学校科技风险教育研究
|
摘要
基于后现代知识理论和风险社会理论,本文提出并比较系统地研究了学校科技风险教育的理论及其课程和教学问题。
学校风险教育是指以课程或其他教学媒介形式进行的科技风险教育活动,它的基本目标是引导学生正确理解科学的作用,具备科技关涉的责任伦理意识,形成良好的科技风险素养。在全球风险社会背景下,开展科技风险教育,要帮助学生正确认识风险,理解各种风险产生的原因,正确看待风险存在的客观性,了解风险产生的科学、技术和社会各方面的原因,对风险有健康的心态,不恐惧风险；帮助学生学会风险分析的思路和简单技术。通过案例分析、制定评估方案等形式,使学生学会如何在风险和利益、成本和效益等社会、经济、精神、文化指标中作出权衡,进而了解风险决策的基本过程,为学生将来参与或影响风险管理创造条件；引导学生分析自身行为习惯,改正可能造成个人和环境不良后果的行为,如大量使用塑料袋、吸烟、过度饮酒、无保护性行为等等。
本文以中学生和大学生为对象,采用文献分析法、调查法、访谈法和案例分析法,研究了我国学生的风险意识、风险认知及风险决策水平和状况,根据对发达国家风险教育的优秀案例比较分析,提出了我国科技风险教育的目标及课程和教学构建设想。研究的主要结果如下：
一、科技风险意识。风险意识是一个综合的概念,是科技素养的构成部分。它着眼科学的有限性和科技的负面影响,反映了学生对科学技术与社会关系深入理解的程度,体现了学生对科学的本质及其风险性的基本看法,对风险分析的过程和方法的基本了解,以及对科学工作者的责任的基本认知。本研究从三个方面考察了大学生和中学生的科技风险意识：(1)科学价值的有限性。科学技术对于现代社会发展具有极其重要的促进作用,是当代世界发展的主要推动力。然而,科学并不是解决现实当中所有难题的唯一手段,许多社会问题仅仅依靠科学并不能得到根本解决。(2)科技的负面影响。科学能够造福人类,改善人们的生活条件；但高科技的发展在极大地丰富我们生活的同时,也对人类环境和健康造成了不可忽视的损害。新成果的应用具有一定的社会风险,这些风险带来的后果通常是未知的。(3)科学家的社会责任。科技发展带来了很多道德方面的问题,科学家不仅应当关心如何发现科学理论,也需要考虑科技成果的未来应用问题,对新科技成果的未来效应负道德责任。调查和访谈结果发现,我国学生总体上具备一定的风险素养,以平均答题正确率为指标的风险素养各维度得分依次是：科学价值的有限性(0.82)、科技的负面影响(0.77)、科学家的社会责任(0.73)。学业程度比较表明,大学生优于中学生,高中生好于初中生；而大学文理科生之间没有表现出明显的不同。
二、风险认知与风险决策。风险认知可以被不同的文化、组织或个人理解为与风险相联系的不同的心理图像或心理模型。他们来源于常识推理、个人经历、社会交往和文化传统,表达了个体对风险世界的感知及其发展变化趋向的态度。风险决策是指决策者在面临两个或两个以上不确定的决策后果,尤其是在面对伴有负面结果的可能性时,所产生的权衡取舍过程。风险认知是风险决策的心理基础,而决策者的风险认知特征直接影响到决策行为及其后果。本研究围绕放射性危害设计了调查问卷,以“核能发电”和“X光胸部透视”为风险认知客体,了解学生对不同性质的风险对象的认知和社会性价值判断倾向。就风险性质而言,核能发电是“恐怖性的高风险”,而X光胸部透视属“非恐怖性的低风险”；从两种科技的接受意愿上讲,核能发电是“非自愿性风险”,而X光胸部透视多属于自愿性风险。这两种风险对象的调查内容,分别由有用性、安全性、支持度评价,恐惧程度评价,以及灾害程度估计和事故责任归因等项目构成。调查结果主要有：(1)效用性评价特点。对两类风险科技的有用性评价上,学生总体认可程度较高。在高风险——非自愿议题(核电)上,三类学生回答均趋向于高效用性评价(平均91%),与中国普通公众调查结果(94%)基本一致；在低风险——自愿议题(X光胸透)上,学生评价(80%)与普通公众(97%)相比要低一些。部分原因可能与学生较少接受X光胸透有关,预示着对自愿性风险科技的选择与使用的频繁程度及对效用的直接认识有某种关联。(2)不安全感评价特点。对于核电的不安全感学生有比较高的表现,均在75%以上,这与我国公众调查结果(35%)差别较大。对X光胸透的不安全感表现出相同趋势,74%的学生表现出不安全感,而公众中不安全感仅占28%。(3)风险决策模式。我国学生与中、美、日公众对两类风险客体的决策模式有一些差别。学生对核电的支持程度较高,并符合非理性——冒险模式,在有用和风险并存的情况下更倾向于选择有用：对X光胸透的支持率较低,符合理性——否定模式。通过技术评价调查可以反映出,学生对技术好恶的评价还是缺乏客观性的,尤其是对低风险项目存在着追求理想化的倾向。
三、学校科技风险教育的目标。本文提出了学校科技风险教育的十个目标：(1)面临健康或环境风险,学生能够表现出理性的决策过程；(2)学生应该能够评价用来估计风险的类型和大小的科学方法的优点和不足；(3)学生应该能够解释风险的科学估计结果；(4)学生应该能够评价大众媒体如何影响他们以及其他人对风险的认知；(5)学生应该能够评价家庭和朋友的观点和行为如何影响他们以及其他人对风险的认知；(6)学生应该能够评价个人偏见如何影响他们或其他人对于风险大小的判断；(7)学生应该能够评价风险的特征如何影响他们以及其他人对风险的认知；(8)学生应该能够评价个体对风险的知觉如何影响他们以及其他人对相关益处的认知；(9)能够识别信息资源,从这些资源中重新获得信息,恰当地评估和应用这些信息；(10)能够识别(鉴别)有关风险管理的中介机构、组织或群体；找到影响这些中介机构、组织或群体的机会；面临对社会和环境有重大影响的健康或环境风险决策时参与风险管理。
四、课程与教学建构。本文提出四项科学风险教育建议：(1)科学课堂中增加风险讨论的内容,把科技风险教育整合入科学课程；(2)借鉴项目学习树“聚焦风险”等项目,开发公共风险教育的课程资源；(3)在学校中开展风险教育活动,大学中可以设置专题论坛；(4)提高科学教师的科技风险素养。
Based on the Theory of Post-modern Knowledge and the Risk Society Theory, this paper puts forward and systematically studies the school technology risk education theory as well as the problems concerning the courses and teaching.
School risk education refers to the technology risk education activities conducted in the ways of course or other teaching media. The fundamental objective of school risk education is to guide students to correct understanding of the role of science, make them have the awareness of ethic of responsibility with technology involved and allow them to form good technology risk attainments. In the global risk social background, technology risk education shall be conducted to help students correctly understand risks, comprehend the causes of the occurrence of all kinds of risks, correctly treat the objectiveness of the existence of risks, understand the causes of the occurrence of risks regarding science, technology and all quarters of the society, have a healthy attitude towards risks, not be afraid of risks and learn the train of thought and simple skill in risk analysis. Through case study, drawing up evaluation scheme and other forms, this paper enables students to learn how to make balance between risks and benefits, cost and profits and other social, economic, spirit and cultural indicators and allows them to understand the basic process of risk decision, which creates conditions for students to participate in or influence risk management; it teaches students to analyze their own behaviors and habits and correct the behaviors that may bring about negative effects on the individual and the environment, such as overuse of plastic bags, smoking, excessive drinking, unprotected sexual behavior etc.
Aimed at middle school students and college students, this paper, adopting document analysis method, survey method, interview method and case analysis method, makes a study on the level and status of Chinese students'risk attainments, risk perception and risk decision. According to the comparative analysis on the excellent cases of risk education in developed countries, this paper proposes the objective, courses and teaching structure ideas of technology risk education in China. The main results of the study are as follows:
I. The risk awarenes. As a comprehensive concept, technology risk risk awarenes is a part of technological literacy. Taking the finiteness of science and the negative effects of technology into account, it reflects students'degree of deep understanding of the relationship between science and technology and social relations; it embodies students' basic views on the nature of science and the risks, basic understanding of process and methods of risk analysis as well as basic cognition of the responsibilities of scientific workers. This paper makes an investigation into the technology risk attainment of college students and middle school students from three aspects:(1) Finiteness of scientific value. Science and technology plays an important role in facilitating the development of modern society and it is the main impetus for the development of the contemporary world. However, science is not the only means of solving all problems in the real world, as many social problems cannot be thoroughly settled only relying on science.(2) Negative effects of science and technology. Science can benefit mankind and improve people's living conditions. On the other hand, the development of high-tech tremendously enriches our life and at the same time brings about harm that cannot be neglected to the human environment and health. The application of new achievement has certain social risks and the effects of such risks are generally unknown (3) Social responsibilities of scientists. As the development of science and technology brings about many moral problems, scientists shall not only care how to find scientific theories but also consider the future application of scientific and technological achievements and take moral responsibilities for the future effects of new scientific and technological achievements. According to the survey and interview results, Chinese students have certain risk attainment as a whole. The scores of each r risk awarenes dimension that takes the average answer accuracy rate as the indicator are as follows respectively:finiteness of scientific value (0.82), negative effects of science and technology (0.77), social responsibilities of scientists (0.73). The comparison of academic degrees shows that college students are superior to middle school students and senior high school students are better than junior high school students, while there are no obvious differences between college students of arts and students of science.
II.Risk perception and risk decision. The risk perception may be construed as different mental images or mental models associated with the risks by different cultures, organizations or individuals. They are from commonsense reasoning, personal experience and cultural tradition for expressing perceptions of the individuals to the risky world and attitudes to the developing tendency. The risk decision refers to a trade-off process when a decision maker faces two or more uncertain decision consequences, especially facing the possibility with negative results. The risk reception is a psychological basis of the risk decision, while the risk perception features of the decision maker directly influence the decision-making behavior and its consequence. This study designs a questionnaire around radioactive hazards with "nuclear energy power generation" and "chest X-ray" as risk perception objects for learning about the perception and social value judgment tendency of students to different types of risk objects. For the risk nature, the nuclear energy power generation is a "terroristic high risk", while the chest X-ray belongs to a "non-terroristic high risk". In the willingness to accept of two technologies, the nuclear energy power generation is an "involuntary risk", while the chest X-ray mostly belongs to a voluntary risk. The survey contents of two kinds of risk objects are respectively composed of usefulness, security, support evaluation, fear level evaluation, damage degree estimation and accident liability attribution, etc. The findings are mainly as follows:(1) Effectiveness evaluation features. Students have higher general acceptance degree on the usefulness evaluation of two types of risk technologies. On the high-risk involuntary issue (nuclear power), three groups of students tend to high effectiveness evaluations (91%on average), which are basically consistent with the Chinese general public survey results (94%). On the low-risk voluntary issue (chest X-ray), the student evaluations (80%) are lower than the general publics (97%). Part of the reason may be related to the situation that fewer students accept chest X-ray, which indicates that the selection of the voluntary risk technology is linked with the use frequency and direct effectiveness cognition.(2) Insecurity evaluation features. For insecurity to the nuclear power, the students have a relatively high performance of more than75%that is greatly different from our public survey results (35%). The insecurity to the chest X-ray shows the same tendency, on which74%of students show insecurity, while only28%of publics show insecurity. And (3) risk decision-making mode. There are some differences between our students and publics of China, the United States and Japan on the decision-making mode. Students have higher support degree to the nuclear power, which fits the irrational-adventure mode, and more tend to choose usefulness in the coexistence of usefulness and risk. Students have lower support rate to the chest X-ray, which fits the rational-negation mode. Through the technical evaluation surveys, it is reflected that the students' evaluation to the technology is also lack of objectivity, especially having an idealization pursuing tendency to the low-risk projects.
III. Goals of school technological risk education. This article expresses the following ten goals of the school technological risk education:(1) when facing health or environmental risks, students are able to show a rational decision-making process;(2) students should be able to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of a scientific method for evaluating the type and size of the risks;(3) students should be able to explain scientific estimation results of the risks;(4) students should be able to evaluate how the mass media affect them and the risk perception of the others;(5) students should be able to evaluate how opinions and behaviors of the family and friends affect them and the risk perception of the others;(6) students should be able to evaluate how the personal bias affects them or the risk size judgment of the others;(7) students should be able to evaluate how the risk features affect them and the risk perception of the others;(8) students should be able to evaluate how the individual risk perception affects them and the perception of the others to the related benefits;(9) students should be able to identify information resources, to obtain information from these resources, and to properly estimate and apply these information; and (10) students should be able to recognize (identify) the intermediaries, organizations or groups related to the risk management, and to participate in the risk management when facing significant social and environmental health or environmental risk decisions.
IV. Curriculum and teaching construction. This article offers the following four technological risk education suggestions:(1) add a risk discussion content to the science classroom, and integrate the technological risk education into the scientific curriculum;(2) develop curriculum resources of the public risk education by projects such as the project learning tree for establishing "focus on risk";(3) carry out risk education activities in schools, and set seminars in the universities; and (4) improve the technological risk literacy of science teachers.
学校风险教育是指以课程或其他教学媒介形式进行的科技风险教育活动,它的基本目标是引导学生正确理解科学的作用,具备科技关涉的责任伦理意识,形成良好的科技风险素养。在全球风险社会背景下,开展科技风险教育,要帮助学生正确认识风险,理解各种风险产生的原因,正确看待风险存在的客观性,了解风险产生的科学、技术和社会各方面的原因,对风险有健康的心态,不恐惧风险；帮助学生学会风险分析的思路和简单技术。通过案例分析、制定评估方案等形式,使学生学会如何在风险和利益、成本和效益等社会、经济、精神、文化指标中作出权衡,进而了解风险决策的基本过程,为学生将来参与或影响风险管理创造条件；引导学生分析自身行为习惯,改正可能造成个人和环境不良后果的行为,如大量使用塑料袋、吸烟、过度饮酒、无保护性行为等等。
本文以中学生和大学生为对象,采用文献分析法、调查法、访谈法和案例分析法,研究了我国学生的风险意识、风险认知及风险决策水平和状况,根据对发达国家风险教育的优秀案例比较分析,提出了我国科技风险教育的目标及课程和教学构建设想。研究的主要结果如下：
一、科技风险意识。风险意识是一个综合的概念,是科技素养的构成部分。它着眼科学的有限性和科技的负面影响,反映了学生对科学技术与社会关系深入理解的程度,体现了学生对科学的本质及其风险性的基本看法,对风险分析的过程和方法的基本了解,以及对科学工作者的责任的基本认知。本研究从三个方面考察了大学生和中学生的科技风险意识：(1)科学价值的有限性。科学技术对于现代社会发展具有极其重要的促进作用,是当代世界发展的主要推动力。然而,科学并不是解决现实当中所有难题的唯一手段,许多社会问题仅仅依靠科学并不能得到根本解决。(2)科技的负面影响。科学能够造福人类,改善人们的生活条件；但高科技的发展在极大地丰富我们生活的同时,也对人类环境和健康造成了不可忽视的损害。新成果的应用具有一定的社会风险,这些风险带来的后果通常是未知的。(3)科学家的社会责任。科技发展带来了很多道德方面的问题,科学家不仅应当关心如何发现科学理论,也需要考虑科技成果的未来应用问题,对新科技成果的未来效应负道德责任。调查和访谈结果发现,我国学生总体上具备一定的风险素养,以平均答题正确率为指标的风险素养各维度得分依次是：科学价值的有限性(0.82)、科技的负面影响(0.77)、科学家的社会责任(0.73)。学业程度比较表明,大学生优于中学生,高中生好于初中生；而大学文理科生之间没有表现出明显的不同。
二、风险认知与风险决策。风险认知可以被不同的文化、组织或个人理解为与风险相联系的不同的心理图像或心理模型。他们来源于常识推理、个人经历、社会交往和文化传统,表达了个体对风险世界的感知及其发展变化趋向的态度。风险决策是指决策者在面临两个或两个以上不确定的决策后果,尤其是在面对伴有负面结果的可能性时,所产生的权衡取舍过程。风险认知是风险决策的心理基础,而决策者的风险认知特征直接影响到决策行为及其后果。本研究围绕放射性危害设计了调查问卷,以“核能发电”和“X光胸部透视”为风险认知客体,了解学生对不同性质的风险对象的认知和社会性价值判断倾向。就风险性质而言,核能发电是“恐怖性的高风险”,而X光胸部透视属“非恐怖性的低风险”；从两种科技的接受意愿上讲,核能发电是“非自愿性风险”,而X光胸部透视多属于自愿性风险。这两种风险对象的调查内容,分别由有用性、安全性、支持度评价,恐惧程度评价,以及灾害程度估计和事故责任归因等项目构成。调查结果主要有：(1)效用性评价特点。对两类风险科技的有用性评价上,学生总体认可程度较高。在高风险——非自愿议题(核电)上,三类学生回答均趋向于高效用性评价(平均91%),与中国普通公众调查结果(94%)基本一致；在低风险——自愿议题(X光胸透)上,学生评价(80%)与普通公众(97%)相比要低一些。部分原因可能与学生较少接受X光胸透有关,预示着对自愿性风险科技的选择与使用的频繁程度及对效用的直接认识有某种关联。(2)不安全感评价特点。对于核电的不安全感学生有比较高的表现,均在75%以上,这与我国公众调查结果(35%)差别较大。对X光胸透的不安全感表现出相同趋势,74%的学生表现出不安全感,而公众中不安全感仅占28%。(3)风险决策模式。我国学生与中、美、日公众对两类风险客体的决策模式有一些差别。学生对核电的支持程度较高,并符合非理性——冒险模式,在有用和风险并存的情况下更倾向于选择有用：对X光胸透的支持率较低,符合理性——否定模式。通过技术评价调查可以反映出,学生对技术好恶的评价还是缺乏客观性的,尤其是对低风险项目存在着追求理想化的倾向。
三、学校科技风险教育的目标。本文提出了学校科技风险教育的十个目标：(1)面临健康或环境风险,学生能够表现出理性的决策过程；(2)学生应该能够评价用来估计风险的类型和大小的科学方法的优点和不足；(3)学生应该能够解释风险的科学估计结果；(4)学生应该能够评价大众媒体如何影响他们以及其他人对风险的认知；(5)学生应该能够评价家庭和朋友的观点和行为如何影响他们以及其他人对风险的认知；(6)学生应该能够评价个人偏见如何影响他们或其他人对于风险大小的判断；(7)学生应该能够评价风险的特征如何影响他们以及其他人对风险的认知；(8)学生应该能够评价个体对风险的知觉如何影响他们以及其他人对相关益处的认知；(9)能够识别信息资源,从这些资源中重新获得信息,恰当地评估和应用这些信息；(10)能够识别(鉴别)有关风险管理的中介机构、组织或群体；找到影响这些中介机构、组织或群体的机会；面临对社会和环境有重大影响的健康或环境风险决策时参与风险管理。
四、课程与教学建构。本文提出四项科学风险教育建议：(1)科学课堂中增加风险讨论的内容,把科技风险教育整合入科学课程；(2)借鉴项目学习树“聚焦风险”等项目,开发公共风险教育的课程资源；(3)在学校中开展风险教育活动,大学中可以设置专题论坛；(4)提高科学教师的科技风险素养。
Based on the Theory of Post-modern Knowledge and the Risk Society Theory, this paper puts forward and systematically studies the school technology risk education theory as well as the problems concerning the courses and teaching.
School risk education refers to the technology risk education activities conducted in the ways of course or other teaching media. The fundamental objective of school risk education is to guide students to correct understanding of the role of science, make them have the awareness of ethic of responsibility with technology involved and allow them to form good technology risk attainments. In the global risk social background, technology risk education shall be conducted to help students correctly understand risks, comprehend the causes of the occurrence of all kinds of risks, correctly treat the objectiveness of the existence of risks, understand the causes of the occurrence of risks regarding science, technology and all quarters of the society, have a healthy attitude towards risks, not be afraid of risks and learn the train of thought and simple skill in risk analysis. Through case study, drawing up evaluation scheme and other forms, this paper enables students to learn how to make balance between risks and benefits, cost and profits and other social, economic, spirit and cultural indicators and allows them to understand the basic process of risk decision, which creates conditions for students to participate in or influence risk management; it teaches students to analyze their own behaviors and habits and correct the behaviors that may bring about negative effects on the individual and the environment, such as overuse of plastic bags, smoking, excessive drinking, unprotected sexual behavior etc.
