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

Problems of Access

For me, a major element of my current dissatisfaction with science education concerns restricted access. In some countries, access to significant science education is limited to the academically elite, and if selection is early this usually means the socially and economically advantaged. While the most recent Ontario curriculum document dispenses with the traditional curriculum differentiation into three secondary school science courses - basic, general and advanced - it now specifies four levels of anticipated achievement, identifies achievement at level 3 as "the provincial standard", and states that some students will not reach it. This is simply not good enough! If critical scientific literacy is a crucial aspect of responsible citizenship and sound environmental behaviour, it is essential for everyone - here in Ontario and elsewhere around the world. Those who leave school scientifically illiterate are essentially disempowered. Worse, they are predisposed to succumb to the blandishments of advertizers to act in ever more consumptive and polluting ways in pursuit of essentially trivial consumer goods.

Some students already believe that school is a waste of time: it confines them against their will in physically unattractive surroundings, imposes on them a code of conduct that is unfamiliar and unwelcome, and often denies them any measure of choice and self-determination about what and how they study. To compound matters, these already disenchanted students are presented with a science curriculum that they regard as remote from real life. Even if they make the effort to learn science, they are presented almost daily with unappealing messages about the nature of science and scientific practice. Science is presented as complex and difficult, and so only accessible to 'experts' who have subjected themselves to a long and arduous training. Scientists are often portrayed as dispassionate and disinterested experimenters, who painstakingly reveal the truth about the world. Frequently, scientific knowledge is characterized as established and proven knowledge that is not to be challenged or doubted by mere students. Moreover, it is often presented in an unfamiliar and depersonalized language. For many students, all this constitutes such a formidable barrier that they are unable to make satisfactory progress. Many are dissuaded from further study and merely 'mark time' until they can give up science altogether. It is particularly disturbing that girls and members of ethnic minority groups are over-represented among those who consistently under-achieve in science or terminate their science education at the earliest opportunity - yet another example of the injustices in our education system.

It is a matter of some urgency that ways are found to make science more accessible. Developing a more inclusive science curriculum requires that we look closely at what we teach (and why), at how we teach, and at how we assess and evaluate learning. To enable all students to achieve critical scientific and technological literacy, we must pay much closer attention to the transitions from everyday understanding to scientific ways of understanding and from everyday ways of communicating to scientific ways of talking and arguing. Increasing access and participation levels also entails paying much more attention to the specific barriers and obstacles experienced by individuals, many of them related to ethnicity, gender and social class. This requires us to address the inherent biases of science and science education, create a more authentic, culturally sensitive and inclusive image of science, scientists and scientific practice, illustrate the ways in which science is used and developed by diverse people in diverse situations, and establish and maintain a school science environment in which all students feel a sense of comfort and belonging. At present, many students in science lessons are bored by content they consider irrelevant to their needs, interests and aspirations. They are uninvolved by the kinds of teaching/learning methods we employ and they find the social and emotional climate of the science classroom uninviting, or even alienating. Some of those who do engage in effective science learning do so at considerable social and emotional cost, sometimes resulting in disaffection, exclusion or ostracization from peers and family (Costa, 1995).

In my view, critical scientific literacy for an increasingly diverse student population can only be achieved by the personalization of learning, by developing an education that looks not only to the students' cognitive development but also to their emotional, aesthetic, moral and spiritual needs, an idea that is developed at length by Hodson (1998). Personalization of learning means ensuring that the curriculum takes account of the knowledge, beliefs, values, attitudes, aspirations and personal experiences of individual students. In my view, it also means that every student has the opportunity to conduct authentic scientific investigations and to engage in technological problem-solving tasks of their own choosing and their own design. But that is an issue well beyond the scope of this essay.