Science and sociality: achieving the social dimensions of science through contextualization of secondary school classroom instruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This position paper is predicated on two focus areas. First, it recognises that scientific inquiry is performed in social situations and questions whether and how standard epistemology can be augmented to tackle this aspect. Within this focus, the goals of science education are reviewed. The second focus addresses sociality as an essential feature of knowledge and questions how standard epistemology can be reformed from this generally social perspective. Specifically, this study on one hand addresses the social dimension of science education, and on the other hand, examines the suitability of instructional contextualisation as a possible strategy to achieve the social dimensions of science education. The aim is to initiate a conversation about the importance of framing science education studies and experiences within the sociocultural context of interests and needs to achieve reliable participation of all concerned. To this end, this paper argues that science education ought to place considerable emphasis on students’ acquisition of values and skills of sociality. Furthermore, a comprehensive goal of science education should constitute both the normative and the non-normative aspects of science with a particular emphasis on the development of character formation, moral values, creativity skills and competences. There is, therefore, a need for an examination of the social dimensions of science education and its curriculum implications, especially as science education serves as the nexus between science and society.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".