Aimed at middle school students and college students, this paper, adopting document analysis method, survey method, interview method and case analysis method, makes a study on the level and status of Chinese students'risk attainments, risk perception and risk decision. According to the comparative analysis on the excellent cases of risk education in developed countries, this paper proposes the objective, courses and teaching structure ideas of technology risk education in China. The main results of the study are as follows:
I. The risk awarenes. As a comprehensive concept, technology risk risk awarenes is a part of technological literacy. Taking the finiteness of science and the negative effects of technology into account, it reflects students'degree of deep understanding of the relationship between science and technology and social relations; it embodies students' basic views on the nature of science and the risks, basic understanding of process and methods of risk analysis as well as basic cognition of the responsibilities of scientific workers. This paper makes an investigation into the technology risk attainment of college students and middle school students from three aspects:(1) Finiteness of scientific value. Science and technology plays an important role in facilitating the development of modern society and it is the main impetus for the development of the contemporary world. However, science is not the only means of solving all problems in the real world, as many social problems cannot be thoroughly settled only relying on science.(2) Negative effects of science and technology. Science can benefit mankind and improve people's living conditions. On the other hand, the development of high-tech tremendously enriches our life and at the same time brings about harm that cannot be neglected to the human environment and health. The application of new achievement has certain social risks and the effects of such risks are generally unknown (3) Social responsibilities of scientists. As the development of science and technology brings about many moral problems, scientists shall not only care how to find scientific theories but also consider the future application of scientific and technological achievements and take moral responsibilities for the future effects of new scientific and technological achievements. According to the survey and interview results, Chinese students have certain risk attainment as a whole. The scores of each r risk awarenes dimension that takes the average answer accuracy rate as the indicator are as follows respectively:finiteness of scientific value (0.82), negative effects of science and technology (0.77), social responsibilities of scientists (0.73). The comparison of academic degrees shows that college students are superior to middle school students and senior high school students are better than junior high school students, while there are no obvious differences between college students of arts and students of science.
II.Risk perception and risk decision. The risk perception may be construed as different mental images or mental models associated with the risks by different cultures, organizations or individuals. They are from commonsense reasoning, personal experience and cultural tradition for expressing perceptions of the individuals to the risky world and attitudes to the developing tendency. The risk decision refers to a trade-off process when a decision maker faces two or more uncertain decision consequences, especially facing the possibility with negative results. The risk reception is a psychological basis of the risk decision, while the risk perception features of the decision maker directly influence the decision-making behavior and its consequence. This study designs a questionnaire around radioactive hazards with "nuclear energy power generation" and "chest X-ray" as risk perception objects for learning about the perception and social value judgment tendency of students to different types of risk objects. For the risk nature, the nuclear energy power generation is a "terroristic high risk", while the chest X-ray belongs to a "non-terroristic high risk". In the willingness to accept of two technologies, the nuclear energy power generation is an "involuntary risk", while the chest X-ray mostly belongs to a voluntary risk. The survey contents of two kinds of risk objects are respectively composed of usefulness, security, support evaluation, fear level evaluation, damage degree estimation and accident liability attribution, etc. The findings are mainly as follows:(1) Effectiveness evaluation features. Students have higher general acceptance degree on the usefulness evaluation of two types of risk technologies. On the high-risk involuntary issue (nuclear power), three groups of students tend to high effectiveness evaluations (91%on average), which are basically consistent with the Chinese general public survey results (94%). On the low-risk voluntary issue (chest X-ray), the student evaluations (80%) are lower than the general publics (97%). Part of the reason may be related to the situation that fewer students accept chest X-ray, which indicates that the selection of the voluntary risk technology is linked with the use frequency and direct effectiveness cognition.(2) Insecurity evaluation features. For insecurity to the nuclear power, the students have a relatively high performance of more than75%that is greatly different from our public survey results (35%). The insecurity to the chest X-ray shows the same tendency, on which74%of students show insecurity, while only28%of publics show insecurity. And (3) risk decision-making mode. There are some differences between our students and publics of China, the United States and Japan on the decision-making mode. Students have higher support degree to the nuclear power, which fits the irrational-adventure mode, and more tend to choose usefulness in the coexistence of usefulness and risk. Students have lower support rate to the chest X-ray, which fits the rational-negation mode. Through the technical evaluation surveys, it is reflected that the students' evaluation to the technology is also lack of objectivity, especially having an idealization pursuing tendency to the low-risk projects.
III. Goals of school technological risk education. This article expresses the following ten goals of the school technological risk education:(1) when facing health or environmental risks, students are able to show a rational decision-making process;(2) students should be able to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of a scientific method for evaluating the type and size of the risks;(3) students should be able to explain scientific estimation results of the risks;(4) students should be able to evaluate how the mass media affect them and the risk perception of the others;(5) students should be able to evaluate how opinions and behaviors of the family and friends affect them and the risk perception of the others;(6) students should be able to evaluate how the personal bias affects them or the risk size judgment of the others;(7) students should be able to evaluate how the risk features affect them and the risk perception of the others;(8) students should be able to evaluate how the individual risk perception affects them and the perception of the others to the related benefits;(9) students should be able to identify information resources, to obtain information from these resources, and to properly estimate and apply these information; and (10) students should be able to recognize (identify) the intermediaries, organizations or groups related to the risk management, and to participate in the risk management when facing significant social and environmental health or environmental risk decisions.
IV. Curriculum and teaching construction. This article offers the following four technological risk education suggestions:(1) add a risk discussion content to the science classroom, and integrate the technological risk education into the scientific curriculum;(2) develop curriculum resources of the public risk education by projects such as the project learning tree for establishing "focus on risk";(3) carry out risk education activities in schools, and set seminars in the universities; and (4) improve the technological risk literacy of science teachers.
引文
①沈致远.问题重于答案——25个挑战性的科学问题[J].科学杂志,2004(1).
②鲁洁.科学教育的人文观照[J].江苏高教,1997(5)：
③麦考利(Thomas Babington Macaulay,1800-1859)是英国维多利亚时期著名的散文家,以《英国的历史》等作品著名。贝尔纳在前文中引述了麦考利在《论培根》一文中关于“科学的功能便是普遍造福于人类”的论述。
④J.D.贝尔纳.科学的社会功能[M].陈体芳译,张今校.北京：商务印书馆,1982：37.
①波普尔.科学革命的合理性[J].世界科学,1979(8).
②周战超.当代西方风险社会理论引述[[J].马克思主义与现实,2003(3)：53-59
③方华基,许为民.科技风险识别差异及其治理：以纳米科技发展为例[J].自然辩证法研究,2011,27(6)：77-82.
④乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会[M].何博闻,译.南京：译林出版社,2004：31.
①赵万里.科学的社会建构[M].天津：天津人民出版社,2002：26-41.
② Solbes J.,Traver M. Against a Negative Image of Science: History of Science and the Teaching of Physics and Chemistry[J].Science and Education,2003,12:703-717.
③M·戈德史密斯.科学的科学——技术时代的社会[M].赵红州,蒋国华译.北京：科学出版社,1995：27.
④ Scheufele, D. A., Lewenstein, B. V. The public and nanotechnology:How citizens make sense of emerging technologies[J]. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,2005,7:659-667.
⑤ Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., et al. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S.[J]. Science,1999,285:384-387.
① Pouliot, C. Using the deficit model, public debate model and co-production of knowledge models to interpret points of view of students concerning citizens'participation in socioscientific issues[J]. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education,2009,4,49-73.
② Covitt, B. A., Gomez-Schmidt, C., Zint, M. T. An evaluation of the risk education module. Journal of Environmental Education,2005,36(2),3-13.
①修圆慧.中国近代科学观研究[D].黑龙江大学,2007：164.
②费多益.风险技术的社会控制[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,20(3)：83-89.
③安东尼·吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].南京：译林出版社,2000：109-110.
④乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会[M].何博闻,译.南京：译林出版社.2004.
⑤ Renn,O. Concepts of Risk:A classification[A]. In:Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, Westport/London,1992:53-79.
①孙治本.生殖科技与人类关系——转变人类本性之力量及其风险[C].载刘东主编,中国学术,2004年第一辑,北京：商务印书馆.130-157.
②丙烯酰胺(acrylamide)是一种白色晶体物质,主要用于水的净化处理、纸浆的加工及管道的内涂层等。人体可通过消化道、呼吸道、皮肤粘膜等多种途径接触丙烯酰胺,饮水是其中的一种重要接触途径。由于丙烯酰胺具有潜在的神经毒性、遗传毒性和致癌性,为此WHO将水中丙烯酰胺的含量限定为1μg几。2002年4月斯德哥尔摩大学研究报道,炸薯条中丙烯酰胺含量较WHO推荐的饮水中允许的最大限量要高出500多倍,认为食物为人类丙烯酰胺的主要来源。此后,食品中丙烯酰胺的污染引起了国际社会和各国政府的高度关注。
③潘斌.风险社会与责任伦理[J].伦理学研究,2006(3)：15-19.
④乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会[M].何博闻,译.南京：译林出版社,2004.
① Klinke A., Renn O. Systemic Risks as Challenge for Policy Making in Risk Governance. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:Qualitative Social Research [Online Journal],2006,7(1), Art.33. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/64/131.
②吴春燕,郝建锋.景观破碎化与生物多样性的相关性[J].安徽农业科学,2011,39,(5)：9245-9247.
① van Asselt, M. B. A. Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk[M]. Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, MA.2000.
② IRGC. White Paper on Risk Governance. Towards an Integrative Approach. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva.2005:30.
①[美]莫蒂默.艾德勒,查尔斯.范多伦.西方思想宝库[M].吉林人民出版社,1988：390.
②费多益.科技风险的社会接纳[J].自然辩证法研究,2004,20(10)：91-94.
③赵万里.科学技术与社会风险[J].科学技术与辩证法,1998,15(3)：50-55.
