Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy [1 ed.] 9780203843284, 9780415874359

Citation preview

Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy

“. . . a challenging and critical exploration of what it might mean to be scientifically literate and outlines the consequences for the science curricula of schools and colleges.” Edgar Jenkins, Leeds University (Professor Emeritus) “. . . provides new and unique perspectives for the field of science education. The authors present their best, contemporary thinking on fundamental themes. A major strength is their insightful philosophical, political, and pedagogical analysis and synthesis.” Roger W. Bybee, Executive Director (Emeritus), BSCS

Scientific literacy is part of national science education curricula worldwide. In this volume, an international group of distinguished scholars offer new ways to look at the key ideas and practices associated with promoting scientific literacy in schools and higher education. The goal is to open up the debate on scientific literacy, particularly around the tension between theoretical and practical issues related to teaching and learning science. Uniquely drawing together and examining a rich, diverse set of approaches and policy and practice exemplars, the book takes a pragmatic and inclusive perspective on curriculum reform and learning, and presents a future vision for science education research and practice by articulating a more expansive notion of scientific literacy. Cedric Linder is Professor of Physics Education Research, Uppsala University, Sweden, and Professor of Physics (Physics Education), University of the Western Cape, South Africa. Leif Östman is Professor in Curriculum Studies and Director of the Institute for Research in Education and Sustainable Development, Uppsala University, Sweden. Douglas A. Roberts is Professor Emeritus of Education, University of Calgary, Canada. Per-­Olof Wickman is Professor and Director of Science Education, Stockholm University, Sweden. Gaalen Erickson is Professor, Department of Curriculum Studies, University of British Columbia, Canada. Allan MacKinnon is Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Canada.

Teaching and Learning in Science Series Norman G. Lederman, Series Editor

Rethinking the Way We Teach Science The Interplay of Content, Pedagogy, and the Nature of Science Rosenblatt Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy Edited by Linder/Östman/Roberts/Wickman/Erickson/MacKinnon Designing and Teaching the Elementary Science Methods Course Abell/Appleton/Hanuscin Interdisciplinary Language Arts and Science Instruction in Elementary Classroom Applying Research to Practice Edited by Akerson Aesthetic Experience in Science Education Learning and Meaning-­Making as Situated Talk and Action Wickman

Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy

Edited by Cedric Linder Uppsala University and University of the Western Cape Leif Östman Uppsala University Douglas A. Roberts University of Calgary Per-­Olof Wickman Stockholm University Gaalen Erickson University of British Columbia Allan MacKinnon Simon Fraser University

First published 2011 by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2010. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk. Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2011 Taylor & Francis The rights of the editors to be identified as authors of the edited material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, have been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy / edited by Cedric Linder . . . [et al.]. p.cm. Includes index. 1. Science–Study and teaching–Research. I. Linder, Cedric J., 1954– Q181.E97 2011 507.1–dc22 2010013234 ISBN 0-203-84328-2 Master e-book ISBN ISBN13: 978-0-415-87435-9 (hbk) ISBN13: 978-0-415-87436-6 (pbk) ISBN13: 978-0-203-84328-4 (ebk)

Contents



Preface



Acknowledgments

  1. Overview: Scientific Literacy and the State of the Art in School Science Education

viii ix 1

T h e E ditors

PART I

Curriculum Policy and Scientific Literacy   2. Competing Visions of Scientific Literacy: The Influence of a Science Curriculum Policy Image

7 11

D ou g las A . R oberts

  3. Scientific Literacy for a Knowledge Society

28

Glen A iken h ead , Gra h am O rpwood , and P eter F ens h am

  4. Scientific Literacy: Content and Curriculum Making

45

Z on g yi D en g

PART II

Exploring Language Perspectives

57

  5. Scientific Literacy, Discourse, and Epistemic Practices

61

Gre g ory J . K elly

vi   Contents

  6. Scientific Literacy and Students’ Movability in Science Texts

74

C aroline L iber g , Å sa af Geijerstam , and J enny W . F olkeryd

  7. Literacy as Metaphor and Perspective in Science Education

90

I sabel M artins

  8. Bilingual Scientific Literacy

106

J o h n A irey and C edric L inder

PART III

Exploring Themes of Scientific Literacy

125

9. The Development of Scientific Literacy: A Function of the Interactions and Distinctions Among Subject Matter, Nature of Science, Scientific Inquiry, and Knowledge About Scientific Inquiry

127

N orman G . L ederman and J udit h S . L ederman

10. Scientific Literacy as Action: Consequences for Content Progression

145

P er - ­O lof W ickman and F lorence L i g ozat

11. What Do Values and Norms Have to Do with Scientific Literacy?

160

L eif Ö stman and J onas A lmq v ist

12. An Inclusive View of Scientific Literacy: Core Issues and Future Directions

176

D ana L . Z eidler and T roy D . S adler

13. Scientific Literacy for Bringing in the Outsiders N ancy B rick h ouse

193

Contents   vii PART IV

Science Teachers’ Professional Development

205

14. In the Path of Linnaeus: The Development and Nurturing of Science Educators for a Complex World

207

Gaalen E rickson

15. The Vietnam Consortium Fellowship Program

223

A llan M ac K innon

16. Making an Innovation Grow: On the Shared Learning Within and Between Communities

236

A strid M . W . B ulte and F rank S eller

17. Professional Development of Teachers and Researchers in Collaborative Development of Teaching Resources

255

A ndr É e T iber g h ien , J acques Vince , P ierre Gaidioz , and D idier C oince

18. “Struggling Up Mount Improbable”: A Cautionary (Implementation) Tale of a Vision II Scientific Literacy Curriculum in South Africa

272

J onat h an C lark , J ennifer M . C ase , N orman D av ies , Gillian S h eridan , and R ené T oerien



About the Editors and Contributors

288

Index

292

Preface

The landscape of scientific literacy is impressive. Worldwide, scientific literacy is probably the most popular phrase now used to express in a nutshell the desirable outcomes of school science education. Indeed, a search for “scientific literacy by country,” on any Internet search engine, would quickly register in the millions of items. In addition to its global sweep, the landscape of scientific literacy is also deep and rich in the literature and discourse of professional science education, associated frequently with the expression “Science for All.” However, is everyone on the same page about that? The intended audience for this book is primarily the science education research and professional community, and the professional education community more widely. The authors collectively believe that the current state of research and practice regarding scientific literacy as an overarching goal for school science education provides our community with an opportunity to meet some serious challenges. However, the international output of research and analysis surrounding this popular concept cries out for exploration, analysis, framing, and presentation in an organized, useable fashion. To that end, the four parts of this book are organized according to a conceptual framework that begins with analyzing scientific literacy as an educational outcome, and continues through the implications for change associated with the larger picture of systemic educational reform. Representing nearly a dozen countries, the authors have inquired into a variety of aspects of scientific literacy through research, analysis, and practice. The international flavor of the collection is complemented by the diversity of theoretical and methodological approaches used, including linguistics, discourse analysis, policy research, classroom studies of implementation, and various aspects of teachers’ professional development.

Acknowledgments

Several institutions and individuals were instrumental in supporting the development of this work, by hosting and organizing two international meetings of many authors who have a common research interest. The Uppsala symposium was made possible through Uppsala University’s celebration of the 300th birthday of Carolus Linnaeus, one of their most famous professors. At this occasion, the university conferred two honorary doctoral degrees in the Faculty of Educational Sciences, to Gaalen Erickson and Douglas Roberts. The financial assistance for the symposium that followed came from the Swedish Research Council and the Faculty of Educational Sciences at Uppsala University. For all of the organizational details associated with hosting that symposium, the authors express appreciation to Cedric Linder, Leif Östman, Per-­Olof Wickman, and Anne Linder. The University of British Columbia hosted the Vancouver conference and provided financial support through the Rex Boughton Fund for Science Education. Additional financial assistance was provided by the Vice-­President’s Fund for Academic Conferences at Simon Fraser University. The authors are grateful to Gaalen Erickson and Allan MacKinnon for making the conference and the subsequent authors’ meeting possible. Anne Linder deserves special recognition for logistical and editorial assistance associated with both author meeting events and the two publications arising from them. She created and maintained an authors’ website, she single-­handedly edited and brought the Uppsala symposium Proceedings to both print and online publication, and she contributed substantially to the organization and editorial work associated with the Vancouver conference and with bringing this volume to completion. Thank you, Anne, from all of us. We would like to acknowledge the peer reviewers whose feedback helped us to shape the final manuscript: Roger W. Bybee, Edgar Jenkins, and James Ryder.

1 Overview Scientific Literacy and the State of the Art in School Science Education The Editors

This book is the product of collaborative effort by 34 authors from 10 countries, over a period of nearly three years. Consistent with its international perspective, the scope of the collection is marked by a diversity of topics, theoretical approaches, and research methodologies. At the same time, the collection is unified as a coherent whole by its focus on scientific literacy and its parallel focus on the complexities of understanding and influencing the practices associated with school science education. The “landscape” of scientific literacy is the best term we can think of, to capture the many facets of the worldwide interest this term currently enjoys as a rallying cry for rethinking what school science education is all about. As explained below, we have characterized the research in this volume according to four pervasive themes that stitch together the landscape of scientific literacy in terms that are representative of the concerns and activities of systemic reform in science education—in brief, curriculum, language in teaching and learning, classrooms, and professional development of teachers.

Origins and Concerns The book originated at a two-­day research symposium held at Uppsala University, Sweden, on May 28–29, 2007. The occasion was part of a celebration throughout Sweden of the 300th birthday of Carolus Linnaeus, one of Uppsala’s most famous professors. In addition to his well-­known scientific achievements, Linnaeus was widely respected for his teaching, especially for making scientific knowledge accessible by demonstrating its relevance in such matters as nutrition, health, and economics. At this Linnaeus Tercentenary Celebration, Uppsala University conferred honorary doctoral degrees on 14 scholars selected by the various faculties of the university. From the Faculty of Educational Sciences, the recipients were two science educators, Gaalen Erickson and Douglas Roberts. The symposium that followed, entitled “Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction,” featured presentations and discussion by an international group of 20 invited scholars in science education.

2   Overview Common Focus of the Participants The symposium opened with keynote presentations by the two honorary doctorate recipients. Roberts’ (2007) analysis of research and writing on scientific literacy formed part of the overall framing of the subsequent discussions by identifying two competing visions of scientific literacy that are rooted in the history of school science education. Vision I derives its authenticity by looking inward to the products and procedures of the scientific disciplines themselves. Vision II is broader, deriving its legitimacy from the demonstrable role of science in a whole array of human affairs in addition to scientific activity. Erickson (2007) expanded the framing by addressing two orienting preoccupations of the symposium: the search for conceptual clarity around competing notions of scientific literacy, and the development of fruitful models of educational inquiry that recognize and accommodate the variety of aspects of research into the complex world of practice. These he dubbed, respectively, the “what” and “how” questions of scientific literacy. The presented papers and discussions during the symposium ranged across both theoretical and practical aspects of teaching and learning science within a broad, expansive vision of scientific literacy, at both individual and societal levels. Participants stressed, as Linnaeus did, that science education has the potential to develop and enrich students’ understanding of a wide array of human affairs in addition to scientific activity itself, that is, Vision II of scientific literacy. Yet, concern was expressed that Vision I still predominates in school science, despite some serious challenges that are becoming increasingly apparent. The published symposium proceedings (Linder, Östman, & Wickman, 2007) therefore include a formal Statement of Concern (pp. 7–8), which is reproduced here in its entirety. The Statement of Concern We, the members of the 2007 Linné Scientific Literacy Symposium, wish to express our concern about the current state of science education in many countries on the following grounds. Attitudinal data from many sources indicate that it is common for many school students to find little of interest in their studies of science and to quite often express an active dislike of it. In comparison with a number of other subjects, too many students experience science education as an experience dominated by the transmission of facts, as involving content of little relevance, and as more difficult than other school subjects. This experience leads to disinterest in science and technology as personal career possibilities, and only a mildly positive sense of their social importance. Science education has often overemphasized the learning of a store of established scientific knowledge at the expense of giving students confidence in, or knowledge of, the scientific procedures whereby scientific knowledge is obtained. Science education researchers have thus given increased attention to how various aspects of nature of science can be taught, but school science curricula remain too loaded with content knowledge for these aspects to be sufficiently well-­ emphasized by teachers.

Overview   3 In the last decade there have been widespread moves across many countries to increase the formal assessment of learning in science. These efforts have typically given more value to the students’ retention of bits of scientific knowledge than to their abilities with the procedures of science and the application of scientific knowledge to novel real world situations involving science and technology. Science education, perhaps because of the sheer depth and volume of the knowledge base of modem science, has isolated that knowledge from its historical origins and hence students are not made aware of the dynamic and evolving character of scientific knowledge, or of science’s current frontiers. There is little flavor in school science of the importance that creativity, ingenuity, intuition, and persistence have played in the scientific enterprise. Nor is there any real sense of any meaningful exploration of issues that relate ethical and personal accountability to modern scientific activity. Indeed, the existence of human enterprise that makes science possible is almost ignored in science education. Curricula and assessment need to support teachers’ being able to share the excitement of the human dramas that lie behind the topics in school science with their students. Recent policy statements about the changing nature of our work and the Knowledge Society have challenged education systems to give priority to the development in students of competencies that focus on generic skills. In doing so they undermine the importance of those other competencies that are intimately dependent on content knowledge such as those that are associated with subjects such as science. Citizens’ lives are increasingly influenced by science and technology at both the personal and societal levels. Yet the manner and nature of these influences are still largely unaddressed in school science. Few students complete a schooling in science that has addressed the many ways their lives are now influenced by science and technology. Such influences are deeply human in nature and include the production of the food we eat, its distribution, and its nutritional quality, our uses of transportation, how we communicate, the conditions and tools of our work environments, our health and how illness is treated, and the quality of our air and water. Science education is not contributing as it could to understanding and addressing such global issues as Feeding the World’s Population, Ensuring Adequate Supplies of Water, Climate Change, and Eradication of Disease in which we all have a responsibility to play a role. Students are not made aware of how the solution of any of these will require applications of science and technology, along with appropriate and committed social, economic, and political action. As long as their school science is not equipping them to be scientifically literate citizens about these issues and the role that science and technology must play, there is little hope that these great issues will be given the political priority and the public support or rejection that they may need. Reforms of science education that continue to frame scientific literacy in terms of a narrow homogeneous body of knowledge, skills and dispositions, fail to acknowledge the different ethnic and cultural backgrounds of students. Such science education stands in strong contrast to the popular media. It omits a discussion of the reciprocal interactions between science and world views and

4   Overview between values and science that the media regularly recognizes as important to the public interest. Furthermore, it fails to contribute to a fundamental task of schooling, namely, redressing societal inequalities that arise from differences such as race, sex, and social status. Instead of equipping students to participate thoughtfully with fellow citizens building a democratic, open and just society, school science will be a key factor in the reproduction of an unequal and unjust society. In the chapters that follow, these concerns are directly addressed and a number of new directions for school science that have strong research support will be presented.

A Blueprint for the Book Emerges At the Uppsala symposium, participants also expressed concern that the scientific literacy literature is missing a more open exploratory approach that does justice to the variety of international research that the field holds. Thus they decided to meet again to start working on production of such a comprehensive publication in the form of a book. The second meeting was held in the context of an invited symposium entitled “Beyond Borders of Scientific Literacy: International Perspectives on New Directions for Policy and Practice,” at the annual conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, May 31–June 3, 2008. As part of this symposium a two-­day workshop was held to develop the blueprint for the book and begin to shape the overall structure and coherence of its components. To emphasize the diversity of our work and its open exploratory nature, the book was given its current title: “Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy.” The focus on “exploration” is to bring out (1) the richness and diversity of contemporary thinking on various aspects of scientific literacy as these relate to research and practice in school science education, and (2) systemic reform that can address current challenges and concerns as expressed formally in the Statement of Concern from the Uppsala symposium. As suggested earlier, both of these components of our work are incorporated in the notion of a “landscape” of scientific literacy. Participants agreed that significant change will require a commitment to nothing less than co-­ordinated systemic reform of many aspects of professional science education (cf. Bybee, 1997). In the four sections of the book, aspects of systemic reform are addressed according to four themes: • • • •

an examination of the characteristics and pervasive influence of science curriculum policy, a fresh look at the role of language in the practice of teaching and learning science, multiple aspects and possibilities of what scientific literacy means in a classroom, and the profoundly significant role of learning communities in teachers’ professional development.

Overview   5 All of these topics of research and practice have been scrutinized, investigated, and discussed individually in the science education literature, some of them for many years. This book relates and solidifies the diversity of such topics through a common, unifying conceptual framework laid out in Roberts’ opening chapter. There, curriculum policy choices and other aspects of systemic reform in school science education are linked according to their inter-­relationship and the (intended) flow of influence that binds them together. Many of the authors, a majority in fact, assembled as a group one more time, at the conference of the European Science Education Research Association held in Istanbul, August 31–September 4, 2009. At a symposium attended by more than 100 conference delegates, authors presented papers about the research themes in each part of the book, and about several representative chapters. Other authors were in the audience, and all responded to questions and discussion following the presentations.

A Synopsis of the Book There are 18 chapters in the book, including this introductory one. These are presented in four parts, each of which has its own detailed introduction. This overview is intended simply to highlight the focus of each part and give a brief indication of the contents. Doing so will also indicate how the parts overall constitute a coherent whole about the landscape of scientific literacy. The three chapters of Part I concentrate on the characteristics and potential influence of scientific literacy—whether Vision I or Vision II—as a curriculum policy construct. The policy “image” embodied in one or the other vision (or any other curriculum policy statement) is related to a cascade of subsequent events and activities of school program development and student assessment. Illustrating this cascade of events is the presentation of a radically different view of scientific literacy for a Knowledge Society, showing in detail how systemic reform could address many aspects of the Statement of Concern developed at the Uppsala symposium. The third chapter of Part I introduces concepts from curriculum theory as a basis for analyzing a curriculum policy document (the US National Science Education Standards is the example) with a view to demonstrating how a curriculum policy image is presented and explicated in such documents. Part II consists of four chapters about the significance of language in teaching and learning science, as related to scientific literacy. The following topics are the focus: • • • •

the nature of “epistemic practices” in science teaching discourse, the significance of developing students’ ability to comprehend and make use of scientific text, the dominant influence of “literacy” when seen as a metaphor appropriated for understanding scientific literacy, and impacts on the scientific literacy of university students when they are taught in two languages (English and mother tongue), including development of a new construct called bilingual scientific literacy.

6   Overview Scientific literacy in the classroom is the focus of Part III. Topics in these five chapters range across a diversity of research and development areas, united by their common attention to significant themes associated primarily with adoption of curriculum policies that resemble Vision II scientific literacy more than Vision I: •

• • • •

conceptual and research inter-­relationships among the familiar but contested concepts of scientific inquiry, nature of science, and “traditional” science subject matter, as these play out in a balance required for implementing scientific literacy in the classroom, consequences for content progression when scientific literacy is conceptualized as “scientific literacy in action,” how values and norms associated with scientific literacy are communicated in the classroom, relating views of scientific literacy to an ongoing and long-­standing research and development program about socioscientific issues in the classroom, and how identity formation among students, especially young women, is affected by teaching for scientific literacy.

Part IV has five chapters that present case studies of science teachers’ professional development, set in six different countries (Canada, China, Vietnam, the Netherlands, France, and South Africa). Despite this international breadth, the authors have brought out the common, profoundly important role played by the concept and enactment of “learning communities” of science education practitioners, including university professors, researchers, and classroom teachers. Each of the narratives in these five chapters tells a fascinating story in its own right, laced with conceptual, theoretical, and practical insights. Taken together, they bring this volume to a satisfying close by illustrating in graphic detail what happens in reality, when the idealized presentation of a curriculum “cascade” of events (Part I) is set in motion.

References Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Erickson, G. (2007). In the path of Linnaeus: Scientific literacy re-­visioned with some thoughts on persistent problems and new directions for science education. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-O. Wickman (Eds.). Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 18–41). Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University. Linder, C., Östman, L., & Wickman, P.-O. (Eds.). (2007). Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University. Online, available at www.fysik.uu.se/didaktik/lsl. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Part I

Curriculum Policy and Scientific Literacy The authors’ Statement of Concern in Chapter 1 of this volume draws the reader’s attention to two characteristics of school science education in many countries at this time: its irrelevance as perceived by students, and the inappropriateness of its content and goals as perceived by many professionals. The chapters of this volume document the need for systemic reform, if these challenges are to be addressed. Each author presents research and analysis that touches on at least one of the many familiar components of the science education enterprise, including policy formulation, content selection, instructional materials development, science classroom discourse and pedagogy, program implementation, professional development of teachers, and most significantly, the impacts on students when they are taught and assessed. The three chapters of Part I introduce this volume by focusing on the character of science curriculum policy and its influence on every other aspect of school science education. Roberts’ Chapter 2 has three major points. First, he argues that a long-­standing contest between two visions of the scientifically literate person (dubbed Vision I and Vision II) is at the root of our concerns. At this time, a single term—scientific literacy (SL)—is being used in professional discourse to refer to both visions, yet they are distinctly different. Vision I takes the discipline of science as its starting point, while Vision II takes as a starting point situations in which a scientific perspective is important, but not sufficient, for understanding and resolution of science-­related events and issues. Second, associated with each vision is a science curriculum policy image that shapes and influences every aspect of school science education. The distinction between Vision I and Vision II is an important organizing theme that brings unity to the diversity of the contributions in this volume. Vision II has much more flexibility than Vision I—indeed, sufficient flexibility to enable the reader to form a coherent picture of systemic reform in the three parts that follow this one. Third, Roberts proposes that the familiar components of the science education enterprise be seen as connected in a framework that shows their interdependence. He further proposes that we regard such a framework as a multidirectional communication pathway traversed by the policy image during consistent, systemic reform. In Chapter 3, Aikenhead, Orpwood, and Fensham provide concrete meaning to the inter-­relatedness of the components of Roberts’ framework. They take the reader through the educational implications of embracing a radically different

8   Curriculum Policy and Scientific Literacy curriculum policy image for school science (“SL-­in-action”), one that addresses our collective Statement of Concern but requires that we seriously rethink much about current practice in school science. SL-­in-action is shown to be appropriate for responding to the demands of a Knowledge Society, in which “what you know” is not as important an end point in education as “knowing how, when, and whether to use what you know.” Clearly, this policy image is more like Vision II than Vision I. A central concept is the presentation, based on analysis of science education research, of the distinction among seven types of school science content, in terms of who supports (and attempts to decide) on the character of school science: wish-­they-knew science, functional science, have-­cause-to-­know science, need-­to-know science, enticed-­to-know science, personal-­curiosity science, and science-­as-culture. Three further points are of special significance for this introduction. First, wish-­they-knew science is the science curriculum content generator for Vision I, while Vision II can accommodate that category and any or all of the remaining six. Second, assessment procedures have traditionally been aligned with wish-­ they-knew science, but the authors describe and discuss some evaluation efforts that align with the other categories. Third, the steering effect of assessment is analyzed in terms of its powerful influence on the likelihood that SL as a policy image can take root and flourish in science education and the educational enterprise writ large. Deng’s Chapter 4 draws on the literature of curriculum theory to examine the matter of selecting SL content. His analysis distinguishes among three kinds of curriculum-making discourse: institutional, programmatic, and classroom. The distinctions are applied in an analysis of the United States National Science Education Standards, showing that the document meets two requirements for translating institutional discourse to programmatic discourse. The first is that it displays a “theory of content” and the second is its “set of conditions or criteria about teaching, assessment, and professional development.” His analysis shows that the Standards embody a curriculum policy image that is more like Vision I than Vision II, in two ways. At the institutional level, discourse about economic, political, and cultural contexts of students’ lives receives insufficient attention— which is demonstrated by contrasting the Standards image with SL-­in-action as developed by Aikenhead, Orpwood, and Fensham, above. At the programmatic level, wish-­they-knew science is privileged in the Standards. That is, the document specifies three categories of canonical science content, but the other five content categories are actually “companion meanings” intended to provide context for this wish-­they-knew science. Blending the canonical science content with the companion meanings is left to professional development, and Deng rightly points out this theory of content risks—at the classroom level—becoming the familiar discipline-­based organization of school science. Pitfalls associated with Vision II are also exposed by Deng’s analytical framework. There can be an overreliance on local contexts and issues, dealing with SL at the level of discourse about what should go on in classrooms, but neglecting the implications for institutional and programmatic discourse. This approach has the advantage of linking directly to concerns about students, but it overlooks the

Curriculum Policy and Scientific Literacy   9 need for a broader view of the place of local contexts and issues in the big picture of a school science curriculum, including, for example, the scope and sequence needed for concept development. Policy studies have always been more a part of the educational literature on curriculum theory than the science education literature. Deng’s chapter especially reminds us of the heuristic and synergistic value of drawing these two literatures together. One reason science educators might find it profitable to engage more with the curriculum theory literature is that many of the issues addressed in Part I—indeed in this entire volume—have been investigated within the broader perspective of curriculum and instruction as general topics (see, e.g., Connelly, He, & Phillion, 2008).

Reference Connelly, F. M., He, M. F., & Phillion, J. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

2 Competing Visions of Scientific Literacy The Influence of a Science Curriculum Policy Image1 Douglas A. Roberts

Introduction Virtually every component of the school curriculum is an object of political and professional struggle. In the case of school science, an enduring competition at the level of policy has been evident for many years. I shall argue that a fundamental difference between two science curriculum policy images2 is at the heart of the competition. Layton (1972) captured the difference succinctly as emphasizing, on one hand, an understanding of science “in its internal disciplinary aspects,” as opposed, on the other hand, to “its external relations, [an understanding] of the nature of the science–society interface” (p. 12). These two images would spawn development and implementation of very different school science programs. Policy studies do not have a very high profile in science education research, as Fensham (2009) has pointed out emphatically. He argues for the importance of policy studies by demonstrating, with examples, how policy permeates many facets of the working life of practitioners. Yet, “policy” is a thing that lurks in the murky, distant background—far away from a science teacher’s classroom practice. For a teacher, policy is a given, a taken-­for-granted. Once policy is established, its implementation sets off a chain reaction that doesn’t stop until students have felt its impact. Fensham presents two examples (external testing and funding for lab assistants) that illustrate the influence of educational policy on broad aspects of school science programs. In this chapter I concentrate more narrowly on the substance of curriculum policy. In the working life of a science teacher, the substance of policy speaks through a required set of learning outcomes, a syllabus, a program of studies, or an approved textbook. The struggle and reasoning that went into determining the policy are often distant in time, and not necessarily a part of the teacher’s experience. The policy image choices that were debated and discarded are not directly relevant to the teacher’s daily work. Curriculum policy expresses the purposes for learning. Elsewhere (Roberts, 2007) I have shown that the science education landscape is currently characterized by competition between two broad “visions” of the purposes for learning school science. As suggested by Layton’s description, the roots of these are in two

12   D. A. Roberts perennially conflicting curriculum sources. On one hand, there is the discipline of science itself—the products, processes, and characteristics of the scientific enterprise. On the other, there are situations in which science demonstrably plays a role in human affairs—including, but not limited to, scientific thinking and activity. These I have dubbed, respectively, Vision I and Vision II. These two visions have been in competition for a very long time. At present, though, the competition is at the heart of understanding many of the factors contributing to the Statement of Concern at the beginning of this volume. A single term—scientific literacy—is being used by science educators to characterize the very different long-­term outcomes of school science programs associated with both visions. This major source of confusion in our professional discourse masks the depth and significance of the competition. A vision provides professional educators, researchers, policy makers, and the public with an answer to the big-­picture question “What should a scientifically literate person know and be able to do?” (Thus we “envision” the scientifically literate person.) Visions orient us, in broad and general terms—more like this than like that. In that broad sense, only two visions of scientific literacy can be recognized in the literature, although dozens of definitions dot the landscape. Some definitions are more like Vision I, others are more like Vision II. In other words, the vision concept is a “pointer” rather than a pigeon-­hole system for classifying definitions. The major distinguishing factor and, indeed, the most powerful source of competition between Vision I and Vision II lies in the different companion meanings (Roberts, 1998) inherent in each. Vision II has a much wider scope for accommodating innovations in school science, such as those explored in this volume, because the range of purposes expressed by allowable companion meanings is much more diverse. Despite the relative narrowness of its companion meanings, Vision I historically has had much greater prestige. That prestige itself often trumps any other considerations in the competition. A policy image is not the same as a vision. A policy image is a functioning communication device that serves as the starting point and conceptual “glue” that holds together the long process of systemic reform in education. The research and analysis presented in subsequent parts of this volume focus on a variety of aspects of reform, including program development and implementation, the role of language in creating meaning in science classrooms, impact on students, and professional development for teachers. The present chapter develops a conceptual framework for exploring the pervasive influence of a policy image on those familiar components of the science education enterprise. The chapter unfolds in three sections following this introduction. In the first, I exemplify the visions, review their characteristics, and present features of the vision concept as an analytical tool. The second section elaborates the concept of a science curriculum policy image, also as an analytical tool. The conceptual framework that binds this entire volume is presented there, although reference to individual chapters occurs throughout. The overriding power of companion meanings within the two visions is demonstrated in the third section, and brief concluding remarks bring the chapter to a close.

Competing Visions of Scientific Literacy   13

Two Visions of Scientific Literacy It has been about half a century since the term scientific literacy began to appear in the professional literature of science education. Science literacy is the conspicuously different term now used in all Project 2061 publications of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Scientific literacy (hereafter SL), the term more widely used, has become something of a science education icon. It seems that policy documents everywhere claim that SL is the intended outcome of their school science programs. Assessment programs external to schools claim to be testing students’ SL. Indeed, one author suggested recently that a “scientific literacy approach” to school science now enjoys “worldwide cachet” (McEneaney, 2003). Close examination of different policy documents, policy proposals, and assessment programs does not show the uniformity McEneaney suggests. One finds a lot of variation instead. Such variation is not surprising. The linguistic history of SL began with an educational slogan rather than a crisp definition. The science education literature from about 1960 until about 1980 is full of articles and books in which authors attempted to pin down a definition for SL and to either find or invent a consensus on the meaning of the term.3 Eventually the definitions expanded to accommodate every conceivable purpose for teaching school science. As every science educator knows, the only way to avoid confusion about SL is to stipulate its meaning every time one uses the term. The Vision Concept and Science Curriculum History Using the Vision I–Vision II broad distinction makes it possible to discuss and analyze competition about the meaning of SL without foundering in the morass of detail associated with dozens of definitions. More importantly, the vision concept connects the current situation in science education worldwide with a curriculum policy struggle that has been around for as long as there has been school science. When Layton (1972) characterized that struggle as “internal/ external,” he expressed neatly the distinction I intend to capture with Vision I and Vision II. Layton was characterizing the outcome of the 1950s/1960s science curriculum reform projects in England and the United States, when he made that statement.4 In other jurisdictions, this same struggle has been analyzed in terms of the power politics of different interest groups, concentrating especially on the remarkable clout exercised on school science policy by academic scientists. Policy formation has been examined in this way by Blades (1997) and Gaskell (2002), in the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia respectively, and by Fensham (1998) in the Australian state of Victoria. Understandably, Vision I is favored by many academic scientists. Vision I is the organizational generator for the common practice of orienting school science as if its major purpose is to develop a potential scientist pool. Given that the scientific community was so heavily involved in the formative stages of AAAS Project 2061, it is no surprise that the project is the most prominent advocate of Vision I at this time. Vision II is favored by others (including some academic scientists).

14   D. A. Roberts Vision II is the organizational generator for the practice of orienting school science toward having students comprehend and cope with a variety of science-­ related situations that confront adults as parents and citizens. The watchword for those committed to Vision II is relevance of science to such situations. The best known advocates of Vision II have been those involved in the science-­technologysociety (STS) movement and, more recently, in a focus on ESD, education for sustainable development (Östman & Almqvist, Chapter 11 this volume). Relevance in a curriculum policy and a science classroom is established by plausible answers to the student question, “Why are we learning this?” To be sure, all curriculum policies for school science express the expectation that students will learn the scientific meaning of selected concepts, laws, theories, and procedures inherent in the scientific enterprise. At issue is the purpose for this learning. Scientific meaning is within science. Science curriculum policies also express learning outcomes that indicate what the curriculum emphasizes about science. Seven different kinds of purposes for learning science, or “curriculum emphases” (Roberts, 1982), can be discerned in the history of school science education by examining curriculum policy documents, textbooks, and programs sponsored by external agencies.5 (Examples giving substance to these categories came from literature especially in North America and England, from about 1900 to 1980.) Here is a description of the seven, presented in two clusters. The first four emphases in this list are more like Vision I than Vision II, in that they look inward at science itself for their substance. • • • •

Structure of science (how science functions as an intellectual enterprise). Scientific skill development (“science process skills”—more recently, “science inquiry skills”). Correct explanations (stresses products of science and its cumulative and self­correcting qualities). Solid foundation (continuity and increasing complexity of scientific knowledge, as in “getting you ready for the next course”).

The remaining three are more like Vision II than Vision I. • •

•

Everyday coping (scientific explanations demystify objects and events of fairly obvious personal relevance). Self as explainer (students understand their efforts to explain the natural world by seeing that cultural and conceptual frameworks also influenced scientists). Science, technology, and decisions (inter-­relatedness among scientific activity, technological planning and problem solving, and decision making about personal and social issues).

The Two Visions The most important feature for distinguishing between Vision I and Vision II of SL is the overarching purpose for which a student is to learn scientific meaning.

Competing Visions of Scientific Literacy   15 Minor differences among definitions of SL are insignificant compared to the differences expressed in this big picture. Consider these two modern-­day expressions of what counts as SL. The first example is taken from a document familiar especially to science educators in the United States. I consider this to be a defining instance of Vision I. AAAS Project 2061 characterized SL in the following way in its flagship in-­house publication Science for All Americans: The scientifically literate person is one who: • • • •

is aware that science, mathematics, and technology are interdependent enterprises with strengths and limitations, understands key concepts and principles of science, is familiar with the natural world and recognizes both its diversity and unity, and uses scientific knowledge and scientific ways of thinking for individual and social purposes. (AAAS, 1989, p. 4)

In the more readily available version of the report (AAAS, 1990), published a year later by Oxford University Press, the characterization of SL was not changed. However, the term scientific literacy was changed to science literacy throughout the volume; the latter term is used consistently in all Project 2061 documents published since that time. It will become increasingly clear below that this name change is not trivial. Consider next the following characterization of a scientifically literate person, which exemplifies Vision II. This is found in the description of an experimental project in England called 21st Century Science: We would expect a scientifically literate person to be able to: • • • • •

appreciate and understand the impact of science and technology on everyday life, take informed personal decisions about things that involve science, such as health, diet, use of energy resources, read and understand the essential points of media reports about matters that involve science, reflect critically on the information included in, and (often more important) omitted from, such reports, and take part confidently in discussions with others about issues involving science. (Retrieved July 15, 2009: www.21stcenturyscience.org/rationale/scientific-­literacy)

Notice that the fourth point in the Project 2061 characterization concentrates attention on one perspective only—the scientific perspective—as the way to

16   D. A. Roberts think about issues associated with “individual and social purposes.” In other words, by default (no other perspective is mentioned) the student is encouraged to approach and understand situations as a scientist does. The risks associated with this limitation are explored in this volume by Martins (Chapter 7). By contrast, in the 21st Century Science characterization of SL there is a clear implication that other perspectives are significant as well. Analytical Features of the Vision Concept The fundamental inward/outward distinction between Vision I and Vision II expresses the way students are expected to grasp the place of science in human affairs. Both visions are subject to extreme interpretations. Vision I runs the risk of being interpreted as “scientism,” that is, the notion that scientific reasoning is not only a necessary way of thinking about human affairs, but also is a sufficient way. The following statement from Project 2061 leaves Vision I open to that interpretation. Science, energetically pursued, can provide humanity with the knowledge of the biophysical environment and of social behavior that it needs to develop effective solutions to its global and local problems; without that knowledge, progress toward a safe world will be unnecessarily handicapped. (AAAS, 1989, p. 12) Against that, extreme interpretations of Vision II diminish the appropriate role of the student’s personal understanding of scientific knowledge and activity. There is a risk that the science of the situation will be lost or overlooked among the technological, political, economic, moral, ethical, and other considerations that are normally brought to bear on socioscientific issues. For example, Roth and Lee (2004) develop what I consider to be an extreme interpretation of Vision II when they overemphasize the collective (rather than individual) character of SL: the idea that in a democratic society “all forms of knowledge that contribute to a controversial or urgent issue are to be valued” (p. 284)—science being but one of many. The problem with this extreme interpretation is that the importance of a scientific perspective in decision making is unspecified and vague. Sophisticated treatments of the nature of science can offset the risk associated with this extreme interpretation (e.g., see Lederman & Lederman in Chapter 9, this volume). The risk of extreme interpretations is due to the nature of the vision concept as an orienting or “pointer” device for inquiry, rather than a pigeon-­holing device for classification only. One ordinarily thinks of categories in the latter way, but in this case we need to think of “more like Vision I” or “more like Vision II.” The intention of the categorization is to call attention to the essence of the two visions, which is an important distinction about the place of science in human affairs more generally, and therefore human purpose in pursuing those affairs. To become more specific about this distinction, it is helpful to turn to Aristotle’s account of three domains of human purpose, categorized in terms of three inten-

Competing Visions of Scientific Literacy   17 tions or ends-­in-view. Three corresponding patterns of reasoning are appropriate for the three domains. (Note that these categories, too, are pointers; they are not pigeon holes.) •

•

•

A theoretical reasoning pattern is appropriate when one intends to establish warranted knowledge. This is Aristotle’s theoria. Scientific reasoning and scientific activity aim for this end-­in-view. A technological reasoning pattern (Aristotle’s techne) is appropriate when one intends to design and produce useful and beautiful things—a bridge, a building, a symphony, a sculpture. Reasoning patterns in engineering, architecture, and the arts aim for this end-­in-view. A practical reasoning pattern (Aristotle’s praxis) is appropriate when one intends to arrive at defensible value-­laden decisions. This is politics, morals, and ethics at their best. This pattern is appropriate for analyzing and understanding decision making about a variety of science-­related events and issues.

Theoretical and technological reasoning patterns are probably the most familiar to science teachers. Practical reasoning is the most inclusive and complex of the three.6 Different reasoning patterns involve different kinds of discourse, and students need to experience the epistemic practices of those discourses if they are to understand them and grasp their significance (in this volume see Kelly, Chapter 5; Liberg, af Geijerstam & Folkeryd, Chapter 6; and Wickman & Ligozat, Chapter 10). Spelling out the three reasoning patterns is one way to be more informative about the differences between Vision I and Vision II. That is, a Vision II policy image is more likely to accommodate reasoning patterns associated with techne and praxis than is a Vision I policy image. In a similar vein, Aikenhead (2006, pp. 2–3) described the characteristics of student outcomes from research about “traditional” and “humanistic” perspectives on school science (two categories that are also pointers rather than pigeon holes). The distinction resonates with Vision I and Vision II, respectively. The following description of his two categories is modified slightly from Aikenhead (2006, p.  3). Research about a “traditional” perspective on school science is associated with outcomes for students such as the following: • • •

induction into using a theoretical reasoning pattern in all kinds of situations; becoming skilled at using a theoretical reasoning pattern; and seeing the world through the eyes of scientists alone, or at least predominantly.

By contrast, research about a “humanistic” perspective on school science explores outcomes for students more like the following: •

induction into using reasoning patterns appropriate to different kinds of situations, including technological reasoning and practical reasoning;

18   D. A. Roberts • •

becoming skilled at using all three reasoning patterns; and seeing the world through the eyes of students now, and decision-­making adults later.

This kind of elaboration highlights the point that policy makers have a clear choice. Opting for a policy image more like Vision I, or more like Vision II, potentially has profoundly different consequences for students.

Science Curriculum Policy Image Versus Teacher Image This section develops the concept of a science curriculum policy image as an analytical device for exploring some far-­reaching educational implications of policy choices. In doing so, the section formally presents a conceptual framework that provides coherence for the chapters of this volume as they relate to our collective Statement of Concern. The images arising from Vision I and Vision II can be seen to have implications for quite different practices, and ultimately for the way students formulate an identity with respect to science as a part of human affairs. See, for example, in this volume Kelly (Chapter 5) and Brickhouse (Chapter 13). Obviously, any curriculum committee will formulate a curriculum policy image of what counts as science education (cf. Roberts, 1988). I wish to stress that science teachers will react in terms of images of their own when a curriculum policy image is presented—either by a governmental body or a committee of their professional peers. The section begins with an examination of science curriculum policy, followed by discussion of a policy image. The Nature of Science Curriculum Policy Fensham (2009) characterized the science curriculum as “contested” and highly political. Indeed it is. I begin by recounting three familiar features of a science curriculum policy (cf. Fensham, 2009, p. 1081) that make it so. 1. A science curriculum policy expresses a selected point of view about what counts as science education for the group of students under consideration. Policy statements contain objectives that go beyond learning the scientific meaning embodied in science subject matter, to broader statements of educational goals that incorporate “companion” meanings (Roberts, 1998). It is these broader statements that identify the purposes for having students learn science. 2. A science curriculum policy is heavily value laden because its thrust is to declare what students should learn. Thus it represents choices about the educational value and purpose of students’ learning that have to be defended on the basis of practical reasoning. “Should creation and evolution have equal time in the school curriculum?” is a spectacular, highly complex example of an issue for a science curriculum policy decision. A tamer example might be an issue over how much technological reasoning and analysis of socioscientific decision making should be introduced into a school science program.

