Scoring and Consequential Validity Evidence of Computer-and Paper-Based Writing Tests in Times of Change

Little is known about how the assessment modality,i.e.,computer-based(CB)and paper-based(PB)tests,affects language teachers’scorings,perceptions,and preferences and,therefore,the validity and fairness of classroom writing assessments.The present mixed-methods study used Shaw and Weir’s(2007)sociocognitive writing test validation framework to examine the scoring and consequential validity evidence of CB and PB writing tests in EFL classroom assessment in higher education.Original handwritten and word-processed texts of 38 EFL university students were transcribed to their opposite format and assessed by three language lecturers(N=456 texts,152 per teacher)to examine the scoring validity of CB and PB tests.The teachers’perceptions of text quality and preferences for assessment modality accounted for the consequential validity evidence of both tests.Findings revealed that the assessment modality impacted teachers’scorings,perceptions,and preferences.The teachers awarded higher scores to original and transcribed handwritten texts,particularly text organization and language use.The teachers’perceptions of text quality differed from their ratings,and physical,psychological,and experiential characteristics influenced their preferences for assessment modality.The results have implications for the validity and fairness of CB and PB writing tests and teachers’assessment practices.

The Semantic Equivalence Between the Good and the Right:Its Support for and Challenge to Consequentialism

Viewed from the perspective of meta-ethics,there is some semantic equivalence between the good as desirability and the right as acceptability,so that we can claim that whatever is desirable for a person is also acceptable to and thus right for her or him in terms of its very goodness.In the debate with deontology,then,this equivalence gives consequentialism an advantage,because it could prove that the good on its own is always right,and the evil on its own is always wrong.Meanwhile,it also puts consequentialism at a disadvantage,because consequentialism could hardly answer a tough question:why do we seriously need another criterion of right and wrong besides the one of good and evil in evaluation?

Theory-laden model of ethical applications and ethics of euthanasia

The primary aim of this paper is to critically evaluate the deductive model of ethical applications,which is based on normative ethical theories like deontology and consequentialism,and to show why a number of models have failed to furnish appropriate resolutions to practical moral problems.Here,for the deductive model,I want to call it a“Linear Mechanical Model”because the basic assumption of this model is that if a normative theory is sacrosanct,then the case is as it is.The conclusion derived from the case will also be correct,true and acceptable.However,traditional ethicists used to apply their ethical theories,but they did not know which moral theory was effective on the ground level of reality.The study will show readers how ethical theories are in conflict with each other in the case of euthanasia.In more precise words,“which ethical theories are said to be applied,meta-ethical or normative,or both for the resolution of ethical problems?If normative theories are said to be applied,how the application can take place when it is contrary to our experience,that(then)in a situation of moral crises,no one really applies a theory?”For that,my argument is the linear model has failed because it is rigid,often ignores the agents’intrinsic values,and has no space to amend it,no matter how bizarre the consequence is.Its alternative is the Inductive model.For that,the paper will take three moral principles(autonomy,beneficence including maleficence,and justice)of Beauchamp&Childress.This suggests us for resolving value-laden moral problems,we should consider some steps such as a)recognising moral issues to start with;b)developing the moral imagination;c)sharpening analytical/critical skills;d)testing out disagreements;e)effecting decisions and behavior;and f)implementation,closure,and process are of vital importance,in other words,it starts with the free and informed consensus of all interested parties,but this model also has been failed because the model could not give a systematic organization to their way of resolution.Here,my argument is that the inductive model provides resolution of the practical problem but ignores what is ethically obligatory,permissible,or wrong in that situation,and there are no appropriate suggestions in the case of a moral crisis.

Ethical and legal implications of gene editing in plant breeding:a systematic literature review

Biotechnology policies and regulations must be revised and updated to reflect the most recent advances in plantbreeding technology. New Plant Breeding Techniques(NPBT) such as gene editing have been applied to address the myriad of challenges in plant breeding, while the use of NPBT as emerging biotechnological tools raises legal and ethical concerns. This study aims to highlight how gene editing is operationalized in the existing literature and examine the critical issues of ethical and legal issues of gene editing for plant breeding. We carried out a systematic literature review(SLR) to provide the current states of ethical and legal discourses surrounding this topic. We also identified critical research priority areas and policy gaps that must be addressed when designing the future governance of gene editing in plant breeding.

Variable retention harvesting: conceptual analysis according to different environmental ethics and forest valuation

Background:Conceptual clarity is important to attain precise communication of scientific knowledge and to implement appropriate technological and policy actions.Many concepts referring to forest management are widely used by decision-makers,regardless of their complexity.Although the scientific and methodological issues of forestry practices are frequently discussed in the literature,their normative dimensions are rarely treated.Thus,linguistic uncertainty increases when different environmentally ethical perspectives and ways of valuing forests are considered.The objective was to compare different conceptualizations on the silvicultural systems suggested for forest management and the implications they have for conservation.We have conceptually contrasted highintensity forestry practices with variable retention harvesting,considering different environmentally ethical perspectives and forest valuation alternatives.Results:Clear boundaries between clear-cutting,selective logging,and variable retention harvesting can be evidenced when different ethical points of view and alternatives in the human-nature relationships are considered.We have found a variety of definitions of variable retention harvesting that can be analyzed under different ethical positions.Sharply contrasting views on variable retention harvesting can be evidenced if nature is considered to be purely at human’s service or if it is conceptualized as humans co-inhabiting with nature.The latter position implies that the maintenance of ecological,evolutionary,and historical processes supported by unmanaged forest stands is a crucial step for forest management proposals based on variable retention harvesting.Conclusions:Forestry practices that are focused on forest yields and that misinterpret functional uncertainty of forest functioning would be risky.Moreover,forestry with variable retention harvesting could imply good yields with reasonable conservation management in some contexts,while it could be unacceptable in other socioecological contexts.The improvement of conceptual clarity on the different meanings of variable retention harvesting and the development of indicators for forest management based on the variations of this concept can reduce controversies.

The Relationship Between the Good and the Right in the Context of Chinese Philosophy

Ancient Chinese philosophy has explored the relationship between the good and the right in a quite distinct way from modern Western philosophy.According to its insights rooted in real life,the fundamental function of the right is neither to have little to do with the good as deontology claims,nor merely to produce more good in quantitative terms as consequentialism claims,but is to ensure the primary good and prevent the primary evil,both of which are of top importance to human life first and foremost in qualitative terms.

On Measuring the Moral Value of Action

Deontology and consequentialism are two prominent, disparate tenets of normative ethics concerned with prescribing norms for ethical action in order to advance human flourishing. While consequentialism in its purest form is practical and realistic, its precepts do not intrinsically consider justice and human rights, which are salient canons of deontology. Contrariwise, though plenary deontology categorically focuses on duty or rule-based ethics, its prescripts overlook the consequences of moral action, which results in indeterminate and conceivably dramatic implications for societal eudemonia and human flourishing Traditionally, consequentialists have sought to quantify the moral value of action by formulating creative expressions. Attempts have also been made to combine ideologies in order to resolve moral conflicts that arise in both normative ethical positions. This article fuses these approaches, creating a single formulation to measure the moral value of action. Used as a guideline in the moral decision-making process, this formulation enjoins individuals to consider the consequences of action beyond the self, to ruminate beyond the immediacy of an act under consideration, and to regard unqualified societal and global norms for justice and human rights as a baseline for all moral action.