④刘郦,扬力行.科学技术的社会构成：风险与风险分析[J].自然辩证法通讯,2007,29(1)：48-52.
①刘郦,扬力行.科学技术的社会构成：风险与风险分析[J].自然辩证法通讯,2007,29(1)：48-52.
②Charles Perrow. Normal accidents:living with high-risk technologies. New York:Basic Books,1984.
① IRGC. White Paper on Risk Governance. Towards an Integrative Approach. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva.2005:31.
② Richard, D. E. Risk literacy:Is it missing link in environmental education? The Journal of Environmental Education,1994,25(1),8-12.
①陈发俊,史玉民,徐飞.美国米勒公民科学素养测评指标体系的形成与演变[J].科普研究,2009,(2)：41-45.
② Jon D. Miller. Theory and Measurement in the Public Understanding of Science: a Rejoinder to Bauer and Schoon [J]. Public Understanding of Science,1993 (2):235-243.
②中国科学技术协会,中国科普研究所.2003年我国公众科学素养调查主要结果[R].http://www.kxsz.org.cn/cms/contentmanager.do?method=view&pageid=view&id=cms0caeac34c8282
① Richard, D. E. (1994). Risk literacy:Is it missing link in environmental education? The Journal of Environmental Education,25(1),8-12.
② Michaela T. Zint. Advancing Environmental Risk Education [J].Risk Analysis,2001,21(3):417-426.
③ Peter Shearn. Teaching practice in safety education:qualitative evidence[J]. Research Papers in Education,2006, 21,(3):335-359.
①杨跃.面向风险社会的学校科技教育.思想理论教育,2006,(12)：13-16.
②姜义飞.当代学校风险教育及其方法 论审视[J].江苏广播电视大学学报,2009,20(1)：88-90.
③黄东升,易连云.风险社会语境下的大学生风险教育研究[J].西南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2011,9(9)：187-189.
④庞波.风险社会视域下的大学生危机意识教育[J].中国高教研究,2011,(7)：67-70.
① Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, et al. How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Toward Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences,1978,9:127-152.
① Hongxian Ma, Guofang Zhai, Shoji Tsuchida.Empirical Research on Risk Literacy and Perception of Undergraduates in Mainland China - A Case of BSE[A]. In:Beyond Experience in Risk Analysis and Crisis Response——Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Risk Analysis and Crisis Response Laredo, Texas, USA),2011-05-22:233-238.
②庄锦英.决策心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2006.6-11.
① Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect Theory:An analysis of decision under risk. Econornetrica.1979,47(2): 263-292.
② Li S. Equate-to-differentiate theory:A coherent bi-choice model across certainty, uncertainty and risk[J]. University of New South Wales.1994:211-217.
① Ravindra Kamath, Parichat Pianpaktr, Arjun Chatrath. et al. Teaching How Size and Industry Affiliation Affect Portfolio Risk.FINANCIAL PRACTICE AND EDUCATION—SPRING/SUMMER,1996
② Graham Schleyera, Rui Fang Duana, Julian Williamsonb et al. Assessing the awareness of risk concepts by new engineering students[J].International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education,2007,35(3):184-197.
③ Peter Shearn. Teaching practice in safety education:qualitative evidence[J]. Research Papers in Education,2006, 21,(3):335-359.
Richard, D. E. Risk literacy:Is it missing link in environmental education? The Journal of Environmental Education,1994,25(1),8-12.
④ Michaela T. Zint. Advancing Environmental Risk Education [J].Risk Analysis,2001,21(3):417-426.
①[美]索尔蒂斯.教育与知识的概念[A].瞿葆奎.智育[C].北京：人民教育出版社,1993.62.
②[美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳,斯蒂文·贝斯特.后现代理论[M].张志斌,译.北京：中央编译出版社,2004：215.
③姚文峰.后现代主义知识观及其对教育的启示[J].教育探索,2004,(7)：3
①何小微.后现代知识观及其教育启示[J].现代教育科学,2006(1).
②余华东.走上神坛、走下神坛的科学[J].科学对社会的影响.2003,(3)：47-50.
③石中英.知识转型与教育改革[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2001：150.
④普利高津.对科学的挑战[A].湛垦华,沈小峰.普利高津与耗散结构理论[C].西安：陕西科学出版社,1998：215.
⑤文兵.面向复杂性：福柯的后现代知识观[J].首都师范大学学报(社会科学版),2004,(2)：35-38.
①[英]巴里·巴恩斯.科学知识：一种社会学的分析[M].刑冬梅,蔡仲,译.南京：南京大学出版社,2004：3.
①[英]迈克尔·波兰尼.个人知识：迈向后批判哲学[M].许泽民,译.贵阳：贵州人民出版社,2000：54.
②爱因斯坦.爱因斯坦文集(第1卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1977：314.
③[美]史蒂文·温伯格.科学能够解释一切吗?[J]科学文化评论,2006,3(5)：52-62.
④[法]埃德加·莫兰.复杂思想：自觉的科学[M].陈一壮,译.北京：北京大学出版社,2001：276.
⑤[美]斯蒂芬·贝斯特,道格拉斯·科尔纳.后现代转向[M].陈钢等,译.南京：南京大学出版社,2002：284.
①[美]约翰·霍根.科学的终结[M].孙雍君,译.呼和浩特：远方出版社,1997：70.
②郑祥福.从马克思主义的观点看后现代科学认识论[J].哲学研究,2007,(5)：79-84.
③潘新民,张薇薇.必须走出后现代知识观——试论科学知识教育的作用与价值[J].教育学报,2006,2(4)：18-21.
①贝克.从工业社会到风险社会(上篇)[J]1 王武龙(译)1马克思主义与现实,2003,(3)：33
②[德]乌尔利希·贝克.风险社会政治学[J].马克思主义与现实,2005
①[德]乌尔利希·贝克.自由与资本主义[M].杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001.129
①[德]乌尔里希·贝克.世界风险社会[M].吴英姿、孙淑敏译.南京：南京大学出版社,2004.24
③潘斌.风险社会与责任伦理.伦理学研究,2006(3)：15-16
④刘小枫.现代性社会绪论——现代性与现代中国[M].上海：三联书店,2000.47
⑤刘莹.贝克“风险社会”理论及其对当代中国的启示.国外理论动态·2008年第1期83-86
⑥程新英,柴淑芹.风险社会及现代发展中的风险——乌尔利希·贝克风险社会思想述评.学术论坛,2006(2)：141-144
①[德]乌尔利希·贝克.从工业社会到风险社会：生存问题、社会结构与生态启蒙[A].梁展.全球化话语[C].上海：上海三联书店,2002.55
②[德]乌尔利希·贝克.风险社会政治学[J].马克思主义与现实,2005,(3).
③[德]乌尔利希·贝克.风险社会政治学[J].马克思主义与现实,2005,(3)
④[德]乌尔利希·贝克.从工业社会到风险社会：生存问题、社会结构与生态启蒙[A].梁展.全球化话语[C].上海：上海三联书店,2002.59
⑤[德]乌尔利希·贝克.自由与资本主义[M].杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001.125
①许志晋,毛宝铭.论科技风险的产生与治理.科学学研究.2006(4)：488-490.
②赫伯特·马尔库塞.单向度的人[M].刘继,译.上海：上海译文出版社,1989：143
③[美]戴维·玻姆：论创造力[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社.2001.8.
④[英]卡尔·波普尔：猜想与反驳[M].杭州：中国美术学院出版社.2003.133.
⑤[英]卡尔·波普尔：客观的知识——一个进化论的研究[M].杭州：中国美术学院出版社.2003.296-297.
⑥汤建民.论科技双刃剑效应产生之成因.自然辩证法通讯,2005,27(3)：
①刘松涛,李建会.断裂、不确定性与风险——试析科技风险及其伦理规避.白然辩证法研究,2008,24(2)：20-25
②让娜·帕朗维亚尔.自然科学的哲学[M].张来举,译.长沙：中南工业大学出版社,1987.53
③ Latour, B., and Woolgar, S, Laboratory Life:The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,1986.
④赵万里.科学的社会建构[M].天津：天津人民出版社,2002.41
①费多益.风险技术的社会控制.清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,20(3)：83
②波塞尔,刘则渊,等.关于技术与哲学的中德学者对话[C].见：太原：第九届全国技术哲学学术年会论文集[C],2002.10.30-31.
③蒋劲松.风险社会中的科学与民主.民主与科学,2006(3)：20-21
①乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会.南京：译林出版社,2004.
②R.W.尼尔森.低当量钻地核武器[J].核武器与高技术,2001,(3)：1-7.
③http://tech.sina.com.cn/o/2001-08-14/80502.shtml
① Schommer-Aikins M., & Hutter, R. Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. The Journal ofPsychology,2002,736(1),5-20.
① Jehng, J.-C.J., Johnson, S. D., Anderson, R. C. Schooling and student's epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology,1993,18(1),:23-35.
②Paulsen, M. B., & Wells, C. T. Domain differences in the epistemological beliefs of college students. Research in Higher Education,1998,39(4):365-384.
①Kolsto,S.D.Scientifc literacy for eitizenship:Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socipscientiflc issues[J].Sclence Education,2001,85,291-310.
① Slovic P. Perception of risk. [J] Science,1987 (236):280-285.
② Sitkin S, Pablo A. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior[J]. Academy Of Management Review, 1992(17):9-38.
③ Gregory R, Mendelsohn R. Perceived risk,dread,and benefits[J]. Risk Analysis,1993 (13):259-264.
④李红锋.风险认知研究方法述评.安庆师范学院学报(社会科学版),2008,27(1)：18-22.
① Loewenstein G F,Weber E U,Hsee C K, Welch N. Risk as Feelings [J]. Psychological Bulletin,2001 (2):267-286.
②凌文辁,方俐洛.中、日、美三国科技风险认知的调查研究.科技进步与对策,2002,(7)：147-149.
①庄锦英.决策心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2006：6.
②杨昭宁,侯书伟.基于候选人面孔的特质推理与投票决策[J].心理科学进展,2011,19(7)：1047-1053.
③杨昭宁,禹钰,谭旭云.情绪对成就动机与风险决策关系的调节效应[J].应用心理学,2011,17(2)：116-122.
