Wolves in the Wild: Using Current Issues to Make Science Relevant.
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Although educators see science as a powerful way to understand the natural world, many students tend to see it as little more than a graduation requirement. As teachers, one of our most important responsibilities is to help students develop dynamic and useful views of science. Using current issues to create learning experiences can help generate student interest in science and help students appreciate its significance in both personal and societal contexts. The daily news, local paper, and internet provide an array of topics that can help bridge the gap between classroom science and students' personal lives. For example, last year's H1N1 outbreak can serve as the backdrop for exploring viruses and infectious diseases. A local point-source pollution site might segue into a lesson on chemical interactions. Natural disasters--brought on by earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes--can be a great introduction to fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. Teachers can use these events to highlight the relevance of science and teach meaningful content. Over the past couple of years, I (Jennie Post) have been fascinated by news headlines related to gray wolves in Yellowstone National Park. I began reading articles about the issue almost daily, and when it came time to start an ecology unit for my 10th-grade Introductory Biology class, I knew I wanted to use the gray wolf dispute as a starting point. After doing some background research, I designed a jigsaw-style lesson plan that allowed students to grapple with important ecological content and appreciate the diverse perspectives framing this debate. This article presents the lesson I developed and tips for using this lesson in your classroom. The history of Yellowstone wolves In 1926, the last wild gray wolf was killed in Yellowstone National Park. After roaming the Great Plains for years, their reign ended abruptly at the hands of hunters and a vast government extermination plan (to protect elk and moose populations) (Outland 2010). Almost 50 years later, in 1973, the federal government passed the Endangered Species Act to protect native wildlife. Gray wolves were added to the list of protected species one year later--though few wolves remained to protect. It was not until 1995 that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--with the help of scientists--reintroduced 14 Canadian gray wolves into Yellowstone (Johnson 2005). The reintroduction of gray wolves was met with great controversy. Many cattle ranchers were outraged about the release of predators onto neighboring lands. Environmentalists, on the other hand, celebrated the restoration of this keystone species to the natural ecosystem. The government declared that gray wolves would remain on the Endangered Species List--and therefore be protected from hunting--until the population reached stability (Frampton Jr. 1994). In March 2008, the wolves were removed from the Endangered Species List (i.e., delisted) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but a lawsuit challenged the legitimacy of this action. By late September, gray wolves were again placed under federal protection--a move that generated additional debate and attention from the White House. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service then delisted gray wolves again in May 2009 (Conservation Northwest 2009), and wolf-hunting season opened later that year in several western states. In August 2010, a federal judge in Montana ruled to vacate the delisting of gray wolves, placing them back under the protection of the Endangered Species Act (Barringer 2010). The debate is ongoing, as some stakeholders continue to work toward changing current policy. Context for learning science I chose to use Yellowstone gray wolves in my Introductory Biology class as a means of exploring ecological interdependence, the role of keystone predators, and the impact of human activities on ecosystems. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle