309 Roberts (2007)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NOTES 1 Roberts (2007) quotes the somewhat puzzling views of the former Director of Project 2061, James Rutherford, on the usefulness of a distinction between science literacy and scientific literacy: science literacy “refers to literacy with regard to science”, that is, the goals of science education, and scientific literacy refers to “the properties of literacy, namely literacy that is scientifically sound no matter what content domain it focuses on” (p. 731). Liu (2009) argues that current notions of scientific literacy suffer from three major flaws: they are based on: (i) a deficit model (scientific literacy as the level of understanding needed if individuals are to understand the achievements of, and constraints upon, science and technology); (ii) a commodity model (scientific literacy as a state to be achieved or commodity to be acquired rather than a lifelong process of developing understanding); and (iii) a static model (scientific literacy as unproblematic, value-free and universally applicable). 2 It is nearly twenty years since F. Sherwood Rowland (1993), then President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, argued that “faulty communication” is the major obstacle to scientific progress and urged scientists to “sell the importance of science” through better communication. 3 Drori (1998) argues that the oft-repeated assertion of a causal link between science education and economic development is a myth. It is, in Drori’s words, both “empirically problematic and conceptually misleading” (p. 70). 4 Duschl et al. (2007) try to capture some of the flavour of multidisciplinary/multidimensional scientific literacy in the notion of scientific proficiency: knowing, using and interpreting scientific explanations of the natural world; generating and evaluating scientific evidence and explanations; understanding the nature and development of scientific knowledge; participating productively in scientific practices and discourse. 5 Berkowitz et al. (2003) define civics literacy as “the ability to use an understanding of social (political, economic, etc.) systems, skills and habits of mind for participating in and/or studying society” (p. 228). 6 In this view of the environment as text, perceiving and reacting to the environment can be regarded as “reading”, while acting in and on the environment can be regarded as “writing”. 7 Among “currents” with a long tradition in environmental education, Sauvé identifies naturalist, conservationist, problem-solving, systemic, scientific, humanist and value-centered traditions (her terms). More recent “currents” include holistic, bioregionalist, praxic, socially critical, feminist, ethnographic, eco-education and sustainable development/sustainability (again, her terms). 8 In contrast, Fuller (2000) states that no matter how expert scientists may be in their own sphere of interest, they are rarely expert in evaluating that field in relation to others, and in many instances their ignorance of other fields is just as extensive as that of the non-scientific lay public. 9 The most tangible outcome of this discussion document is Twenty First Century Science (www. 21stcenturyscience.org), developed for 14–16 year olds and comprising a core curriculum that explores the major explanatory theories of science, a set of “ideas-about-science” (dealing with topics such as keeping healthy, air quality and radiation hazards), and an additional academic programme for those who wish to study science at a more advanced level or an additional applied science course embracing topics such as forensic science, communications technology and agricultural science. The scheme defines a scientifically literate person as someone able to appreciate and understand the impact of science and technology on everyday life, take informed decisions about things that involve science (such as health, diet and energy resources), read and understand essential points of media reports about matters that involve science, reflect critically on the information included or omitted from such reports, and take part confidently in discussion with others about issues involving science. 10 Berkowitz and Simmons (2003) also argue that confronting SSI requires both teachers and students to move substantially beyond the scope of STS curricula. 309 NOTES 11 In the Keselman et al. (2004) study, conducted in the United States, erroneous ideas held by students included the belief that HIV-AIDS can be expelled from the body through sweat and urine, and that contracting other sexually transmitted diseases reduces the risk of contracting HIV-AIDS by activating T-cells and thereby “arming the body” against the newcomer infection. In a study in Uganda, reported by Mutonyi et al. (2007), there was widespread belief that HIV-AIDS could be contracted through shaking hands or sharing toilet facilities with infected persons, that women engaging in sexual intercourse during menstruation will not contract HIV-AIDS because “the virus will come out with the menstrual flow”, and that washing one’s genitalia in Coca Cola immediately after sexual contact will substantially reduce the risk of infection. In a later study, Mutonyi et al. (2010) report that a number of students (aged 15–17) believe that government messages about HIV- AIDS are exaggerated in order to deter young people from sexual activity. 12 Chiapetta and Fillman (2007) comment that the situation regarding biology textbooks in the United States, while not ideal, is considerably better than it was fifteen years ago. Following an analysis of eight books about science written for general readers, including Chalmers (1999), Cromer (1993), Dunbar (1995) and Wolpert (1992), McComas (2008) has generated a series of historical vignettes that provide a more authentic view of NOS than is common in textbooks. On a related point, it is important to note that an individual teacher’s efforts to foster more sophisticated NOS views may be thwarted by a science department culture that promotes traditional views. This is especially the case for novice and student teachers confronted by an unsympathetic supervisory teacher (Akerson et al., 2010). 13 Duggan and Gott (2002), Law (2002), Chin et al. (2004) and Aikenhead (2005) reach broadly similar conclusions from studies of the day-to-day work of people in science-related and technology-related professions. Aikenhead (2005) notes, for example, that nurses combine academic knowledge with experiential knowledge and emotions-related intuitive knowledge to make judgements about patients, such as knowing when they are uncomfortable, in distress or in need of close attention. 14 The model is based on Immanuel Kant’s tripartite classification of mental activities into cognition, affection and conation (Hilgard, 1980). 15 Hogan and Maglienti (2001) have developed a 5-level scheme for rating students’ overall judgement of a conclusion: Level 0 does not mention any relevant strengths and weaknesses of the conclusion; level 1 mentions some relevant strengths and weaknesses of the conclusion, but not the major ones, and uses agreement with personal inferences or views as a basis for judging the conclusion; level 2 mentions some strengths and weaknesses of the conclusion (although not the major ones) but does not base judgements on agreement with personal inferences or views; level 3 mentions the major strengths and weaknesses of the conclusion, but also uses agreement with personal inferences or views as a basis for judging the conclusion; level 4 mentions the major strengths and weaknesses of the conclusion, but does not base judgments on agreement with personal inferences or views. 16 Newspapers consulted were: The Globe and Mail, The Edmonton Journal and The Edmonton Sun. Magazines consulted were: Time, Newsweek, Maclean’s, National Enquirer, Star, Reader’s Digest, National Geographic, People, Better Homes & Gardens, Canadian Living, Chatelaine, Cosmopolitan and Sports Illustrated. 17 Interestingly, members of the lay public organized by the researchers into six focus groups that might be expected to have specialist interests in the issue (birdwatchers, charity workers, arable farmers, undergraduates, parents of young children and temporary UK residents originating in Developing countries) had little difficulty in identifying, and usually rejecting, the persuasive rhetoric of the pro- GM newspaper reports. 18 The Internet was the most-used source of information on science and technology, followed by television (67% in 2009, 74% in 2000), books/magazines (63%, 76%) and family and friends (45%, 55%). Interestingly, those citing museums, zoos and aquaria had declined from 65% to 41% and those citing school science had declined from 68% to 34%. 19 The beliefs that students hold prior to instruction have been variously termed: alternative frameworks, alternative or prior conceptions, mini-theories, naïve theories, children’s science, and so on. Each term has its adherents and its particular justification, but there is no consensus beyond a general concern to avoid the term misconceptions. My own view on this convention is made clear in Hodson (1998a). 310 NOTES 20 In a particularly insightful study, Larson (1995) describes a student (Fatima) who consistently and successfully “plays the game of school” according to a set of invented rules and conventions (e.g., “Don’t read the textbook, just memorize the bold-faced words and phrases”). Although they may not understand the material they reproduce in tests, students like Fatima often achieve acceptable grades