①国家研究理事会.美国国家科学教育标准[M].戢守志等,译.北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999：23.
① Yates, J.F., Stone, E.R. Risk appraisal. In F.F. Yates(Ed). Risk-taking behavior. New York:Wiley,1992:49-86.
② Alhakami, A. S., Slovic, P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit [J]. Risk Analysis,1994,16(6):1085-1096.
① Beth A. Covitt, Christina Gomez-Schmidt, Michaela T. Zint. An Evaluation of the Risk Education ModuleExploring Environmental Issues:Focus on Risk. THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION.2005,36(23):3-13
② http://www.plt.org/focus-on-risk
① Graham Schleyera, Rui Fang Duana, Julian Williamsonb et al. Assessing the awareness of risk concepts by new engineering students[J].International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education,2007,35(3):184-197.
① Peter Shearn. Teaching practice in safety education; qualitative evidence[J]. Research Papers in Education,2006, 21,(3):335-359.
[1]沈致远.问题重于答案——25个挑战性的科学问题[J].科学杂志,2004(1).
[2]鲁洁.科学教育的人文观照[J].江苏高教,1997(5)：
[3]J.D.贝尔纳.科学的社会功能[M].陈体芳译,张今校.北京：商务印书馆,1982：37.
[4]波普尔.科学革命的合理性[J].世界科学,1979(8).
[5]周战超.当代西方风险社会理论引述[[J].马克思主义与现实,2003(3)：53-59
[6]方华基,许为民.科技风险识别差异及其治理：以纳米科技发展为例[J].自然辩证法研究,2011,27(6)：77-82.
[7]乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会[M].何博闻,译.南京：译林出版社,2004.
[8]M·戈德史密斯.科学的科学——技术时代的社会[M].赵红州,蒋国华译.北京：科学出版社,1995：27.
[9]赵万里.科学的社会建构[M].天津：天津人民出版社,2002：26-41.
[10]修圆慧.中国近代科学观研究[D].黑龙江大学,2007：164.
[11]费多益.风险技术的社会控制[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,20(3)：83-89.
[12]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].南京：译林出版社,2000：109-110.
[13]孙治本.生殖科技与人类关系——转变人类本性之力量及其风险[C].载刘东主编,中国学术,2004年第一辑,北京：商务印书馆.130-157.
[14]潘斌.风险社会与责任伦理[J].伦理学研究,2006(3)：15-19.
[15]吴春燕.郝建锋.景观破碎化与生物多样性的相关性[J].安徽农业科学,2011,39.(5)：9245-9247.
[16][美]莫蒂默.艾德勒,查尔斯.范多伦.西方思想宝库[M].吉林人民出版社,1988：390.
[17]费多益.科技风险的社会接纳[J].自然辩证法研究,2004,20(10)：91-94.
[18]赵万里.科学技术与社会风险[J].科学技术与辩证法,1998,15(3)：50-55.
[19]刘郦,扬力行.科学技术的社会构成：风险与风险分析[J].自然辩证法通讯,2007,29(1)：48-52.
[20]杨跃.面向风险社会的学校科技教育.思想理论教育,2006,(12)：13-16.
[21]姜义飞.当代学校风险教育及其方法论审视[J].江苏广播电视大学学报,2009,20(1)：88-90.
[22]黄东升,易连云.风险社会语境下的大学生风险教育研究[J].西南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2011,9(9)：187-189.
[23]庞波.风险社会视域下的大学生危机意识教育[J].中国高教研究,2011,(7)：67-70.
[24][美]索尔蒂斯.教育与知识的概念[A].瞿葆奎.智育[C].北京：人民教育出版社,1993.62.
[25][美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳,斯蒂文·贝斯特.后现代理论[M].张志斌,译.北京：中央编译出版 社,2004：215.
[26]姚文峰.后现代主义知识观及其对教育的启示[J].教育探索,2004,(7)：3
[27]何小微.后现代知识观及其教育启示[J].现代教育科学,2006(1).
[28]余华东.走上神坛、走下神坛的科学[J].科学对社会的影响.2003,(3)：47-50.
[29]石中英.知识转型与教育改革[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2001：150.
[30]普利高津.对科学的挑战[A].湛垦华,沈小峰.普利高津与耗散结构理论[C].西安：陕西科学出版社,1998：215.
[31]文兵.面向复杂性：福柯的后现代知识观[J].首都师范大学学报(社会科学版),2004,(2)：35-38.
[32][英]巴里·巴恩斯.科学知识：一种社会学的分析[M].刑冬梅,蔡仲,译.南京：南京大学出版社,2004：3.
[33][英]迈克尔·波兰尼.个人知识：迈向后批判哲学[M].许泽民,译.贵阳：贵州人民出版社,2000：54.
[34]爱因斯坦.爱因斯坦文集(第1卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1977：314.
[35][美]史蒂文·温伯格.科学能够解释一切吗?[J]科学文化评论,2006,3(5)：52-62.
[36][法]埃德加·莫兰.复杂思想：自觉的科学[M].陈一壮,译.北京：北京大学出版社,2001：276.
[37][美]斯蒂芬·贝斯特,道格拉斯·科尔纳.后现代转向[M].陈钢等,译.南京：南京大学出版社,2002：284.
[38][美]约翰·霍根.科学的终结[M].孙雍君,译.呼和浩特：远方出版社,1997：70.
[39]郑祥福.从马克思主义的观点看后现代科学认识论[J].哲学研究,2007,(5)：79-84.
[40]潘新民,张薇薇.必须走出后现代知识观——试论科学知识教育的作用与价值[J].教育学报,2006,2(4)：18-21.
[41]贝克.从工业社会到风险社会(上篇)[J]王武龙译,马克思主义与现实,2003,(3)：33
[42][德]乌尔利希·贝克.风险社会政治学[J].马克思主义与现实,2005(3).
[43][德]乌尔利希·贝克.自由与资本主义[M].杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001.125.129.
[44][德]乌尔里希·贝克.世界风险社会[M].吴英姿、孙淑敏译.南京：南京大学出版社,2004.24
[45]潘斌.风险社会与责任伦理.伦理学研究,2006(3)：15-16
[46]刘小枫.现代性社会绪论——现代性与现代中国[M].上海：三联书店,2000.47
[47]刘莹.贝克“风险社会”理论及其对当代中国的启示[J].国外理论动态,2008(1)：83-86.
[48]程新英,柴淑芹.风险社会及现代发展中的风险——乌尔利希·贝克风险社会思想述评.学术论坛,2006(2)：141-144
[49][德]鸟尔利希·贝克.从工业社会到风险社会：生存问题、社会结构与生态启蒙[A].梁展.全球化话语[C].上海：上海三联书店,2002：55,59.
[50]许志晋,毛宝铭.论科技风险的产生与治理.科学学研究.2006(4)：488-490.
[51][美]戴维·玻姆：论创造力[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社.2001.8.
[52][英]卡尔·波普尔：猜想与反驳(M).杭州：中国美术学院出版社.2003.133.
[53][英]卡尔·波普尔：客观的知识——一个进化论的研究[M].杭州：中国美术学院出版社.2003.296-297.
[54]汤建民.论科技双刃剑效应产生之成因.自然辩证法通讯,2005,27(3)：
[55]刘松涛,李建会.断裂、不确定性与风险——试析科技风险及其伦理规避.自然辩证法研究,2008,24(2)：20-25
[56]赵万里.科学的社会建构[M].天津：天津人民出版社,2002.41
[57]费多益.风险技术的社会控制.清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,20(3)：83
[58]李红锋.风险认知研究方法述评.安庆师范学院学报(社会科学版),2008,27(1)：18-22.
[59]凌文辁,方俐洛.中、日、美三国科技风险认知的调查研究.科技进步与对策,2002,(7)：147-149.
[60]庄锦英.决策心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2006：6.
[61]杨昭宁,侯书伟.基于候选人面孔的特质推理与投票决策[J].心理科学进展,2011,19(7)：1047-1053.
[62]杨昭宁,禹钰,谭旭云.情绪对成就动机与风险决策关系的调节效应[J].应用心理学,2011,17(2)：116-122.
[63]国家研究理事会.美国国家科学教育标准[M].戢守志等,译.北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999：23.
[64][英]贝尔纳著.科学的社会功能[M].陈体芳译.上海：商务印书馆,1986.
[65]周川.科学的教育价值[M],南京：江苏教育出版社.1993.
[66]丁邦平.国际科学教育导论[M],太原：山西教育出版社.2002.
[67]孙可平.STS教育论[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2001.
[68]美国科学促进协会著,科学素养的基准[M].中国科学技术协会译.北京：科学普及出版社,2001.
[69]美国科学促进协会著,面向全体美国人的科学[M].中国科学技术协会译.北京：科学普及出版社,2001.
[70]美国科学促进协会著,科学教育改革的蓝本[M].中国科学技术协会译.北京：科学普及出版社,2001.
[71]钟启泉,崔允漷,张华.《基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)》解读[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[72]郭玉英.从传统到现代：综合科学课程的发展[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2002.
[73]钟启泉.国际普通高中基础学科解析[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2003.
[74]大卫·雷·格里芬.后现代科学——科学魅力的再现[M].马季方,译.北京：中央编译出版社,2004.
[75]杨国荣.科学的行上之维——中国近代科学主义的形成与衍化[M]上海：华东师范大学出版 社,2009.
[76]孙可平,邓小丽.理科教育展望[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[77]向德平.科学的社会价值[M].杭州：浙江科学技术出版社,1998.
[78]托·亨·赫胥黎.科学与教育[M].单中惠,平波,译.北京：人民教育出版社,1990.
[79]孙宏安.科学教育概论[M].大连：辽宁师范大学出版社,2002.
[1]Latour, B., and Woolgar, S, Laboratory Life:The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,1986.
[2]SOLBES J.,TRAVER M. Against a Negative Image of Science:History of Science and the Teaching of Physics and Chemistry[J].Science and Education,2003,12:703-717.
[3]Scheufele, D. A., Lewenstein, B. V. The public and nanotechnology:How citizens make sense of emerging technologies[J]. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,2005,7:659-667.
[4]Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., et al. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S.[J]. Science,1999,285:384-387.
