Science education as/for participation in the community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we take up and advance the project of rethinking “scientific literacy” by Eisenhart, Finkel, and Marion (American Educational Research Journal, 1996, 33, 261–295). As part of a project of rethinking science education, we advance three propositions. First, because society is built on division of labor, not everybody needs to know the same basic sets of concepts; it is more important to allow the emergence of scientific literacy as a collective property. Second, scientific knowledge ought not to be privileged in democratic collective decision making but ought to be one of many resources. Third, rethinking science education as and for participation in community life sets up the potential for lifelong participation in and learning of science‐related issues. To show the viability of these propositions, we provide a case study based on a 3‐year, multisite ethnographic research project as part of which we investigated science in the community. Framing our work in terms of activity theory, we provide descriptions of science in a local middle school, where students learn science while participating in a community effort to contribute to the knowledge base about a local creek. The children's activities are continuous with those of adults concerned about environmental health. In this way, rather than preparing for life after school, science education allows students to participate in legitimate ways in community life and therefore provides a starting point for uninterrupted lifelong learning across the presently existing boundary separating formal schooling from everyday life outside schools. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 88: 263–291, 2004; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/sce.10113
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".