- -

Fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation: an evidence-supported curriculum targeting scientific literacy to increase public understanding and engagement in science

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation: an evidence-supported curriculum targeting scientific literacy to increase public understanding and engagement in science

Mostrar el registro completo del ítem

Carroll, LSL. (2020). Fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation: an evidence-supported curriculum targeting scientific literacy to increase public understanding and engagement in science. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences. 7(1):72-88. https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2020.12787

Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/10251/143529

Ficheros en el ítem

Metadatos del ítem

Título: Fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation: an evidence-supported curriculum targeting scientific literacy to increase public understanding and engagement in science
Autor: Carroll, La Shun L.
Fecha difusión:
Resumen:
[EN] The purpose of this article is to present an evidence-supported curriculum covering the fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation skills to address the emphasized basic knowledge, skills, and abilities ...[+]
Palabras clave: Curriculum , Scientific literacy , Science and the public , Public understanding of science (PUS) , Public engagement with science (PES)
Derechos de uso: Reconocimiento - No comercial - Sin obra derivada (by-nc-nd)
Fuente:
Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences. (eissn: 2341-2593 )
DOI: 10.4995/muse.2020.12787
Editorial:
Universitat Politècnica de València
Versión del editor: https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2020.12787
Tipo: Artículo

References

American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS). America; 2018.

Diethelm P, McKee M. Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? European Journal of Public. 2009;19(1):2-4. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ ckn139.

Carroll LSL. Theoretical Biomimetics: A biological design-driven concept for creative applied to the optimal sequencing of active learning techniques in educational theory. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 4(2):80-96. https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2017.7078. [+]
American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS). America; 2018.

Diethelm P, McKee M. Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? European Journal of Public. 2009;19(1):2-4. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ ckn139.

Carroll LSL. Theoretical Biomimetics: A biological design-driven concept for creative applied to the optimal sequencing of active learning techniques in educational theory. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 4(2):80-96. https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2017.7078.

Stevenson A, Waite M. Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Luxury Edition. OUP Oxford; 2011. https://market.android.com/details.

Barker-Plummer D, Barwise J, Etchemendy J, et al. Language, proof, and logic (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications; 2011.

Toulmin SE. The uses of argument. 2003. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 13 978-0-511-06271-1.

Dunlap RE. Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction. The American Behavioral Scientist. 2013;57(6):691-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0002764213477097.

Mejlgaard N, Stares S. Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenship. Public Understanding of Science. 2009; 19(5):545-561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509335456.

Jones SK, Noyd RK, Sagendorf KS. (2015).Building a Pathway to Student Learning: A How-To Guide to Course Design. https://market.android.com/ details.

Suleski J, Ibaraki M. Scientists are talking, but mostly to each other: a quantitative analysis of research represented in mass media. Public Understanding of Science. 2010; 1(115-125). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508096776.

[-]

recommendations

 

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro completo del ítem