[5]Pouliot, C. Using the deficit model, public debate model and co-production of knowledge models to interpret points of view of students concerning citizens' participation in socioscientific issues[J]. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education,2009,4,49-73.
[6]Covitt, B. A., Gomez-Schmidt, C., Zint, M. T. An evaluation of the risk education module. Journal of Environmental Education,2005,36(2),3-13.
[7]Renn,O. Concepts of Risk:A classification[A]. In:Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, Westport/London,1992:53-79.
[8]Klinke A., Renn O. Systemic Risks as Challenge for Policy Making in Risk Governance. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:Qualitative Social Research [Online Journal],2006,7(1), Art.33. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/64/131.
[9]van Asselt, M. B. A. Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk[M]. Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, MA.2000.
[10]IRGC. White Paper on Risk Governance. Towards an Integrative Approach. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva.2005:30.
[11]Charles Perrow. Normal accidents:living with high-risk technologies. New York:Basic Books, 1984.
[12]IRGC. White Paper on Risk Governance. Towards an Integrative Approach. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva.2005:31.
[13]Michaela T. Zint. Advancing Environmental Risk Education [J].Risk Analysis,2001, 21(3):417-426.
[14]Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, et al. How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Toward Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences,1978,9:127-152.
[15]Ravindra Kamath, Parichat Pianpaktr, Arjun Chatrath. et al. Teaching How Size and Industry Affiliation Affect Portfolio Risk.FINANCIAL PRACTICE AND EDUCATION— SPRING/SUMMER,1996
[16]Michaela T. Zint. Advancing Environmental Risk Education [J].Risk Analysis,2001, 21(3):417-426.
[17]Schommer-Aikins M., & Hutter, R. Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. The Journal of Psychology,2002,136(1),5-20.
[18]Jehng, J.-C.J., Johnson, S. D., Anderson, R. C. Schooling and student's epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology,1993,18(1),:23-35.
[19]Paulsen, M. B., & Wells, C. T. Domain differences in the epistemological beliefs of college students. Research in Higher Education,1998,39(4):365-384.
[20]Slovic P. Perception of risk. [J] Science,1987 (236):280-285.
[21]Sitkin S, Pablo A. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior[J]. Academy Of Management Review,1992(17):9-38.
[22]Gregory R, Mendelsohn R. Perceived risk,dread,and benefits[J]. Risk Analysis,1993 (13):259-264.
[23]Loewenstein G F,Weber E U,Hsee C K, Welch N. Risk as Feelings [J]. Psychological Bulletin,2001 (2):267-286.
[24]Kolst0, S. D. Scientific literacy for citizenship:Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues[J]. Science Education,2001,85,291-310.
[25]Yates, J.F., Stone, E.R. Risk appraisal. In F.F. Yates(Ed). Risk-taking behavior. New York:Wiley,1992:49-86.
[26]Alhakami, A. S., Slovic, P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit [J]. Risk Analysis,1994,16(6):1085-1096.
[27]Graham Schleyera, Rui Fang Duana, Julian Williamsonb et al. Assessing the awareness of risk concepts by new engineering students[J].International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education,2007,35(3):184-197.
②鲁洁.科学教育的人文观照[J].江苏高教,1997(5)：
③麦考利(Thomas Babington Macaulay,1800-1859)是英国维多利亚时期著名的散文家,以《英国的历史》等作品著名。贝尔纳在前文中引述了麦考利在《论培根》一文中关于“科学的功能便是普遍造福于人类”的论述。
④J.D.贝尔纳.科学的社会功能[M].陈体芳译,张今校.北京：商务印书馆,1982：37.
①波普尔.科学革命的合理性[J].世界科学,1979(8).
②周战超.当代西方风险社会理论引述[[J].马克思主义与现实,2003(3)：53-59
③方华基,许为民.科技风险识别差异及其治理：以纳米科技发展为例[J].自然辩证法研究,2011,27(6)：77-82.
④乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会[M].何博闻,译.南京：译林出版社,2004：31.
①赵万里.科学的社会建构[M].天津：天津人民出版社,2002：26-41.
② Solbes J.,Traver M. Against a Negative Image of Science: History of Science and the Teaching of Physics and Chemistry[J].Science and Education,2003,12:703-717.
③M·戈德史密斯.科学的科学——技术时代的社会[M].赵红州,蒋国华译.北京：科学出版社,1995：27.
④ Scheufele, D. A., Lewenstein, B. V. The public and nanotechnology:How citizens make sense of emerging technologies[J]. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,2005,7:659-667.
⑤ Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., et al. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S.[J]. Science,1999,285:384-387.
① Pouliot, C. Using the deficit model, public debate model and co-production of knowledge models to interpret points of view of students concerning citizens'participation in socioscientific issues[J]. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education,2009,4,49-73.
② Covitt, B. A., Gomez-Schmidt, C., Zint, M. T. An evaluation of the risk education module. Journal of Environmental Education,2005,36(2),3-13.
①修圆慧.中国近代科学观研究[D].黑龙江大学,2007：164.
②费多益.风险技术的社会控制[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,20(3)：83-89.
③安东尼·吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].南京：译林出版社,2000：109-110.
④乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会[M].何博闻,译.南京：译林出版社.2004.
⑤ Renn,O. Concepts of Risk:A classification[A]. In:Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, Westport/London,1992:53-79.
①孙治本.生殖科技与人类关系——转变人类本性之力量及其风险[C].载刘东主编,中国学术,2004年第一辑,北京：商务印书馆.130-157.
②丙烯酰胺(acrylamide)是一种白色晶体物质,主要用于水的净化处理、纸浆的加工及管道的内涂层等。人体可通过消化道、呼吸道、皮肤粘膜等多种途径接触丙烯酰胺,饮水是其中的一种重要接触途径。由于丙烯酰胺具有潜在的神经毒性、遗传毒性和致癌性,为此WHO将水中丙烯酰胺的含量限定为1μg几。2002年4月斯德哥尔摩大学研究报道,炸薯条中丙烯酰胺含量较WHO推荐的饮水中允许的最大限量要高出500多倍,认为食物为人类丙烯酰胺的主要来源。此后,食品中丙烯酰胺的污染引起了国际社会和各国政府的高度关注。
③潘斌.风险社会与责任伦理[J].伦理学研究,2006(3)：15-19.
④乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会[M].何博闻,译.南京：译林出版社,2004.
① Klinke A., Renn O. Systemic Risks as Challenge for Policy Making in Risk Governance. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:Qualitative Social Research [Online Journal],2006,7(1), Art.33. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/64/131.
②吴春燕,郝建锋.景观破碎化与生物多样性的相关性[J].安徽农业科学,2011,39,(5)：9245-9247.
① van Asselt, M. B. A. Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk[M]. Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, MA.2000.
② IRGC. White Paper on Risk Governance. Towards an Integrative Approach. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva.2005:30.
①[美]莫蒂默.艾德勒,查尔斯.范多伦.西方思想宝库[M].吉林人民出版社,1988：390.
②费多益.科技风险的社会接纳[J].自然辩证法研究,2004,20(10)：91-94.
③赵万里.科学技术与社会风险[J].科学技术与辩证法,1998,15(3)：50-55.
④刘郦,扬力行.科学技术的社会构成：风险与风险分析[J].自然辩证法通讯,2007,29(1)：48-52.
①刘郦,扬力行.科学技术的社会构成：风险与风险分析[J].自然辩证法通讯,2007,29(1)：48-52.
②Charles Perrow. Normal accidents:living with high-risk technologies. New York:Basic Books,1984.
① IRGC. White Paper on Risk Governance. Towards an Integrative Approach. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva.2005:31.
② Richard, D. E. Risk literacy:Is it missing link in environmental education? The Journal of Environmental Education,1994,25(1),8-12.
①陈发俊,史玉民,徐飞.美国米勒公民科学素养测评指标体系的形成与演变[J].科普研究,2009,(2)：41-45.
② Jon D. Miller. Theory and Measurement in the Public Understanding of Science: a Rejoinder to Bauer and Schoon [J]. Public Understanding of Science,1993 (2):235-243.
②中国科学技术协会,中国科普研究所.2003年我国公众科学素养调查主要结果[R].http://www.kxsz.org.cn/cms/contentmanager.do?method=view&pageid=view&id=cms0caeac34c8282
① Richard, D. E. (1994). Risk literacy:Is it missing link in environmental education? The Journal of Environmental Education,25(1),8-12.
② Michaela T. Zint. Advancing Environmental Risk Education [J].Risk Analysis,2001,21(3):417-426.
③ Peter Shearn. Teaching practice in safety education:qualitative evidence[J]. Research Papers in Education,2006, 21,(3):335-359.
①杨跃.面向风险社会的学校科技教育.思想理论教育,2006,(12)：13-16.
②姜义飞.当代学校风险教育及其方法 论审视[J].江苏广播电视大学学报,2009,20(1)：88-90.
③黄东升,易连云.风险社会语境下的大学生风险教育研究[J].西南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2011,9(9)：187-189.
④庞波.风险社会视域下的大学生危机意识教育[J].中国高教研究,2011,(7)：67-70.
① Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, et al. How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Toward Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences,1978,9:127-152.
① Hongxian Ma, Guofang Zhai, Shoji Tsuchida.Empirical Research on Risk Literacy and Perception of Undergraduates in Mainland China - A Case of BSE[A]. In:Beyond Experience in Risk Analysis and Crisis Response——Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Risk Analysis and Crisis Response Laredo, Texas, USA),2011-05-22:233-238.
②庄锦英.决策心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2006.6-11.
① Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect Theory:An analysis of decision under risk. Econornetrica.1979,47(2): 263-292.
② Li S. Equate-to-differentiate theory:A coherent bi-choice model across certainty, uncertainty and risk[J]. University of New South Wales.1994:211-217.
① Ravindra Kamath, Parichat Pianpaktr, Arjun Chatrath. et al. Teaching How Size and Industry Affiliation Affect Portfolio Risk.FINANCIAL PRACTICE AND EDUCATION—SPRING/SUMMER,1996
② Graham Schleyera, Rui Fang Duana, Julian Williamsonb et al. Assessing the awareness of risk concepts by new engineering students[J].International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education,2007,35(3):184-197.
③ Peter Shearn. Teaching practice in safety education:qualitative evidence[J]. Research Papers in Education,2006, 21,(3):335-359.