Competing Visions of Scientific Literacy   19 Such decisions result from a complex logical process of deliberation, as Orpwood (1998) has demonstrated in the context of science curriculum policy debate. 3. A science curriculum policy is put into force by people who have the authority to make the choices, be they local curriculum committees or centralized curriculum authorities within ministries and departments of education. Such bodies are in a position to legitimate a policy and thus give it the authority and warrant that, in turn, is intended to foster its implementation by teachers. This point simply acknowledges that some documents are binding on teachers, but others that may seem to resemble curriculum documents are not binding. Why A Concept of Policy Image? The policy image concept is being used here in the sense Walker (1971) introduced it, as “an entity or class of entities that is desirable” in the “platform” expressed by a curriculum (p. 56). Walker likened a curriculum platform to a political platform, taking a stand on behalf of selected images that will influence future actions7—although, of course, not deterministically. What happens to the policy image next depends on the “traditions” of an educational jurisdiction, but in all cases the image is intended to reach teachers. Fensham (2009, pp. 1081–1085) draws attention to two broadly different traditions in terms of the amount of specification and control assumed by the educational authority advancing the image. In the “Anglo-­American tradition,” common in North America and Australia, a policy image is transmitted and passed on by several “relay stations” along a communication pathway (Figure 2.1). Various artifacts reinforce the image: program guidelines and other instructional support materials (e.g., textbooks) are typically subject to government approval at each step of the way. Figure 2.1 also shows an alternative pathway for

Policy image

Sample examination

Guidelines Instructional materials Teachers Teacher actions Student learning Assessment

Figure 2.1  Policy image flow.

20   D. A. Roberts the image, consistent with the “Germanic tradition” followed in many European countries. (Fensham used the term “Germanic” to call attention to the concept of Didaktik, a German noun that has counterparts in other languages as well.) In this tradition, the policy image is transmitted to teachers directly, perhaps elaborated in a sample examination or set of standards, but the development of materials is entrusted to the professional expertise of teachers. Figure 2.1 constitutes the formal statement of the conceptual framework for situating and relating the chapters of this volume. Readers familiar with the literature on curriculum theory will relate some of the relay stations along the Anglo-­ American communication pathway to the concepts of institutional planning, programmatic planning, and classroom planning of curriculum content, as Deng (Chapter 4, this volume) elaborates the terms. An example of a situation in which the Germanic communication pathway is evident can be found in Bulte and Seller (Chapter 16, this volume). The acceptance, rejection, or modification of the original intent of a policy image depends very much on how teachers understand and enact the policy, of course. From the teacher’s point of view, several questions can be seen as appropriate, especially if the image and practices associated with it vary significantly from current practice. • • •

•

How acceptable is this image in terms of my own image of what students should learn in a science course? What do my professional colleagues, my students, and my students’ parents think of this image? Does this image require that I teach in a new way, perhaps outside my comfort zone? If so, what do I have to learn and/or change, and where can I turn for support and help? (The indispensable role of learning communities for professional development is a common theme in the final five chapters of this volume: Erickson, Chapter 14; MacKinnon, Chapter 15; Bulte & Seller, Chapter 16; Tiberghien, Vince, Gaidioz & Coince, Chapter 17; Clark, Case, Davies, Sheridan & Toerien, Chapter 18.) How will my students be assessed, and how will their performance affect their future and reflect on my professional reputation?

In my view, some of the most insightful research for understanding teacher images in this complex way was introduced in the early stages of a research program called Personal Practical Knowledge (practical in the sense of practical reasoning), developed by Connelly and his associates (see, e.g., Connelly & Clandinin, 1985). For example, Elbaz (1981) developed a structure of teachers’ practical knowledge, one component of which is images. “[T]he teacher’s feelings, values, needs, and beliefs combine as she . . . marshals experience, theoretical knowledge, and school folklore to give substance to these images. [An] image . . . constitutes a guide to the intuitive realization of the teacher’s purposes” (p. 61). Clandinin (e.g., 1986) elaborated substantially on the concept of teacher images. It is not possible here to do justice to her work, but the following comments (p. 173) are directly pertinent. “Teachers’ actions and practices are expres-

Competing Visions of Scientific Literacy   21 sions of their images. These expressions and images develop continuously through classroom practice and more generally through experience.” Similarly, Connelly and Clandinin (1988) distinguished image (a feature of thought) from the “picture” sense of the term. “By image we mean something within our experience, embodied in us as persons and expressed and enacted in our practices and actions” (p. 60). Teacher Images of Appropriate Science Education Images, as described by these authors, are part of a teacher’s working life and thought, to be sure, but images also constitute the core of a teacher’s professional identity. When presented with a policy image, science teachers compare it to their own images of what counts as appropriate science education, although they might be hard pressed to express the details. Professional identity is shaped by a teacher’s own science education, and is further shaped by teaching and working with a program of studies, a textbook, colleagues, and students. Images of appropriate science education incorporate tacit knowledge about how to teach, what can be taught, what is important and valuable to teach, and how students learn, among other matters. I would argue that prospective teachers also hold such images by the time they enter initial teacher preparation. Their images, too, are largely based on tacit knowledge. The implications of image development through one’s own experience of science education, whether as a student or a teacher, are important considerations for understanding the acceptability of a policy image.

Policy Images and Science Education: The Big Picture Students learn much more than scientific meaning, in science classrooms. This section begins with an examination of the powerful role of companion stories and companion meanings (Roberts, 1998) in shaping the big picture of science education. Science Stories and Companion Stories8 In the teaching of science, one always intends that students learn a “science story,” which gives scientific meaning to the events and phenomena being studied. This is an unyielding purpose for science education. It is virtually impossible to imagine science teaching that did not intend to do so. Science teaching and science texts also inevitably communicate a context. Often this is done only implicitly, but sometimes the context is surfaced and made explicit. The contextual story that goes along with the science story has been called a companion story because it creates a companion meaning at the same time the scientific meaning is developed (Östman, 1998). The companion meaning teaches students about the context in which scientific meaning is to be taken, and hence the purpose for learning it. Context is a powerful communicator. For example, it is next to impossible to get  the point of a political cartoon without knowing the context. In the case of

22   D. A. Roberts e­ veryday discourse we speak of communicating double messages, one with the speaker’s words but another with their context—the way the words are spoken, or the deeds and facial expressions that accompany the words. In education there are several terms that express the importance of context in communication—body language, nonverbal communication, and the hidden curriculum, for instance. What is not said contributes powerfully to contextual communication, as paradoxical as that seems. In developing a science curriculum, it is possible to become more alert to the contexts provided by companion stories and get them under control, and it is important to do so for two major reasons. First, companion stories are an integral part of the vision of SL being communicated by a science curriculum policy image. Second, it is impossible not to communicate companion meanings. In the following comparison, consider how the companion meanings are locked in at the stage of specifying each of two science curriculum policy images. How Companion Meanings Shape SL Policy Images: Vision I The first point in the Project 2061 characterization of the scientifically literate person, presented earlier (pp. 14–15) as exemplifying Vision I, specifies a companion meaning that clearly looks inward at science and the closely allied disciplines of mathematics and technology (interdependent, have strengths and weaknesses). The second point simply stresses that it is important to learn some science stories (key concepts and principles)—which would be true of any science curriculum. The third identifies the observational base for those stories (familiar with the natural world, recognizing its diversity and unity). These three aspects of the characterization of SL Vision I (for Project 2061, at least) create the following companion story, which is an integral part of the policy image. •

The purpose for learning science is to understand science stories about the natural world.

The fourth point, however, is of a different stripe altogether (use scientific knowledge and scientific ways of thinking for individual and social purposes). In the Project 2061 materials, students are to learn what behavioral scientists have to say about human behavior when choices and decisions associated with “individual and social purposes” are made.9 That is, moral, ethical, economic, and political considerations in such decisions are to be studied according to what the scientific community knows about these matters. Never mind what other professionals (philosophers, lawyers, accountants) know, nor what it “feels like” to take such other considerations into account and make use of them in a practical reasoning pattern. Instead, the theoretical reasoning pattern associated with scientific activity is given pride of place. This policy image is mute about the possibility that technological and practical reasoning patterns have a place in school science education, thus creating the following companion story as an integral part of the policy image. •

The most important way to approach and understand individual and social problems is the way a scientist would, using a theoretical reasoning pattern.

Competing Visions of Scientific Literacy   23 How Companion Meanings Shape SL Policy Images: Vision II In the 21st Century Science characterization of the scientifically literate person, presented earlier as exemplifying Vision II (pp. 15–16), there are five overall descriptors (emphasis mine, in the following paraphrased material). The first point (impact of science and technology on everyday life) sets the tone for all of the others and also implies that students develop skills in using two reasoning patterns: theoretical and technological. The second (informed personal decisions about things that involve science) is clearly about students experiencing decision making, not simply understanding how behavioral scientists explain the decision-­making process. This point implies that students are to develop skills associated with practical reasoning. The third and fourth points (media reports about matters that involve science, and critical reflection on information) are associated with skill sets that require mastery of both theoretical and practical reasoning patterns. The final point (confident discussion of issues involving science) entails understanding and becoming competent with the discourse of all three reasoning patterns. Overall, these five aspects of the characterization of Vision II SL (for 21st Century Science, at least) create the following companion story, which would be an integral part of a policy image. The reasoning patterns are not mentioned explicitly, but they are strongly implied.10 •

Three different reasoning patterns are appropriate within SL. They come into play according to the requirements of the situation, whether understanding scientific activity, technological problem solving, or personal and societal decision making.

Concluding Remarks As shown in Figure 2.1, a policy image travels a communication pathway marked by a number of “relay stations.” At each one, the meaning of the image has to be interpreted and, to a greater or lesser degree, accepted by a community of adherents.11 Some chapters in this volume illustrate the complexity of this phenomenon as a whole. For example, Aikenhead, Orpwood, and Fensham (Chapter 3) identify a substantial current challenge to make school science relevant to the requirements of a Knowledge Society. These authors not only propose a new policy image (SL-­in-action), but also illustrate the implications of such a radical shift in school science by using the entire scope of the communication pathway, including issues surrounding student evaluation. Similarly, Zeidler and Sadler (Chapter 12) provide a thoroughgoing examination of the big picture of school science if oriented to a policy image based on analysis of socioscientific issues (SSI). In other chapters, research and analysis illuminate the many components of the flow of an image, whether the author’s topic is policy itself, classroom language, instructional materials, or professional development. With respect to classroom language, Airey and Linder (Chapter 8) develop and present a new construct, bilingual SL, an increasingly important consideration in situations where university science students (some of whom are intending science teachers) are taught in English as well as in their first language.

