Moral and Ethical Dimensions of Socioscientific Decision-Making as Integral Components of Scientific Literacy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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). …
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".