Richard, D. E. Risk literacy:Is it missing link in environmental education? The Journal of Environmental Education,1994,25(1),8-12.
④ Michaela T. Zint. Advancing Environmental Risk Education [J].Risk Analysis,2001,21(3):417-426.
①[美]索尔蒂斯.教育与知识的概念[A].瞿葆奎.智育[C].北京：人民教育出版社,1993.62.
②[美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳,斯蒂文·贝斯特.后现代理论[M].张志斌,译.北京：中央编译出版社,2004：215.
③姚文峰.后现代主义知识观及其对教育的启示[J].教育探索,2004,(7)：3
①何小微.后现代知识观及其教育启示[J].现代教育科学,2006(1).
②余华东.走上神坛、走下神坛的科学[J].科学对社会的影响.2003,(3)：47-50.
③石中英.知识转型与教育改革[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2001：150.
④普利高津.对科学的挑战[A].湛垦华,沈小峰.普利高津与耗散结构理论[C].西安：陕西科学出版社,1998：215.
⑤文兵.面向复杂性：福柯的后现代知识观[J].首都师范大学学报(社会科学版),2004,(2)：35-38.
①[英]巴里·巴恩斯.科学知识：一种社会学的分析[M].刑冬梅,蔡仲,译.南京：南京大学出版社,2004：3.
①[英]迈克尔·波兰尼.个人知识：迈向后批判哲学[M].许泽民,译.贵阳：贵州人民出版社,2000：54.
②爱因斯坦.爱因斯坦文集(第1卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1977：314.
③[美]史蒂文·温伯格.科学能够解释一切吗?[J]科学文化评论,2006,3(5)：52-62.
④[法]埃德加·莫兰.复杂思想：自觉的科学[M].陈一壮,译.北京：北京大学出版社,2001：276.
⑤[美]斯蒂芬·贝斯特,道格拉斯·科尔纳.后现代转向[M].陈钢等,译.南京：南京大学出版社,2002：284.
①[美]约翰·霍根.科学的终结[M].孙雍君,译.呼和浩特：远方出版社,1997：70.
②郑祥福.从马克思主义的观点看后现代科学认识论[J].哲学研究,2007,(5)：79-84.
③潘新民,张薇薇.必须走出后现代知识观——试论科学知识教育的作用与价值[J].教育学报,2006,2(4)：18-21.
①贝克.从工业社会到风险社会(上篇)[J]1 王武龙(译)1马克思主义与现实,2003,(3)：33
②[德]乌尔利希·贝克.风险社会政治学[J].马克思主义与现实,2005
①[德]乌尔利希·贝克.自由与资本主义[M].杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001.129
①[德]乌尔里希·贝克.世界风险社会[M].吴英姿、孙淑敏译.南京：南京大学出版社,2004.24
③潘斌.风险社会与责任伦理.伦理学研究,2006(3)：15-16
④刘小枫.现代性社会绪论——现代性与现代中国[M].上海：三联书店,2000.47
⑤刘莹.贝克“风险社会”理论及其对当代中国的启示.国外理论动态·2008年第1期83-86
⑥程新英,柴淑芹.风险社会及现代发展中的风险——乌尔利希·贝克风险社会思想述评.学术论坛,2006(2)：141-144
①[德]乌尔利希·贝克.从工业社会到风险社会：生存问题、社会结构与生态启蒙[A].梁展.全球化话语[C].上海：上海三联书店,2002.55
②[德]乌尔利希·贝克.风险社会政治学[J].马克思主义与现实,2005,(3).
③[德]乌尔利希·贝克.风险社会政治学[J].马克思主义与现实,2005,(3)
④[德]乌尔利希·贝克.从工业社会到风险社会：生存问题、社会结构与生态启蒙[A].梁展.全球化话语[C].上海：上海三联书店,2002.59
⑤[德]乌尔利希·贝克.自由与资本主义[M].杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001.125
①许志晋,毛宝铭.论科技风险的产生与治理.科学学研究.2006(4)：488-490.
②赫伯特·马尔库塞.单向度的人[M].刘继,译.上海：上海译文出版社,1989：143
③[美]戴维·玻姆：论创造力[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社.2001.8.
④[英]卡尔·波普尔：猜想与反驳[M].杭州：中国美术学院出版社.2003.133.
⑤[英]卡尔·波普尔：客观的知识——一个进化论的研究[M].杭州：中国美术学院出版社.2003.296-297.
⑥汤建民.论科技双刃剑效应产生之成因.自然辩证法通讯,2005,27(3)：
①刘松涛,李建会.断裂、不确定性与风险——试析科技风险及其伦理规避.白然辩证法研究,2008,24(2)：20-25
②让娜·帕朗维亚尔.自然科学的哲学[M].张来举,译.长沙：中南工业大学出版社,1987.53
③ Latour, B., and Woolgar, S, Laboratory Life:The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,1986.
④赵万里.科学的社会建构[M].天津：天津人民出版社,2002.41
①费多益.风险技术的社会控制.清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,20(3)：83
②波塞尔,刘则渊,等.关于技术与哲学的中德学者对话[C].见：太原：第九届全国技术哲学学术年会论文集[C],2002.10.30-31.
③蒋劲松.风险社会中的科学与民主.民主与科学,2006(3)：20-21
①乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会.南京：译林出版社,2004.
②R.W.尼尔森.低当量钻地核武器[J].核武器与高技术,2001,(3)：1-7.
③http://tech.sina.com.cn/o/2001-08-14/80502.shtml
① Schommer-Aikins M., & Hutter, R. Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. The Journal ofPsychology,2002,736(1),5-20.
① Jehng, J.-C.J., Johnson, S. D., Anderson, R. C. Schooling and student's epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology,1993,18(1),:23-35.
②Paulsen, M. B., & Wells, C. T. Domain differences in the epistemological beliefs of college students. Research in Higher Education,1998,39(4):365-384.
①Kolsto,S.D.Scientifc literacy for eitizenship:Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socipscientiflc issues[J].Sclence Education,2001,85,291-310.
① Slovic P. Perception of risk. [J] Science,1987 (236):280-285.
② Sitkin S, Pablo A. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior[J]. Academy Of Management Review, 1992(17):9-38.
③ Gregory R, Mendelsohn R. Perceived risk,dread,and benefits[J]. Risk Analysis,1993 (13):259-264.
④李红锋.风险认知研究方法述评.安庆师范学院学报(社会科学版),2008,27(1)：18-22.
① Loewenstein G F,Weber E U,Hsee C K, Welch N. Risk as Feelings [J]. Psychological Bulletin,2001 (2):267-286.
②凌文辁,方俐洛.中、日、美三国科技风险认知的调查研究.科技进步与对策,2002,(7)：147-149.
①庄锦英.决策心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2006：6.
②杨昭宁,侯书伟.基于候选人面孔的特质推理与投票决策[J].心理科学进展,2011,19(7)：1047-1053.
③杨昭宁,禹钰,谭旭云.情绪对成就动机与风险决策关系的调节效应[J].应用心理学,2011,17(2)：116-122.
①国家研究理事会.美国国家科学教育标准[M].戢守志等,译.北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999：23.
① Yates, J.F., Stone, E.R. Risk appraisal. In F.F. Yates(Ed). Risk-taking behavior. New York:Wiley,1992:49-86.
② Alhakami, A. S., Slovic, P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit [J]. Risk Analysis,1994,16(6):1085-1096.
① Beth A. Covitt, Christina Gomez-Schmidt, Michaela T. Zint. An Evaluation of the Risk Education ModuleExploring Environmental Issues:Focus on Risk. THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION.2005,36(23):3-13
② http://www.plt.org/focus-on-risk
① Graham Schleyera, Rui Fang Duana, Julian Williamsonb et al. Assessing the awareness of risk concepts by new engineering students[J].International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education,2007,35(3):184-197.
① Peter Shearn. Teaching practice in safety education; qualitative evidence[J]. Research Papers in Education,2006, 21,(3):335-359.
[1]沈致远.问题重于答案——25个挑战性的科学问题[J].科学杂志,2004(1).
[2]鲁洁.科学教育的人文观照[J].江苏高教,1997(5)：
[3]J.D.贝尔纳.科学的社会功能[M].陈体芳译,张今校.北京：商务印书馆,1982：37.
[4]波普尔.科学革命的合理性[J].世界科学,1979(8).
[5]周战超.当代西方风险社会理论引述[[J].马克思主义与现实,2003(3)：53-59
[6]方华基,许为民.科技风险识别差异及其治理：以纳米科技发展为例[J].自然辩证法研究,2011,27(6)：77-82.
[7]乌尔里希·贝克.风险社会[M].何博闻,译.南京：译林出版社,2004.
[8]M·戈德史密斯.科学的科学——技术时代的社会[M].赵红州,蒋国华译.北京：科学出版社,1995：27.
[9]赵万里.科学的社会建构[M].天津：天津人民出版社,2002：26-41.
[10]修圆慧.中国近代科学观研究[D].黑龙江大学,2007：164.
[11]费多益.风险技术的社会控制[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,20(3)：83-89.
[12]安东尼·吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].南京：译林出版社,2000：109-110.
[13]孙治本.生殖科技与人类关系——转变人类本性之力量及其风险[C].载刘东主编,中国学术,2004年第一辑,北京：商务印书馆.130-157.
[14]潘斌.风险社会与责任伦理[J].伦理学研究,2006(3)：15-19.
[15]吴春燕.郝建锋.景观破碎化与生物多样性的相关性[J].安徽农业科学,2011,39.(5)：9245-9247.
[16][美]莫蒂默.艾德勒,查尔斯.范多伦.西方思想宝库[M].吉林人民出版社,1988：390.
[17]费多益.科技风险的社会接纳[J].自然辩证法研究,2004,20(10)：91-94.
[18]赵万里.科学技术与社会风险[J].科学技术与辩证法,1998,15(3)：50-55.
[19]刘郦,扬力行.科学技术的社会构成：风险与风险分析[J].自然辩证法通讯,2007,29(1)：48-52.
[20]杨跃.面向风险社会的学校科技教育.思想理论教育,2006,(12)：13-16.