24   D. A. Roberts Vision I and Vision II are not equally flexible in their capacity to attend to new and challenging demands on school science education, especially given that the richness and diversity of science education research in recent years has shown so much promise. Compared to Vision I, the allowable companion meanings within Vision II are virtually limitless, bounded only by the requirement that the focus be appropriate for students and based on science-­related situations. I conclude these remarks by returning to what is happening at the two most significant relay stations along the communication pathway: teachers and students. Competing for the Hearts and Minds of Teachers Vision I and Vision II are simply not on a level playing field, in this competition. Although the reasons for this phenomenon are complex, I shall concentrate on two factors: the professional identity of science teachers, and the perceived prestige attached to the two broadly differing policy images of SL. First, throughout their university years, science teachers “grow up” in a science education culture that generally reinforces Vision I. At the juncture of initial teacher preparation, alternative views of science education simply fall on deaf ears. Such views are soon eclipsed by the collegial culture of the beginning teacher’s practicum setting, which often favors Vision I (especially if the setting is senior high school classrooms oriented to university preparation). No value judgment is intended by those statements, which simply recognize that university and school science education cultures are very powerful determinants of a science teacher’s professional identity. Second, both Project 2061 and 21st Century Science are creatures of agencies external to the formal educational system. Inevitably, the vision of SL they are advocating will be seen by those inside the formal educational system—especially by science teachers—as associated with the perceived prestige of the sponsoring organization(s). In the case of Project 2061, the older of the two, the source of the prestige is the involvement and imprimatur for two decades of AAAS, one of the premiere scientific societies in the world. Sponsorship for 21st Century Science has come from the Nuffield Foundation and several prestigious British universities. It might seem this is a level playing field. In general, however, the prestige of the established scientific community seems to overwhelm that of any other source. In Gaskell’s (2002) analysis of the way “adherents” form loyalty to school science policy proposals, he points out how academic scientists can be regarded, essentially, as “kings” and many science teachers in “the court” can be influenced readily by what they perceive to be “the king’s” preference. Vision I often holds sway because the prestige of science itself is at stake, in the eyes of the court. Student as Proto-­Scientist, as Informed Citizen, or Both? Ultimately, the recipient of all of this policy making and planning is the student, whose identity is shaped in one of two broadly different directions by Vision I and Vision II. Like the god Janus, looking two ways in the month of January in

Competing Visions of Scientific Literacy   25 the Northern Hemisphere, SL at this point in our history is decidedly looking in two directions. Vision I continues to look inward at science itself. The scientific perspective does indeed have a lot of appeal—its beauty and elegance as an explanatory system, for instance, and its powerful predictive and explanatory capabilities. Nonetheless, Aristotle reminds us that other perspectives and reasoning patterns have their own significant place in human affairs. Increasingly science education researchers and practitioners alike are urging that a balanced program for school science requires looking also in the other Janus direction, paying serious attention to the richness, relevance, and more comprehensive curriculum potential of Vision II.

Notes   1. Originally presented at the 2008 Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education in Vancouver, BC.   2. An early version of this concept was presented at the 1998 Annual Conference of NARST in San Diego, CA.   3. For a description and analysis of this literature, see Bybee (1997) and Roberts (2007).   4. David Layton is one of science education’s pre-­eminent analysts and historians of the forces that shaped the early development of school science (Layton, 1973 especially). Although his work is based in England, his analytical principles and the depth of his scholarship transcend national boundaries.   5. External agencies (not part of the formal educational system) include examples from both England (Nuffield Foundation and the Association for Science Education) and the United States (National Science Foundation, National Research Council, and AAAS).   6. For a widely respected classic treatment of practical reasoning, see Gauthier (1963).   7. One of the most valuable features of Decker Walker’s (1971) “naturalistic” model for curriculum development is that it demystifies the origins and character of curriculum policy.   8. An expanded version of this material is found in Roberts (1995b).   9. A remarkable aspect of the early stages of Project 2061 is the unusual scope of the subject matter considered to be school science. Topics include not only the typical cluster of natural sciences for such ventures, but also behavioral and social sciences, technology, information sciences, engineering, health sciences, and mathematics. See Roberts (2007, pp. 751–753). 10. The most recent science curriculum revision in Canadian provinces has been guided by a similar characterization of SL that is more like Vision II than Vision I. The policy framework on which the revision is based actually incorporates a description of the three reasoning patterns (although the Aristotelian legacy is not mentioned explicitly). See Roberts (2007, pp. 757–758); also Roberts (1995a, 1995b). 11. Jim Gaskell has analyzed the attraction of adherents to new science curriculum policies in terms of Actor Network Theory (e.g., Gaskell & Hepburn, 1998; Gaskell, 2001, 2003).

References Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-­based practice. New York: Teachers College Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.

26   D. A. Roberts American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. Blades, D. (1997). Procedures of power and curriculum change: Foucault and the quest for possibilities in science education. New York: Peter Lang. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clandinin, D. J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. London: Falmer Press. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge and the modes of knowing: Relevance for teaching and learning. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing (pp. 174–198). Eighty-­fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of Experience. New York: Teachers College Press. Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s “practical knowledge”: A case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 43–71. Fensham, P. (1998). The politics of legitimating and marginalizing companion meanings: Three Australian case stories. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 178–192). New York: Teachers College Press. Fensham, P. (2009). The link between policy and practice in science education: The role of research. Science Education, 93, 1076–1095. Gaskell, P. J. (2001). STS in a time of economic change: What’s love got to do with it? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(4), 385–398. Gaskell, P. J. (2002). Of cabbages and kings: Opening the hard shell of science curriculum policy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(1), 59–66. Gaskell, P. J. (2003). Perspectives and possibilities in the politics of science curriculum. In R. Cross (Ed.), A vision for science education: Responding to the work of Peter Fensham (pp. 139–152). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Gaskell, P. J., & Hepburn, G. (1998). The course as token: A construction of/by networks. Research in Science Education, 28, 65–76. Gauthier, D. P. (1963). Practical reasoning: The structure and foundations of prudential and moral arguments and their exemplification in discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Layton, D. (1972). Science as general education. Trends in Education, 25, 11–14. Layton, D. (1973). Science for the people: The origins of the school science curriculum in England. London: George Allen & Unwin. McEneaney, E. H. (2003). The worldwide cachet of scientific literacy. Comparative Education Review, 47(2), 217–237. Orpwood, G. (1998). The logic of advice and deliberation: Making sense of science curriculum talk. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 133–149). New York: Teachers College Press. Östman, L. (1998). How companion meanings are expressed by science education discourse. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 54–70). New York: Teachers College Press. Roberts, D. A. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases” in science education. Science Education, 66(2), 243–260. Roberts, D. A. (1988). What counts as science education? In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 27–54). Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Roberts, D. A. (1995a). Junior high school science transformed: Analyzing a science curriculum policy change. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 493–504. Roberts, D. A. (1995b). Building companion meanings into school science programs:

Competing Visions of Scientific Literacy   27 Keeping the logic straight about curriculum emphases. Journal of Nordic Educational Research, 15(2), 108–124. Roberts, D. A. (1998). Analyzing school science courses: The concept of companion meaning. In D. A. Roberts and L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 5–12). New York: Teachers College Press. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Roth, W.-­M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291. Walker, D. F. (1971). A naturalistic model for curriculum development. School Review, 80(1), 51–65.

3 Scientific Literacy for a Knowledge Society Glen Aikenhead, Graham Orpwood, and Peter Fensham

Introduction The role of science education in preparing students for the world of work was taken seriously by OECD (1996a, 1996b) when it launched studies on how the world of work was changing, especially in science-­related occupations. At about the same time, the Royal Society for the Arts, Industry, and Commerce initiated a similar study in Britain (Bayliss, 1998). Together these studies found that the nature of work in developed countries has changed in three ways: in kind, in the requirements for performance, and in the lack of permanence of one’s engagement. These changes in the world of employment are driven by new forms of information technology, design requirements, and technology transfer. For example, oral and written literacies are no longer adequate; digital literacy is a new essential. The resulting new knowledge enables innovation of processes and products, locally and globally. This new knowledge is increasingly becoming a primary source of economic growth in knowledge-­based economies. Taken together, these changes characterize a Knowledge Society (Gilbert, 2005). A knowledge-­based economy and a Knowledge Society create a need to re-­examine SL in developed countries. The chapter begins with an account of the features of a knowledge-­based economy and a Knowledge Society, as these features affect the interpretation of SL. A policy position about SL-­in-action is developed and analyzed in terms of considerations that would confront decision makers who shape school science curriculum policy. Special attention is paid to the choices that exist in types of school science content, and to the powerful influence of educational assessment practices.

A Knowledge-­Based Economy In a knowledge-­based economy, knowledge takes three forms: codified, tooled, and personal (Chartrand, 2007). Codified knowledge is communicated in many different forms as meaning. Both sender and receiver must know the code if the message is to convey semiotic or symbolic meaning (Foray & Lundvall, 1996). Newly codified knowledge is often converted into legal property held by a company or institution—property that can be bought and sold through copyright.

Scientific Literacy for a Knowledge Society   29 Tooled knowledge is also communicated in many different ways but always as function (Chartrand, 2007). It is often protected by patents. Tooled knowledge takes two forms: hard and soft. Hard tooled knowledge is a physical implement or process that manipulates or responds to matter-­energy. A scientific instrument is tooled knowledge that can extend human perception into domains referred to as electrons, quarks, galaxies, and the genomic blueprint of life, for instance. To accomplish this, scientific tools probe beyond human perception to produce numbers, which are often converted into graphics. Numbers and graphics are in turn treated by scientists and technologists as observations. Thus, many scientific observations today involve a cyborg-­like relationship between a human and an instrument—“instrumental realism” (Ihde, 1991). Soft tooled knowledge, on the other hand, includes the standards embedded in an instrument (e.g., its designed voltage—12, 110, or 220), as well as the instrument’s programming, its operating instructions, and the techniques required to optimize its performance. Technology transfer, a key process in economic growth, involves tooled knowledge (soft and hard) being transferred from one company or institution to another. Personal knowledge contrasts with both codified and tooled knowledge due to the fact that personal knowledge consists of bundles of memory and trained reflexes of nerve and muscle of a scientist, engineer, or technician (Chartrand, 2007; Foray & Lundvall, 1996). Importantly, some personal knowledge can be codified or tooled, but some inevitably remains tacit (Polanyi, 1958). Personal knowledge is legally protected as know-­how. Ultimately, however, all knowledge in a knowledge-­based economy is personal knowledge because without a human to decode or push the right buttons, codified and tooled knowledge remain meaningless or functionless (Foray & Lundvall, 1996). This has implications for science education in a society propelled by a knowledge-­based economy. It means that a country’s knowledge-­based economy relies, in part, on its people and their ability to code and decode semiotic or symbolic meaning and machine-­instrument function. This know-­how is one indicator of competitiveness in the global economy, and thus it is an important consideration for SL in a knowledge-­based economy. A country’s scientific and technological know-­how is characterized by a blend of knowledge and action. Codified knowledge is about communicating; tooled knowledge (soft and hard) is about functioning; and personal knowledge is about participating in some way in the economy. The purpose of “knowing” and “having knowledge and know-­how” is thus linked to innovation in science-­ related occupations. In the context of a knowledge-­based economy, it is evident that the disciplines of science and technology are socially inter-­related to such an extent that they form one heterogeneous domain—technoscience (Désautels, 2004; Fleming, 1989). For instance, R&D (research and development) is a conventional form of technoscience. Désautels, among others, has argued for this broader focus in school science. In this chapter, we adopt Désautels’ technoscience formulation and draw on Hurd (1998) in designating technoscience as science-­technology (ST).

