Envisioning Technological Literacy in Science Education: Building Sustainable Human-Technology-Lifeworld Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Present discourses on technology education are taking a positive and value-neutral approach with utilitarian and vocational overtones. The discourses generally lack discussions of human agency and human responsibility for techno-scientific activities and technological literacy. To support the emergence of a collective civic literacy, we argue in this text that technology education needs to take up critical and value-acknowledging aspects with emphasis on building sustainable relationships among human beings, technology, and lifeworld. To understand the relationship between human agency and modern technology, we examine the nature of technology in the dimensions of technology as causality and technology as a relationship of lifeworld. Discussing Martin Heidegger's perspectives on the causalities of technology, we question how the nature of technology situates human beings in power-related relationships to the world. Understanding technology as process and relationship of lifeworld, the paper extends its discussion of the responsibility of a dialectical human-technology-lifeworld relation based on a socio-technical and ethico-moral framework of technology. By recognizing human responsibility of and for modern technology, we outline a critical and reflective approach to technological literacy. The approach challenges the position of current approaches to technology in the attempt to provide a foundation for a contemporary pedagogy of technological awareness and values.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".