[21]姜义飞.当代学校风险教育及其方法论审视[J].江苏广播电视大学学报,2009,20(1)：88-90.
[22]黄东升,易连云.风险社会语境下的大学生风险教育研究[J].西南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2011,9(9)：187-189.
[23]庞波.风险社会视域下的大学生危机意识教育[J].中国高教研究,2011,(7)：67-70.
[24][美]索尔蒂斯.教育与知识的概念[A].瞿葆奎.智育[C].北京：人民教育出版社,1993.62.
[25][美]道格拉斯·凯尔纳,斯蒂文·贝斯特.后现代理论[M].张志斌,译.北京：中央编译出版 社,2004：215.
[26]姚文峰.后现代主义知识观及其对教育的启示[J].教育探索,2004,(7)：3
[27]何小微.后现代知识观及其教育启示[J].现代教育科学,2006(1).
[28]余华东.走上神坛、走下神坛的科学[J].科学对社会的影响.2003,(3)：47-50.
[29]石中英.知识转型与教育改革[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2001：150.
[30]普利高津.对科学的挑战[A].湛垦华,沈小峰.普利高津与耗散结构理论[C].西安：陕西科学出版社,1998：215.
[31]文兵.面向复杂性：福柯的后现代知识观[J].首都师范大学学报(社会科学版),2004,(2)：35-38.
[32][英]巴里·巴恩斯.科学知识：一种社会学的分析[M].刑冬梅,蔡仲,译.南京：南京大学出版社,2004：3.
[33][英]迈克尔·波兰尼.个人知识：迈向后批判哲学[M].许泽民,译.贵阳：贵州人民出版社,2000：54.
[34]爱因斯坦.爱因斯坦文集(第1卷)[M].北京：商务印书馆,1977：314.
[35][美]史蒂文·温伯格.科学能够解释一切吗?[J]科学文化评论,2006,3(5)：52-62.
[36][法]埃德加·莫兰.复杂思想：自觉的科学[M].陈一壮,译.北京：北京大学出版社,2001：276.
[37][美]斯蒂芬·贝斯特,道格拉斯·科尔纳.后现代转向[M].陈钢等,译.南京：南京大学出版社,2002：284.
[38][美]约翰·霍根.科学的终结[M].孙雍君,译.呼和浩特：远方出版社,1997：70.
[39]郑祥福.从马克思主义的观点看后现代科学认识论[J].哲学研究,2007,(5)：79-84.
[40]潘新民,张薇薇.必须走出后现代知识观——试论科学知识教育的作用与价值[J].教育学报,2006,2(4)：18-21.
[41]贝克.从工业社会到风险社会(上篇)[J]王武龙译,马克思主义与现实,2003,(3)：33
[42][德]乌尔利希·贝克.风险社会政治学[J].马克思主义与现实,2005(3).
[43][德]乌尔利希·贝克.自由与资本主义[M].杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001.125.129.
[44][德]乌尔里希·贝克.世界风险社会[M].吴英姿、孙淑敏译.南京：南京大学出版社,2004.24
[45]潘斌.风险社会与责任伦理.伦理学研究,2006(3)：15-16
[46]刘小枫.现代性社会绪论——现代性与现代中国[M].上海：三联书店,2000.47
[47]刘莹.贝克“风险社会”理论及其对当代中国的启示[J].国外理论动态,2008(1)：83-86.
[48]程新英,柴淑芹.风险社会及现代发展中的风险——乌尔利希·贝克风险社会思想述评.学术论坛,2006(2)：141-144
[49][德]鸟尔利希·贝克.从工业社会到风险社会：生存问题、社会结构与生态启蒙[A].梁展.全球化话语[C].上海：上海三联书店,2002：55,59.
[50]许志晋,毛宝铭.论科技风险的产生与治理.科学学研究.2006(4)：488-490.
[51][美]戴维·玻姆：论创造力[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社.2001.8.
[52][英]卡尔·波普尔：猜想与反驳(M).杭州：中国美术学院出版社.2003.133.
[53][英]卡尔·波普尔：客观的知识——一个进化论的研究[M].杭州：中国美术学院出版社.2003.296-297.
[54]汤建民.论科技双刃剑效应产生之成因.自然辩证法通讯,2005,27(3)：
[55]刘松涛,李建会.断裂、不确定性与风险——试析科技风险及其伦理规避.自然辩证法研究,2008,24(2)：20-25
[56]赵万里.科学的社会建构[M].天津：天津人民出版社,2002.41
[57]费多益.风险技术的社会控制.清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,20(3)：83
[58]李红锋.风险认知研究方法述评.安庆师范学院学报(社会科学版),2008,27(1)：18-22.
[59]凌文辁,方俐洛.中、日、美三国科技风险认知的调查研究.科技进步与对策,2002,(7)：147-149.
[60]庄锦英.决策心理学[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2006：6.
[61]杨昭宁,侯书伟.基于候选人面孔的特质推理与投票决策[J].心理科学进展,2011,19(7)：1047-1053.
[62]杨昭宁,禹钰,谭旭云.情绪对成就动机与风险决策关系的调节效应[J].应用心理学,2011,17(2)：116-122.
[63]国家研究理事会.美国国家科学教育标准[M].戢守志等,译.北京：科学技术文献出版社,1999：23.
[64][英]贝尔纳著.科学的社会功能[M].陈体芳译.上海：商务印书馆,1986.
[65]周川.科学的教育价值[M],南京：江苏教育出版社.1993.
[66]丁邦平.国际科学教育导论[M],太原：山西教育出版社.2002.
[67]孙可平.STS教育论[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2001.
[68]美国科学促进协会著,科学素养的基准[M].中国科学技术协会译.北京：科学普及出版社,2001.
[69]美国科学促进协会著,面向全体美国人的科学[M].中国科学技术协会译.北京：科学普及出版社,2001.
[70]美国科学促进协会著,科学教育改革的蓝本[M].中国科学技术协会译.北京：科学普及出版社,2001.
[71]钟启泉,崔允漷,张华.《基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)》解读[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[72]郭玉英.从传统到现代：综合科学课程的发展[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社,2002.
[73]钟启泉.国际普通高中基础学科解析[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2003.
[74]大卫·雷·格里芬.后现代科学——科学魅力的再现[M].马季方,译.北京：中央编译出版社,2004.
[75]杨国荣.科学的行上之维——中国近代科学主义的形成与衍化[M]上海：华东师范大学出版 社,2009.
[76]孙可平,邓小丽.理科教育展望[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[77]向德平.科学的社会价值[M].杭州：浙江科学技术出版社,1998.
[78]托·亨·赫胥黎.科学与教育[M].单中惠,平波,译.北京：人民教育出版社,1990.
[79]孙宏安.科学教育概论[M].大连：辽宁师范大学出版社,2002.
[1]Latour, B., and Woolgar, S, Laboratory Life:The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,1986.
[2]SOLBES J.,TRAVER M. Against a Negative Image of Science:History of Science and the Teaching of Physics and Chemistry[J].Science and Education,2003,12:703-717.
[3]Scheufele, D. A., Lewenstein, B. V. The public and nanotechnology:How citizens make sense of emerging technologies[J]. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,2005,7:659-667.
[4]Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., et al. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S.[J]. Science,1999,285:384-387.
[5]Pouliot, C. Using the deficit model, public debate model and co-production of knowledge models to interpret points of view of students concerning citizens' participation in socioscientific issues[J]. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education,2009,4,49-73.
[6]Covitt, B. A., Gomez-Schmidt, C., Zint, M. T. An evaluation of the risk education module. Journal of Environmental Education,2005,36(2),3-13.
[7]Renn,O. Concepts of Risk:A classification[A]. In:Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, Westport/London,1992:53-79.
[8]Klinke A., Renn O. Systemic Risks as Challenge for Policy Making in Risk Governance. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:Qualitative Social Research [Online Journal],2006,7(1), Art.33. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/64/131.
[9]van Asselt, M. B. A. Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk[M]. Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, MA.2000.
[10]IRGC. White Paper on Risk Governance. Towards an Integrative Approach. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva.2005:30.
[11]Charles Perrow. Normal accidents:living with high-risk technologies. New York:Basic Books, 1984.
[12]IRGC. White Paper on Risk Governance. Towards an Integrative Approach. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva.2005:31.
[13]Michaela T. Zint. Advancing Environmental Risk Education [J].Risk Analysis,2001, 21(3):417-426.
[14]Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, et al. How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Toward Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences,1978,9:127-152.
[15]Ravindra Kamath, Parichat Pianpaktr, Arjun Chatrath. et al. Teaching How Size and Industry Affiliation Affect Portfolio Risk.FINANCIAL PRACTICE AND EDUCATION— SPRING/SUMMER,1996
[16]Michaela T. Zint. Advancing Environmental Risk Education [J].Risk Analysis,2001, 21(3):417-426.
[17]Schommer-Aikins M., & Hutter, R. Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. The Journal of Psychology,2002,136(1),5-20.
[18]Jehng, J.-C.J., Johnson, S. D., Anderson, R. C. Schooling and student's epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology,1993,18(1),:23-35.
[19]Paulsen, M. B., & Wells, C. T. Domain differences in the epistemological beliefs of college students. Research in Higher Education,1998,39(4):365-384.
[20]Slovic P. Perception of risk. [J] Science,1987 (236):280-285.
[21]Sitkin S, Pablo A. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior[J]. Academy Of Management Review,1992(17):9-38.
[22]Gregory R, Mendelsohn R. Perceived risk,dread,and benefits[J]. Risk Analysis,1993 (13):259-264.
[23]Loewenstein G F,Weber E U,Hsee C K, Welch N. Risk as Feelings [J]. Psychological Bulletin,2001 (2):267-286.
[24]Kolst0, S. D. Scientific literacy for citizenship:Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues[J]. Science Education,2001,85,291-310.
[25]Yates, J.F., Stone, E.R. Risk appraisal. In F.F. Yates(Ed). Risk-taking behavior. New York:Wiley,1992:49-86.
[26]Alhakami, A. S., Slovic, P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit [J]. Risk Analysis,1994,16(6):1085-1096.
[27]Graham Schleyera, Rui Fang Duana, Julian Williamsonb et al. Assessing the awareness of risk concepts by new engineering students[J].International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education,2007,35(3):184-197.