30   G. Aikenhead et al. Any perspective on SL that restricts its meaning to codified scientific knowledge will be inadequate for students’ future participation in their country’s knowledge­based economy. Such a perspective ignores tooled and personal knowledge, and it ignores technology.

A Knowledge Society When the engine of a country’s economy is knowledge based, we have a Knowledge Society, in which the meaning of wealth creation has changed. “Where wealth was once related to resources and industrial processes, it is now a consequence of ever-­renewing knowledges necessary to innovate, design, produce, and market products and service” (Carter, 2008, p. 621). In an earlier work about the Knowledge Society, Gilbert (2005) explored the educational implications of these societal changes, based on a comparison to existing conditions in most educational systems: • •

knowledge is about acting and doing to produce new things, rather than being only an accumulation of established information, and what one does with knowledge is paramount, not how much knowledge one possesses.

Consequently in a Knowledge Society, value is associated with: •

• • •

knowing how to learn, knowing how to keep learning, and knowing when one needs to know more, rather than knowing many bits of content from a canonical science curriculum; knowing how to learn with others, rather than only accumulating knowledge as an individual; using knowledge as a resource for resolving problems rather than simply as a catalogue of “right” answers; and acquiring important competencies (skills) in the use of knowledge, rather than only storing it.

Change is the norm in a Knowledge Society. It follows that learning in such a society should have a dynamic character that equips students to adapt to change, to generate new knowledge, and to continue to improve performance (Bybee & Fuchs, 2006; Fraser & Greenhalgh, 2001).

Implications for SL A Knowledge Society relies on expertise in science-­technology (ST) employment, and on the capacity of its citizens to deal with ST-­related situations in their everyday lives. Participation in a Knowledge Society by employers, employees, and citizens calls for knowledge to be treated in conjunction with acting—knowing-­in-action—and not as stored facts, abstractions, and algorithms. Both expert knowledge and citizen knowledge are reconceptualized in this chapter in terms of ST knowing-­in-action.

Scientific Literacy for a Knowledge Society   31 Some research programs in science education already support a Knowledge Society. These programs treat knowledge as contextualized social action— knowing-­in-action. For example, Gaskell (2002) maps out partnerships between science education and industry, in which “knowledge is to be learned in the context of doing . . . ‘working knowledge,’ as opposed to abstract propositional knowledge” (p. 64). Further examples include research programs described by Roth and Calabrese Barton (2004) and by Roth and Lee (2004), and informed by activity theory associated especially with Lave and Wenger (1991). Competence at ST knowing-­in-action (i.e., competence at ST-­related work skills or competence in resolving ST-­related events and issues) is not simply a matter of “applying” knowledge mastered in a conventional science classroom. A curriculum change, and thus a curriculum policy change, is required. Most science content in the typical curriculum is not directly useable in ST-­related occupations and everyday situations. There are several reasons for this, established by research on situated cognition: “Thinking . . . depends on specific, context-­bound skills and units of knowledge that have little application to other domains” (Furnham, 1992, p. 33). The first reason is that a conventional science curriculum’s content must be deconstructed and then reconstructed and integrated into the idiosyncratic demands of the specific everyday context (Jenkins, 1992; Layton, 1991; Ryder, 2001). “This reworking of scientific knowledge is demanding, but necessary as socioscientific issues are complex. It typically involves science from different subdisciplines, knowledge from other social domains, and of course value judgments and social elements” (Kolstø, 2000, p. 659). Second, school knowledge tends to be compartmentalized in most students’ minds, separate from their out-­of-school (life-­world) knowledge, and the two sources or knowledge systems simply do not interact (Hennessy, 1993; Solomon, 1984). The third reason is that science content used in ST-­rich workplaces tends to be procedural scientific knowledge (knowing-­in-action), which is simply different from the propositional knowledge of canonical school science (Gott, Duggan, & Johnson, 1999; Law, 2002). Because different science content is applicable in each setting, there is very little transfer of knowledge. Fourth, the purpose and accountability of the workplace and the science classroom differ dramatically. Consequently, workplace science is qualitatively different from school science (Chin, Munby, Hutchinson, Taylor, & Clark, 2004). These established research findings have significant implications for SL as a curriculum concept. SL in a Knowledge Society is necessarily literacy-­inaction—oral, written, and digital literacy-­in-action. Consequently SL as an educational outcome takes on an active, rather than a passive connotation. SL is not about “How much do you know?” but instead, “What can you learn when the need arises?” and “How effectively can you use your learning to deal with ST-­related events in the work world or the everyday world of citizens?” The shift in outcome—from “knowing that” to “knowing how to learn and to use this relevant content”—would represent a radical shift in school science curriculum policy. At the same time, it would resonate with the goals for a knowledge-­based economy discussed by Gilbert (2005), and also by Guo

32   G. Aikenhead et al. (2007). In short, acquiring knowledge (“knowing that”) would be replaced by capacity building (“knowing how to learn and knowing-­in-action”) as the primary mission for school science. For a Knowledge Society, the primary meaning for SL becomes SL-­in-action. In terms of Roberts’ Visions I and II of SL (Chapter 2, this volume), our proposed school science policy position suggests a shift away from Vision I, given its concentration on theoretical reasoning and its inward-­looking focus on the products and processes of science itself. Instead, ours is an intermediary position between Visions I and II, but favoring Vision II, given its concentration on a combination of theoretical, technological, and practical reasoning and its outward-­ looking focus on ST-­related situations. SL-­in-action requires that students come to understand their ST knowledge as having a purpose beyond simply “knowing that.” Examples of such purposes include: getting and keeping ST-­related employment, informing daily activities, analyzing socioscientific issues, and comprehending global concerns. As a curriculum concept, SL-­in-action is highly promising as a way to increase the relevance of school science, and to engender habits of lifelong learning.

Choosing School Science Content: A Theoretical Framework Because we treat SL for a Knowledge Society as knowing-­in-action associated with capacity building for lifelong learning, we reposition ourselves in this chapter with respect to what counts as worthwhile knowledge to teach and assess in science education. To achieve SL-­in-action for a Knowledge Society, one requires an innovative way to select the content, processes, and contexts for school science. Together this triad will be called school science content. Content without context is ephemeral. Processes without content or context (i.e., generic skills) are powerless—a lesson learned from the failure of Science: A Process Approach, a 1960s elementary science program in the United States, and its counterpart in the United Kingdom, Science 5–13 (Millar & Driver, 1987). We emphasize a distinction between the canonical science content found in conventional science curricula, on one hand, and on the other hand, relevant science content—the type of science content actually used by employees in ST-­ related occupations and by the public coping with ST-­related events and issues. In short, the distinction is between academic decontextualized knowledge (Roberts’ Vision I to the extreme) and relevant contextualized knowing-­in-action (Vision II), respectively. We propose a theoretical framework for school science content based on two principles: relevance and who decides what is relevant for SL-­in-action. The two principles are depicted in Table 3.1. Who decides what is relevant is represented in column 1; and column 2 represents, as a consequence, various types of school science content. Our framework recognizes seven groups of people who currently decide, or who could reasonably decide, what is to be included in school science content. The categories, based on the work of Fensham (2000) and Aikenhead (2006), are not discrete but overlap and interact in various ways. To work toward achieving SL-­in-action for a Knowledge Society, curriculum developers can draw

Scientific Literacy for a Knowledge Society   33 Table 3.1 Who decides on relevance and subsequent types of school science content Who decides what is relevant?

Type of science content

Academic scientists, education officials, and science teachers, who invariably confirm the conventional curriculum’s canonical science content.

Wish-they-knew science

People mainly in ST-related occupations. Systematic Functional science research has produced a wealth of general and specific educational outcomes not normally found in school science but found in ST-related occupations and everyday events. ST experts who interact with the general public on reallife events and issues, and who know the problems the public encounters when dealing with these events and issues.

Have-cause-to-know science

The general public who has faced real-life problems or decisions related to ST. What science content did they need to know?

Need-to-know science

People who produce the media and internet sites, and who Enticed-to-know science draw upon sensational and controversial aspects of ST to achieve motivational value for readers and viewers. Students themselves. Systematic research has documented Personal-curiosity science this content in a number of different countries. Interpreters of culture, who can determine what aspects of Science-as-culture ST, and what aspects of local knowledge, comprise features of a local, national, and global culture. This category can be a flexible combination of the other categories above. Source:  Modified from Aikenhead (2006, p. 32).

from several of these categories, and the resulting curricula will most likely consist of different combinations of categories. A conventional school science curriculum emerges from the first category, wish-­they-knew science in Table 3.1. This category embraces the subject matter of scientific disciplines (the science curriculum). Wish-­they-knew science predominates in Vision I versions of SL. The other six categories in Table 3.1 reflect the work world of employers and employees, as well as the everyday world of citizens, in which ST content pertains to phenomena and events not normally of interest to most university science professors (scholarly academics), education officials, and currently many science teachers. The other six categories represent knowing-­in-action, by and large, and are therefore supportive of SL-­in-action for a Knowledge Society. They reflect an emphasis on Vision II SL. Space does not allow us to review the research related to each category in Table 3.1 (see Aikenhead, 2006, chap. 3), but two categories are summarized here, functional science and have-­cause-to-­know science. They clarify suitable school science content for SL-­in-action.

