential change in strategy to account for the performance or approach of others involved. In short, think about playing a game. Making a move to advance one’s self, while trying to keep in mind the potential move or response of the opponent. How does this, someone else’s potential move, influence one’s own approach or response? Young people can view this from a lens of navigating relationships, both professional and personal. This easily applies, though, to the game of football. At its core, a football play is designed to beat the defense. A defensive formation is designed to beat an offense. When a play begins, players engage and need to both make their own decisions, and respond to the decisions of their opponent–like a tennis match! Game Theory can thus help players understand the WHY behind play design, which will lead to better play execution. With Game Theory in mind, coaches can teach the WHY behind a formation and concept, but even more specifically the decision that is being set up for them once the play begins. For example, if the outside receiver runs a 10 yard curl, and the inside receiver runs to the flat (rounds to 5 yards), the player is taught that A) if the corner sits in the flat, you throw the curl, and B) if the corner drops back to the curl, you throw the flat. If neither are open, then throw the outlet/safety pass to the backside. This is an example of how the response of others is being factored into a play design, and can help players better execute said play due to the deeper understanding of the WHY behind the play. Brian Burke of the Advanced Football Analytics web site applies Game Theory to dueling offense/defensive play calls. While “there are a myriad of formations, plays, and variations available as options,” Burke focuses on “simple run or pass decisions.”[6] When two teams meet on game day, they have spent the entire week leading up scouting, or gameplanning for, one another. “An offense is choosing the best proportion of play calls taking into account the defense’s strategy mix, and the defense is choosing its best proportion of strategies knowing the offense’s strategy mix.”[7] While the rhythm of playcalling can be “subjectively based on a combination of experience, intuition, and tradition,” Game Theory can give its beholder a competitive advantage by providing “the true optimum mix of strategies” from the opponent at hand.[8] Utility Theory refers to the impact of anticipated or potential outcomes as a result of a decision. What is the subject’s desired outcome, and how catastrophic would a potential negative or undesired outcome be? Is there risk involved? Is the decision high stakes? Is it an everyday, casual, stress free decision? Or an in the moment, pressure filled choice? How much pressure, or lack thereof, a situation presents us with when faced with a decision is an important concept for young people to grapple with. Specifically in regard to how those potential factors can influence our ability to execute a decision with reason and sound judgment. Even more important for young people to grapple with is realizing which of these potential factors, if any, are under our control. Short answer, not many! So how does one respond? The incredibly human nature of Utility Theory is unique. While used by a variety of researchers, especially in the economics field, “the theory is difficult to falsify with naturally occurring data since exogenous variables can be called on to explain violations of predictions.”[9] Einhorn and Hogarth continue that “uncertainty” and potential “probabilities and payoffs” create “ambiguity.”[10] While Utility Theory is thus important to keep in mind, there are many variables and factors the keep it from becoming exact science. Perhaps that, this human variable, is exactly why it should be taught to young people, though. Desires, worries, and expectations are all aspects of Utility Theory present in our everyday lives, and moment to moment decisions. In regard to football: What does a player want to happen on this play or in this game? What happens if it does not go according to plan? How might a negative outcome impact my teammates or coaches? These human questions are a part of any young football player’s psyche. By studying Utility Theory, student-athletes can be better prepared for and less intimidated by outcome. What do I want to happen here? What’s my desired outcome? What play should I run? How can others defend or stop it? How much evidence do I have to make a rational decision? How much time do I have to gather said evidence and make the decision, if any? Rooted in theory, the principles of Time-Others-Outcome can help young people navigate their day-to-day lives, while gaining a competitive advantage in football by understanding the WHY behind play design, potential barriers to success, and how to remain resilient and continue to make good decisions regardless of the situation. Unit