Exploring the application of an evolutionary educational complex systems framework to teaching and learning about issues in the science and technology classroom
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Understanding the world through a complex systems lens has recently garnered a great deal of interest in many knowledge disciplines. In the educational arena, interactional studies, through their focus on understanding patterns of system behaviour including the dynamical processes and trajectories of learning, lend support for investigating how a complex systems approach can inform educational research. This study uses previously existing literature and tools for complex systems applications and seeks to extend this research base by exploring learning outcomes of a complex systems framework when applied to curriculum and instruction. It is argued that by applying the evolutionary dynamics of variation, interaction and selection, complexity may be harnessed to achieve growth in both the social and cognitive systems of the classroom. Furthermore, if the goal of education, i.e., the social system under investigation, is to teach for understanding, conceptual knowledge of the kind described in Popper's (1972; 1976) World 3, needs to evolve. Both the study of memetic processes and knowledge building pioneered by Bereiter (cf. Bereiter, 2002) draw on the World 3 notion of ideas existing as conceptual artifacts that can be investigated as products outside of the individual mind providing an educational lens from which to proceed. The curricular topic addressed is the development of an ethical understanding of the scientific and technological issues of genetic engineering. 11 grade 8 students are studied as they proceed through 40 hours of curricular instruction based on the complex systems evolutionary framework. Results demonstrate growth in both complex systems thinking and content knowledge of the topic of genetic engineering. Several memetic processes are hypothesized to have influenced how and why ideas change. Categorized by factors influencing either reflective or non-reflective selection, these processes appear to have exerted differential effects on students' abilities to think and act in complex ways at various points throughout the study. Finally, an analysis of winner and loser memes is offered that is intended to reveal information about the conceptual system—its strengths and deficiencies—that can help educators assess curricular goals and organize and construct additional educational activities.
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 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 | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, 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 ».