Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 3, Issue 1, Foreword (June, 2002) Derek HODSON Some Thoughts on Scientific Literacy: Motives, Meanings and Curriculum Implications Previous Contents Next

Professional Expertise or Civic Responsibility?

The opening paragraph of Shahn's (1988) article is typical of much of the rhetoric surrounding the notion of scientific literacy, and is worth quoting at length:

Science illiteracy is a serious problem. At one level it affects nations; because large parts of their populations are not adequately prepared, they cannot train enough technically proficient people to satisfy their economic and defense needs. More basically it affects people; those who are science illiterate are often deprived of the ability to understand the increasingly technological world, to make informed decisions regarding their health and their environment, to choose careers in remunerative technological fields and, in many ways, to think clearly.

This passage serves to illustrate the key distinction between an education that prepares students for a career as a professional scientist or engineer and an education focused on wider citizenship goals. In doing so, it raises important questions about the kind of science and technology knowledge the curriculum should include and about the level of attainment we should be seeking.

In many ways, the long-standing confusion with terms such as 'literacy', 'illiteracy' and 'literate', where some writers refer to a mere functional competence, while others imply a sensitive awareness of the complexities of language, is mirrored in the use of the term 'scientific literacy' and in the question of attainment levels. Some see 'being scientifically literate' as the capacity to read, with reasonable understanding, lay articles about scientific and technological matters published in newspapers and magazines; others regard it as being in possession of the knowledge, skills and attitudes deemed necessary for a professional scientist. Is scientific literacy more akin to what a 'literate person' would know and be able to do, or is it more akin to a basic or functional literacy - that is, being able to read at a reasonable level of comprehension? About ten years ago, Atkin and Helms (1992) asked two questions. First, does a person need to know science in the same sense that they need to know their mother tongue? Second, is the ability to use scientific knowledge in the way one uses language essential for adequate functioning and responsible citizenship? To both questions, their answer was "No".

An alternative question is: "Does one need to be literate in order to achieve scientific literacy?" Now, the answer is clearly: "Yes", regardless of whether the argument for scientific literacy is the preparation of future scientists or the education of responsible citizens. Engagement in science would not be possible without text and without literacy. As Anderson (1999, p.973) states: "reading and writing are the mechanisms through which scientists accomplish [their] task. Scientists create, share, and negotiate the meanings of inscriptions - notes, reports, tables, graphs, drawings, diagrams". Scientific knowledge cannot be articulated and communicated except through text, and its associated symbols, diagrams, graphs and equations. Moreover, because of the dependence of science on text, access to science also depends on basic literacy, and someone unable to read and write is unlikely to achieve even a rudimentary level of scientific literacy. Hewson (2002) has examined the nature of literacy in its prototypical form - reading and writing - in order to consider what similarities and differences between literacy and science might say about scientific literacy. His conclusions make fascinating reading:

An analysis of literacy leads to several propositions, from which the analogy with scientific literacy can be drawn. First, achieving literacy involves the acquisition of literacy tools, viz., reading and writing, that facilitate a conversation between objects and events and our records of them. By analogy, we can consider explaining and predicting as the tools of a basic scientific literacy that together become a conversation between the natural world and our theories of it. Second, there are prerequisites for achieving literacy - the ability to communicate with others, that is, to possess language. This is also the case for scientific literacy. Third, the availability of literacy tools provides a means of storing and sharing human knowledge and understanding that is independent of human memory. In this case, there is no need for a direct counterpart in scientific literacy, since literacy itself, broadened to include mathematics as a language, provides the means of storing scientific knowledge and understanding. Fourth, literacy tools can be, and are, used in a wide variety of contexts. While this is also the case for scientific literacy, the applicability of its tools can never approach the universal applicability of the literacy tools of reading and writing. Fifth, when literacy functions effectively, it is transparent, taken-for-granted, invisible. In this regard, scientific literacy and literacy parallel each other. Finally, we don't have to be linguistic experts to acquire and use literacy tools. In this case, too, scientific literacy and literacy parallel each other, since of those who are scientifically literate, there can be no question that a large proportion are not experts in one or other scientific discipline.

Literacy in its prototypical form focuses on the tools of reading and writing. The striking parallels between the two forms of literacy provide strong support for considering scientific literacy in relation to its tools, i.e., explaining and predicting, rather than to a body of knowledge. While this may seem to be a limited view of scientific literacy, the case of literacy is instructive. Over time, the influence of reading and writing has been quite remarkable. In the same way, focusing on two basic tools of scientific literacy, an achievable goal for all students, can have similarly revolutionary consequences (Hewson, 2002, p.207, original English text ).

Clearly, effective reading of science text is more than recognizing all the words and being able to locate specific information, it also involves the ability to infer meaning from the text - in particular, the meaning intended by the author. Thus, it involves analysis, interpretation and evaluation. In consequence, it depends on what the reader brings to the task in terms of conceptual understanding and text interpretation strategies. Despite the often considerable substantive content, the abilities required to extract meaning from scientific text are largely those required to extract meaning from any text, and while content knowledge is important, it is by no means sufficient for a proper understanding of scientific text. Indeed, Norris and Phillips (1994) have shown that high school students who score highly on traditional measures of science attainment sometimes perform very poorly when asked to interpret media reports of scientific matters. To paraphrase the words of Norris and Phillips (in press), understanding of science text resides in the capacity to determinine when something is an inference, a hypothesis, a conclusion or an assumption, to distinguish between an explanation and the evidence for it, and to recognize when the author is asserting a claim to 'scientific truth', expressing doubt or engaging in speculation. Without this level of interpretation, the reader will fail to grasp the essential scientific meaning.

If it is correct that most people obtain their knowledge of contemporary science and technology from television and newspapers (National Science Board, 1998; Select Committee, 2000), then the capacity for active critical engagement with text is not only a crucial element of scientific literacy for citizenship, it is perhaps the fundamental element. In that sense, education for scientific literacy has striking parallels with education in the language arts. But what else should be regarded as crucial? Understanding the nature of science? Knowledge of the major theoretical frameworks of biology, chemistry and physics, and their historical development? Awareness of the applications of science? Ability to use science in everyday problem solving? In his seminal work, The Myth of Scientific Literacy, Shamos (1995) argued that the pursuit of universal scientific literacy is a futile goal because its elements are so wide ranging that they cannot be achieved. Moreover, he declared, scientific literacy in any of the senses relating to science content isn't necessary anyway - most people can get along perfectly well without it! In similar vein, Layton et al. (1993) describe a very different kind of scientific literacy, what they call "practical knowledge in action". The science needed for everyday life, they argue, is very different in form from that presented via the school curriculum. This strand of argument has prompted Peter Fensham (2002) to state that it is "time to change drivers for scientific literacy" and to abandon the traditional ways of identifying science content knowledge for the school curriculum. More in line with Fensham's recommendation would be a curriculum designed in accordance with the findings described by Law (2002) from a study in which she and her co-researchers asked leading scientists, health care professionals, managers and personnel officers in manufacturing industry, local government representatives, and others, about the kind of science and the kind of personal attributes and skills that would be of most value in persons employed in their field of expertise. In one sense, this line of thought leads directly to my next consideration: the social, cultural and environmental 'fallout' from the current concern to link business interests, economic growth and scientific literacy.