Content + Essential Questions This unit will consist of three sequential phases. These will serve as the lessons. I: How do we make decisions? Student-athletes will undergo a “Decision Making 101” boot camp as they are exposed to the fundamentals of decision making and basic decision making theories. We will cover gathering information/reasons (Linear Ballistic Accumulator Model), considering potential outcomes (Decision Tree), and potential actions of others (Game Theory). With this background information coupled with a strong, but not overwhelming, three-tiered understanding of decision making, we will then transition into barriers to good decision making. II: What makes decisions more challenging or difficult? This phase will break down into two parts: off-field and on-field. What sort of variables complicate or cloud decision making? Then we will convert those examples into how they manifest on the field. Once we develop solutions to those on-field issues, we will discuss how our on-field solutions can give us the tools to create effective off-field solutions to off-field problems. The three types of pressure we will plan for and further research will be “pre-play” (planning/preparation), “mid-play” (responses/adjustments), and “post-play” (feedback/regulation/recover). III: How can we use decision-making to better understand the purpose of our play designs? When it all boils down, the sport of football is a game of moment by moment decision making. When the student-athletes have a concrete understanding of the science of decision making, they will then be able to understand the “WHY” behind the play designs, formations, and calls that their coaches employ. Once they understand the “WHY,” then they can make more informed, composed, confident, and ultimately effective decisions. IV + V: (?) There are two major research questions I would also like to incorporate and/or track at greater length as I move forward with my research, implementation, and collaboration with Professor Richie. The greatest area of further research at this moment is to find more applications of decision making science to football, sports, or just exposure to variables and/or situational stressors. I feel as though I have a well rounded reading list at this moment. Moving forward I should prioritize both 1) Finding more accessible readings, and visual aids for high school aged children, and 2) Making and modifying existing sources into accessible student-facing resources. [1] “Social Emotional Learning and Career Ready Skills.” Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2019, https://lms.pdesas.org/content/courses/FFT/03/courses/PD9203/media/ebook/ebook.pdf. [2] “Developmental Assets Framework.” Search Institute, 2025, https://searchinstitute.org/resources-hub/developmental-assets-framework. [3] Ibid.. [4] Scott D. Brown and Andrew Heathcote, “The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation,” (Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 57, 153-178). p. 154. [5] Ibid., 160. [6] Brian Burke, “Game Theory and Run/Pass Balance,” (Advanced Football Analytics, Retrieved from: https://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2008/06/game-theory-and-runpass-balance.html). [7] Ibid.. [8] Ibid.. [9] Hillel J. Einhorn and Robert M. Hogarth, “Decision Making under Ambiguity,” (The Journal of Business, Vol. 59, No. 4, p. S225-S250), p. S226. [10] Ibid., S226.Introduction & Teaching Context
Background Research
Team Circles (Socratic Seminars/Discussions): Team will warm up with open-ended, low stakes questions on the topic of the day. As weeks progress, coach will take more of a step back as leaders step up to facilitate. Jig-Saw: Team will be broken up into smaller groups to access content in a more intimate and manageable way by handling “one piece of the puzzle,” and then report back to the greater team with their findings/creation. Role Play: Groups will either be given OR choose various real life scenarios or predicaments, both in everyday life and on the football field. Groups will simulate their decision making process in that scenario with one another. This can be in a competitive/game format, or included in the Jig-Saw format. Film Study: Both coaches and student-athletes can use their foundation of knowledge on decision-making to break down film, including actual team film from previous games to foster reflection/growth or opponent scout footage to foster theoreticals/critical thinking. Student-Athlete Teach-Outs: After initial unit/decision-making introduction concludes, the routine will be set for a new student-athlete to lead Mindset Monday each week with a reflective “teach-out.” Student-athletes will prepare ahead of time to present a GLOW or GROW moment from the previous week’s game, and, through self reflection and presentation, will benefit his teammates to be prepared to employ similar best practices OR combat similar complications.
