- -

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 sencillo del ítem

Ficheros en el ítem

dc.contributor.author Carroll, La Shun L. es_ES
dc.date.accessioned 2020-05-18T09:38:14Z
dc.date.available 2020-05-18T09:38:14Z
dc.date.issued 2020-04-16
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/143529
dc.description.abstract [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 required to be scientifically literate, which will prepare the public to understand and engage with science meaningfully. An analytic-synthetic approach toward understanding the notion of public is taken using a theoretical biomimetics framework that identifies naturally occurring objects or phenomena that descriptively captures the essence of a construct to facilitate creative problemsolving. In the present case, the problem being solved is how to reconcile what is meant by public, how it ought to be interpreted, determining the diverse levels of confidence in science that exist, and various understandings of science all with one another. The results demonstrate there is an inherent denotative-connotative inconsistency in the traditional notion of public that can be explicated through the concept of a fractal allowing for comprehension of the relationship between public confidence in, and understanding of, science. es_ES
dc.language Inglés es_ES
dc.publisher Universitat Politècnica de València es_ES
dc.relation.ispartof Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences es_ES
dc.rights Reconocimiento - No comercial - Sin obra derivada (by-nc-nd) es_ES
dc.subject Curriculum es_ES
dc.subject Scientific literacy es_ES
dc.subject Science and the public es_ES
dc.subject Public understanding of science (PUS) es_ES
dc.subject Public engagement with science (PES) es_ES
dc.title Fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation: an evidence-supported curriculum targeting scientific literacy to increase public understanding and engagement in science es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.identifier.doi 10.4995/muse.2020.12787
dc.rights.accessRights Abierto es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation 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 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod OJS es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2020.12787 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 72 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 88 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.description.volume 7 es_ES
dc.description.issue 1 es_ES
dc.identifier.eissn 2341-2593
dc.relation.pasarela OJS\12787 es_ES
dc.description.references American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS). America; 2018. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references Stevenson A, Waite M. Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Luxury Edition. OUP Oxford; 2011. https://market.android.com/details. es_ES
dc.description.references Barker-Plummer D, Barwise J, Etchemendy J, et al. Language, proof, and logic (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications; 2011. es_ES
dc.description.references Toulmin SE. The uses of argument. 2003. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 13 978-0-511-06271-1. es_ES
dc.description.references Dunlap RE. Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction. The American Behavioral Scientist. 2013;57(6):691-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0002764213477097. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES
dc.description.references 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. es_ES


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

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem