Moral and Ethical Dimensions of Socioscientific Decision-Making as Integral Components of Scientific Literacy.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
An argument is made that socioscientific decision-making occupies a seminal place in and attention to morality and ethics must be included in the science curriculum. Science educators have appropriated many meanings for the phrase scientific literacy (Champagne & Lovitts, 1989). This paper advances an argument that in order to maintain the usefulness of such a malleable phrase, its users must explicitly address the context of its use. Based on the vision of science education articulated in standards documents from the United States (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990); (National Research Council, 1996) and abroad (Council of Ministers of Education Canada Pan-Canadian Science Project, 1997; Millar & Osborne, 1998; Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2001), this paper advances a conception of which involves the negotiation of socioscientific issues. In other words, becoming scientifically literate requires, at least in part, the ability to make informed decisions regarding socioscientific issues. Central to socioscientific issues are moral and ethical implications; therefore, the promotion of requires curricular attention to the moral and ethical implications of socioscientific issues. This paper reviews how the Science-Technology-Society movement has addressed socioscientific decision-making and outlines an alternative approach that more explicitly focuses on the moral and ethical implications of socioscientific issues. Scientific Literacy Ambiguity In the current era of standards and reform, the phrase scientific literacy has garnered a great deal of attention from the science education community. Despite the reform movement's emphasis on literacy, the architects of modern science education reform did not coin the phrase; in fact, it has appeared in the literature for almost fifty years. Paul Hurd is credited with first publishing the phrase in 1958, but the notion that underlies for all citizens can be traced back to at least the beginning of the century (Laugksch, 2000). Despite (or maybe because of) the fact that has been a part of the landscape of science education for a considerable length of time, its meaning remains mired in debate. In today's educational environment, scientific literacy has become the descriptor of science education's ultimate aims. In many ways, it has become the criterion for assessing curriculum and pedagogy; new approaches are evaluated by the extent to which they promote literacy. Consequently, researchers and practitioners have a tendency to conceptualize the construct in manners that support their own goals for education. In other words, educators substantiate their research and teaching agendas by linking them to the promotion of science literacy, which is frequently defined by their agendas (Champagne L DeBoer, 2000; Laugksch, 2000). This tautology leaves the field with many distinct perceptions of what entails. Most science educators would agree that promoting is a (if not the) primary goal of science education, but no such consensus exists regarding the meaning of itself. multiple definitions of tend to focus on three main areas: processes, knowledge, and attitudes (Jenkins, 1990). Attempts to operationalize typically appeal to at least one of these areas, and the arguments usually proceed along the following lines: The scientifically literate person accurately applies appropriate science concepts, principles, laws, and theories in interacting with his universe (Rubba & Andersen, 1978, p. 450). This particular example high-lights the knowledge dimension, but equally viable statements are made regarding the processes of science as well as attitudes towards science. Additionally, some delineations of combine multiple goals as in the case of equating the concept with building scientific habits of mind which involves processes, epistemic considerations, and attitudes (Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). …
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,063 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».