As my lessons will not be delivered through traditional class time, I will be constructing them in the form of weekly activities (See Day 7). Mindset Monday is the preliminary name! Team-wide Activity: Scenario One: It’s the first day of school, where do I sit for lunch? Coach prompts: 1) What information do you need to make this decision? (Coach jots down player answers; encourages as many as possible) 2) What factors can influence how you make this decision? (KEEP THESE FOR LATER!!!!!) Group Collaborative Activity: 1) Split student-athletes into groups of 3-5 2) Designate a group captain 3) Have the group captain come to the front and grab a scenario slip of paper 4) Give groups 5 minutes to write down: 1-Information they need to make the decision, and 2-Factors that can influence their decision 5) Give groups an additional 3 minutes to write down their final decision, as a group, explaining why they chose that outcome 6) Have each group share out their scenario, key info/factors, and their final decision Team-wide Activity: Pt. 1→Introduce T-O-O method! -TIME (via Linear Ballistic Accumulator)→How much time do you have to make this decision? (Coach jots down player answers) -OTHERS (via Game Theory)→How does my decision impact others, or is it impacted by others? (Coach jots down player answers) -OUTCOME (via Utility Theory)→What are the potential outcomes of this decision? (Coach jots down player answers) Team-wide Activity: Pt. 2→Connect TOO method to last week’s brainstorm. Coach posts the team’s answers regarding necessary INFORMATION and influential FACTORS that go into decision making. Coach calls on student-athlete leaders to come up, one by one, and drop (or label) each team answer into one of the three TOO categories. (Explaining why this cognitive science matters, and connect it to the thoughts they already had) Group Collaborative Activity: 1) Split student-athlete into groups of 3-5 2) Designate a group captain that will share out for the group 3) Task each group with creating their own decision/scenario, and applying the TOO method. Remind them, this means identifying: a) Time (you have to make the decision) b) Others (How are others impacted by our decision? How can others impact our decision?) c) Outcome (What outcomes are possible? What potential outcome do we want?) 4) Have each group share out their decision/scenario, the T-O-O information, and the ultimate decision that the group made Team-wide Activity: What’s the difference between ON FIELD vs. OFF FIELD decision making? (push toward time) Coach prompts: Today, we are applying the TOO method to OFF FIELD decision making. Group Collaborative Activity: 1) Split student-athletes into groups of 3-5 2) Designate a group captain 3) Have the group captain come to the front and grab a scenario slip of paper 4) Give groups 5 minutes to write down the T-O-O for their scenario. Remind them, this means identifying: Time (you have to make the decision); Others (How are others impacted by our decision? How can others impact our decision?); Outcome (What outcomes are possible? What potential outcome do we want?) 5) Give groups an additional 3 minutes to write down their final decision, as a group, explaining why they chose that outcome 6) Have each group share out their decision/scenario, the T-O-O information, and the ultimate decision that the group made Team-wide Activity: As coaches, we call plays to accommodate for these situations. What are factors that can stop us from being successful that are IN our control? OUT of our control? Introduce team to the BIG 3: “pre-play” (planning/preparation), “mid-play” (responses/adjustments), and “post-play” (feedback/regulation/recover). Group Collaborative Activity: 1) Split team into 6 groups 2) Designate group captain 3) Assign two groups PRE; two groups MID, and two groups POST 4) Task groups with identifying potential decisions that can be made in their assigned moment (pre/mid/post). Give 6 minutes. 5) Have the pre/mid/post groups collapse into three larger groups (their match; for example, pre with pre…mid with mid…post with post) 6) Have the group leaders circle common themes/answers between the two groups 7) Have group leaders share out their moment, common answers, and (if applicable) one strong answer that one group had that the other group did not have. Team-wide Activity: Round of hang-man with situations (Third and Fourth Down) Group Collaborative Activity: 1) Split team into 6 groups 2) Designate group captain 3) Assign 6 groups one of 6 situations: a) 1st & 15 b) Backed Up c) Red Zone d) Goal Line e) 4-minute f) 2-minute 4) Task groups with identifying Pre/Mid/Post possibilities to break down assigned situation. Give 6 minutes. 5) Have group leaders share out their game situation with Pre/Mid/Post decision possibilities. Team-wide Activity: “If I do this, you do that” 1) Have an OFFENSE and DEFENSE volunteer come to the front of the room 2) Coach provides a setting from this list 3) Coin flip for who goes first, then the participant begins with a decision/action (I do this) 4) They then take turns offering their reaction (You do that) 5) Once things reach a natural end/stalemate, stop the banter, and have the crowd cheer for the winner “rap battle/cheering” style 6) Repeat with 2-3 groups, depending on momentum/time Group Collaborative Activity: – PLAN GONE WRONG! Intro: Like we talked about last week, when in game, there are three phases of on field decisions/adjustments. Pre, Mid, and Post. Intro cont’d: First, we are going to apply the TOO method to these situations. -How much time do we have to make a decision? (pre/mid/post) -What outcome do we want in these moments? (pre/mid/post) -How do we make adjustments to the actions of others? (pre/mid/post) 1) Split team into 6 groups 2) Assign each group a team captain 3) Assign two groups PRE options; two groups MID options, and two groups POST options a) Each group will CHOOSE what “gone wrong” event they want to analyze 4) Groups will use the TOO method to break down the proper reaction to this “gone wrong” event (give 6 minutes) 5) Have group leaders share out their “gone wrong” event with their collective TOO informed decision (Using Decision Making to Understand the WHY Behind a Play) Group Collaborative Activity: – 1) Player selects one GLOW or one GROW play from their game the previous week. (Inform coach of game and clip #) 2) Player presents this play to the team, explaining why it’s a GLOW or GROW 3) Player uses the TOO method to explain the plan he had for the play a) For example, I wanted this outcome for this play, and to make him do this to achieve that outcome. 4) Player then uses the TOO method to explain how the play went RIGHT or WRONG a) For example, this play went right (GLOW) because I did this, and he did/didn’t do this. b) OR, this play went wrong (GROW) because I did/didn’t do this, and he did this. 5) Player shares something he could have done better in the moment or could do better in the future. 6) Player chooses the leader for next week’s Cougar Cog-Sci session. A) Plan for Plan: Using Decision Making to understand our own tendencies, and predict how our opponents might respond B) Why did I do that?: Using Decision Making to Understand the WHY Behind a Play…COACH Edition a) Group Warm Up Question: What are our offensive tendencies? What are our defensive tendencies? How might our opponent attempt to take advantage of that? b) Individual Spotlight: Each week, an athlete works with their position coach to identify a tendency that they have in their playing style–positive or negative. c) The individual will reflect and imagine the perspective of how their opponent may want to account for or take advantage of that tendency/pattern. d) The individual will share this tendency and expected response to the team, and also propose how they can possibly adjust, modify, or hide their own, initial behavioral tendency to maintain a competitive advantage. e) This individual will pick a teammate to go the next time, and their corresponding position coach should expect to be consulted by this player the following week. B) Why did I do that? Coach Edition a) Option 1: Coach pre-selects a play design, and does a teach out i) What is the goal of this play? ii) What defense/offense is this play designed to work against? iii) What would prevent our defense/offense from executing this play? iv) What is the goal of this decision, or play call? What individuals, or tendencies, are the players looking at to make their won decision, or read? b) Option 2*: Captains, leadership council, or individual player chooses a play call or decision by the coach the previous week. Coach explains the WHY behind that decision. i) What decision was made? ii) Why was this decision made? Include: (1) Situation (down/distance, time) (2) Desired Outcome (goal) (3) Other Factors (own team or opposing team tendencies) iii) Looking back, would you have changed your decision? A lot? A little? Not at all? Why or why not? *I understand that many coaches may think that this opens up a “can of worms!” This is simply an idea depending on team culture/timing. PRE: Everybody Offense: Forget the snap count; Linebacker creeps up on a blitz; Coverage shifts; Audible at the line Everybody Defense: Formation shifts; Player goes in motion; There were 10 players on the field and the 11th is running on suddenly MID: OL: Step the wrong way, someone gets through clean; Miss a block RB: Fumble; Get facemasked; Get tackled for loss; Trip up TE/WR: Drop; Open but ball not thrown to you; Miss block on the edge/Don’t block to the whistle QB: Pocket collapses, have to roll out; You get sacked; Throw an interception; Fumble DL: Get pancaked; Lose contain; Miss tackle LB: Misinterpret run for pass or pass for run; Miss tackle DB: Got burnt off of the line; Got “Mossed;” Miss tackle POST: Everybody: Opposing player shoves me; Teammate blames me for a mistake; Penalty was called on me
Day 1: Decision Making 101
Warm Up: How do we make decisions?
Day 2: Decision Making ON PURPOSE! (AKA with intentionality fueled by Cognitive Science Theories)
Warm Up: Why might it be important to understand how decisions are made in life? (As a teenager? Professional? Family provider?)
Day 3: Decision Making 201, Football Edition!
Warm Up: Why might it be important to understand how decisions are made as a football player? (As a player, teammate, coach?)
Day 4: ON FIELD Decision Making, the toughest kind!
Warm Up: What are the most stressful situations in football? (Think quarter, score, yardage)
Day 5: ON FIELD Decision Making PART TWO: Down + Distance
Warm Up: What game situations should be practiced most? (Down + Distance) What stops teams from succeeding in these situations?
Day 6: ON FIELD Decision Making PART THREE: Plan Gone Wrong!
Warm Up: How do we force the opponent to make a decision mid-game? How does the opponent force us to make a decision?
Day 7: TEACH OUT! Cougar Cog-Sci (This activity is to recur weekly)
Week one, coach chooses a player to lead the activity. From then on, that week’s player chooses the leader for next week’s activity. Reason being, they now have the full week to prepare and select a play they wish to analyze and teach out.
Day 8+: EXTENSION ACTIVITIES!
A) Plan for Plan:
Decision Making Situations/Game Options RESOURCES
(In the above activity templates, certain games/situations were mentioned. Below are the options/suggestions to choose from.)
Decision Making 101 Situations, Easy/Low Stakes:
Decision Making 201 Situations, Football:
“I do this, you do that” Game – Setting Suggestions
“GONE WRONG!” Activity Options:
Journals: Brown, S.D., & Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 57, 153-178. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028507000722 Einhorn, H.J., & Hogarth, R.M. (1986). Decision Making Under Ambiguity. The Journal of Business, Vol. 59, No. 4, 225-250. Lee, M.D., & Liu, S. (2023). Drafting strategies in fantasy football: A study of competitive sequential human decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 17, No. 4, 691-719. Mather, M., & Lighthall, N.R. (2012). Risk and Reward Are Processed Differently in Decisions Made Under Stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 21, No.1, 36-41. Padilla, L.M., Creem-Regehr, S.H., Hegarty, M., & Stefanucci, J.K. (2018). Decision making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, Vol. 3, No. 29, 1-25. Retrieved from https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-018-0120-9 Rigoli, F., & Dolan, R. (2018). Better than expected: the influence of option expectations during decision-making. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Vol. 285, No. 1893, 1-7. Tamura, K., & Masuda, N. (2015). Win-stay lose-shift strategy in formation changes in football. EJP Data Science, Vol. 4, No. 9, 1-19. Retrieved from https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-015-0045-1 Sippel, L.M., Pietrzak, R.H., Charney, D.S., Mayes, L.C., & Southwick, S.M. (2015). How does social support enhance resilience in the trauma-exposed individual? Ecology and Society, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1-10. Web Sites: Decision Science and Football: Part 1: Decision Trees. Retrieved March 18, 2025, from https://sumersports.com/the-zone/decision-science-and-football-part-1-decision-trees/ Decision Science and Football: Part 2: Decision Making Under Uncertainty. Retrieved March 18, 2025, from https://sumersports.com/the-zone/decision-science-and-football-part-2-decision-making-under-uncertainty/ Game Theory and Run/Pass Balance, By Brian Burke. Retrieved March 18, 2025, from https://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2008/06/game-theory-and-runpass-balance.html Understanding Decision Biases: Exploring the Cognitive Psychology of Normative vs. Descriptive Decision Making, By London Gate Economic Consulting. Retrieved March 18, 2025, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/understanding-decision-biases-exploring/
The Pennsylvania Career Ready Skills Continuum, PA CRS Grade Band (9-12) -Evaluate behaviors in relation to the impact on self and others. -Analyze adverse situations for the purpose of identifying and selecting healthy coping skills. Standard 6.1.12.C: Analyze the opportunity cost of decisions made by individuals, businesses, communities, and nations. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.11-12.2: Integrate multiple sources of information presented in diverse formats and media (e.g., visually, quantitatively, orally) in order to make informed decisions and solve problems, evaluating the credibility and accuracy of each source and noting any discrepancies among the date.Teaching Standards