34   G. Aikenhead et al. Functional Science Functional science is the science content that has functional value to ST-­rich employment and to ST-­related everyday events. Systematic research has produced a wealth of general and specific results. For example, industry personnel placed “understanding science ideas” at the lowest priority for judging a recruit to their industry. Why? The answer comes from the ethnographic research by Duggan and Gott (2002) in the United Kingdom, Rodrigues and colleagues (2007) in Australia, Law (2002) in China, Lottero-­Perdue and Brickhouse (2002) in the United States, and Aikenhead (2005) in Canada. The researchers’ in situ interviews with people in ST-­related occupations indicated that the science content used by these science graduates in the workplace was so context specific it had to be learned on the job. High school and university science content was rarely drawn upon. Thus, an important quality valued by both employers and employees in ST-­ related employment is the capacity to learn ST content on the job. Of course, school science content for the purpose of preparing students for ST-­related occupations must include science concepts, but the choice of these concepts can be a functionally relevant choice, not a scholarly academic choice (i.e., opting for wish-­they-knew science). The science content that underpins local contexts of interest works better for teaching students how to learn and use ST as needed (Aikenhead, 2006, chap. 6). Have-­Cause-To-­Know Science This category represents science content identified by ST experts who consistently interact with the general public on real-­life matters pertaining to ST, and who know the problems citizens encounter when interacting with these experts (Fensham, 2002). Out of the diverse research reported in the literature (see Aikenhead, 2006, chap. 3), the research program undertaken by Law and her colleagues (2000) in China clarifies have-­cause-to-­know science the best. Their project determined the have-­cause-to-­know science for two different curricula: one aimed at citizens’ capabilities at coping with everyday events and issues, and the other aimed at socio­ scientific decision making (Law, 2002; Law, Fensham, Li, & Wei, 2000). For the first curriculum, societal experts (e.g., people who work with home and workplace safety issues; and in medical, health, and hygiene areas) agreed that the public had cause to know basic scientific knowledge related to an event with which people were trying to cope, and to know specific applications of that knowledge (knowing­in-action). Most of all, they should be able to critically evaluate cultural practices, personal habits, media information, and multiple sources of conflicting information (Law, 2002). During their interviews, the experts noted public misconceptions, superstitions, and cultural habits detrimental to everyday coping. For Law’s second curriculum (citizens’ participation in socioscientific decision making), experts were selected from Hong Kong’s democratic institutions (the legislature, a government planning department, and a civilian environmental advocacy group) and were interviewed. The researchers concluded that the public’s have-­cause-to-­know science for decision making was very similar to that

Scientific Literacy for a Knowledge Society   35 required for everyday coping, except socioscientific decision making drew upon more complex skills to critically evaluate information and potential solutions (Law, 2002). The societal experts acknowledged the fact that socioscientific decisions often rely more on applying values than on applying specific science content, a result duplicated in the United States with academic scientists at several universities (Bell & Lederman, 2003). Overall, the Chinese ST experts placed emphasis on a citizen’s capacity to undertake self-­directed learning (lifelong learning), but placed low value on a citizen’s knowing particular content from a typical science curriculum. This result is similar to the research findings for functional science.

Summary: Pertinent Considerations for Making a Policy Decision SL that nurtures economic growth requires science education to promote capacity building in which future workers and savvy citizens learn how to learn ST as the need arises. Lifelong learning for a Knowledge Society ensues. The school science content essential to achieve this end is not solely wish-­they-knew science, but instead any combination of categories of school science content (Table 3.1) that leads to SL-­in-action. Curriculum policy makers are expected to consider what Deng identifies as the “institutional” domain of curriculum making (Chapter 4, this volume). Policy makers can be assisted by considering examples of the implications for the other two domains Deng identifies: “programmatic” and “classroom.” For instance, SL-­ in-action in the programmatic domain is exemplified by: •

•

•

•

•

a project that designs context-­based school science materials for authentic ST social practices (Bulte & Seller, Chapter 16, this volume), which combined functional and personal-­curiosity science content; a Canadian grade 10 textbook, Logical Reasoning in Science & Technology (Aikenhead, 1991), which combined functional, have-­cause-to-­know, personal-­curiosity, and wish-­they-knew science content; an AS level textbook in the United Kingdom, Science for Public Understanding (Hunt & Millar, 2000), which combined enticed-­to-know, have-­cause-to-­ know, and wish-­they-knew science content; the “public understanding of science” curriculum (Algeme Natuurwetenshappen) in the Netherlands (De Vos & Reiding, 1999), which combined have-­ cause-to-­know, need-­to-know, and wish-­they-knew science content; and the Science, Technology, Environment in Modern Society project in Israel (Dori & Tal, 2000), which combined functional, have-­cause-to-­know, and wish-­ they-knew science.

Our SL-­in-action policy in the classroom domain is illustrated by, for example: •

Carlone’s (2003) research program about physics teachers who offered Active Physics at their school, which combined wish-­they-knew, functional, and personal-­curiosity science content; and

36   G. Aikenhead et al. •

Kortland’s (2001) research program into students’ learning how to make decisions in the context of a waste management module, which combined functional, have-­cause-to-­know, personal-­curiosity, and wish-­they-knew science.

Although concrete examples of program and classroom embodiments are useful to policy makers, assessment of students’ learning is also a central consideration. We turn next to an exploration of the role of assessment in science education reform during the past several decades, and the potential implications for considering adoption of an SL-­in-action policy for school science.

Potential Assessment Issues Surrounding SL-­In-Action Common sense dictates that there should be a strong, clear relationship between the substance of a curriculum and the assessment of students’ learning based on it. The relationship can be complex, though, and the complexity becomes more apparent when the policy represents a considerable change from typical practice, as indeed SL-­in-action would. Orpwood (2001) recounts two well-­known major shifts in science curriculum policy: the first was a shift to science processes and the structure of science in about 1960, and the second was a shift to STS/STSE, beginning early in the 1980s. In both cases development and acceptance of appropriate assessment procedures and strategies lagged by about 20 years behind adoption (on paper) of the new policy. In the former case, Orpwood notes that The first significant “performance assessments” . . . were designed in England in the early 1980s by the Assessment of Performance Unit (APU, 1983) fully 20 years after the goal of instilling “inquiry skills” in students had first been introduced into the curriculum. (2001, p. 143) We also note the 20-year lag regarding the shift to STS/STSE. Only recently has the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance in England published its General certificate of education: Science for public understanding 2004 (AQA, 2003). In about the same time frame, OECD’s Programme of International Student Achievement (PISA) has made available some good examples of how to assess students on STS/ STSE content. The goal SL-­in-action cannot wait 20 years for sufficient assessment procedures to be developed and implemented, as was the pattern for the previous two major shifts in science curriculum policy. Events in the world of work could well marginalize the canonical school science curriculum, making it more irrelevant than it is currently observed to be, as evidenced in the Statement of Concern at the beginning of this volume. In the remainder of this section we offer an analysis of why educational assessment has such a powerful influence over the selection and implementation of science curriculum policy. The first part of the analysis examines four functions

Scientific Literacy for a Knowledge Society   37 of educational assessment and some technical factors (notably validity and reliability) that are integral to understanding how different kinds of assessment serve different purposes. The second part is about power distribution in educational institutions. In the third part we apply these analytical insights to the case of SL-­ in-action, with particular reference to potential considerations for policy makers, educational researchers, and science educators. Functions of Educational Assessment Our first function of educational assessment concerns accountability. The public, media, and politicians in most Western democracies are increasingly demanding that education systems and individual schools provide evidence of their effectiveness, productivity, and “value” for taxpayers’ investment. In some countries, this has taken the form of “league tables” of schools, based on the results of examinations designed for other purposes (e.g., GCSE and A levels in England and Wales). Elsewhere, international assessments such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and PISA are used as proxies for school and system effectiveness. Because of the authority that TIMSS and PISA command, their reports can have a profound impact on educational policy despite the very obvious limitations and inadequacies of their paper-­and-pencil character and their objective to transcend local realities (Fensham, 2007). Finally, in some countries, special tests are designed with this accountability agenda explicitly in mind. In Canada, for example, the Pan-­Canadian Assessment Program is a case in point. A key expectation of assessments designed for accountability is the comparison among schools or school systems. The reliability of the assessment is therefore very important. For this reason, multiple-­choice tests are often used because these can be designed with high reliability for recall of factual information (i.e., superficial, codified, scientific knowledge, but not tooled knowledge, nor personal knowledge, nor technological knowledge). Recall is easier to assess with multiple-­ choice items than is the more complex knowing demanded by SL-­in-action. The PISA program was charged with assessing students’ preparedness for 21st century life. Unlike TIMSS, the PISA program is not constrained to be a narrow test of school curriculum content. In its tests of reading, mathematics, and science in 2000, 2003, and 2006, PISA has demonstrated that compatibility between high reliability and the assessment of more complex knowing-­in-action is possible with the use of a wider variety of item types. Student certification and selection, a second function of assessment, is perhaps the most traditional role for assessment. Examinations are used in the majority of countries throughout the world for the purposes of certifying students’ completion of one stage of education and for selecting them for subsequent opportunities either in education or employment. This type of assessment can have the advantage of moving the certification role of education from the school level to an external (and supposedly impartial) agency level, thus ensuring an equality of standards countrywide. This advantage, however, becomes a disadvantage by inhibiting desired changes in curriculum policy and curriculum implementation

38   G. Aikenhead et al. when students can only be assessed by these externally designed assessment instruments, usually the paper-­and-pencil type. When the assessment of more complex goals is included, it has traditionally been engineered using open-­ended or constructed-­response items with the advantages and disadvantages that such items always have. They offer students an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and skill in more diverse ways than with multiple-­choice items. Thus, open-­ended or constructed-­response items have greater validity. But reliable (consistent) marking remains a challenge. Moreover, the assessment is still confined to what can be written within a fixed (usually short) period of time. In contrast, our vision of SL-­in-action for a Knowledge Society emphasizes validity as being central to assessment. Students would be given time to solve a problem and the freedom to draw on a variety of resources, as is the case in ST-­ related employment in the everyday world. However, marking these types of responses requires one-­on-one expert observation and evaluation of a student’s performance. Although this is not impossible—music and dance have been evaluated this way for years—it is very rare in a science context, even though its validity is superior. School improvement is a third function of educational assessment. Many people hold a view in which schools whose students achieve well in examinations are “good schools” and that, correspondingly, schools with lower aggregate results are poor and are in need of improvement (a view we would argue is misguided). Assessment is therefore the basis for determining the quality of individual schools and for measuring whether they are improving. In the Canadian province of Ontario, for instance, a whole new government bureaucracy has been developed with a view to improving school performance to meet government-­set targets. On the face of it, this is a good plan. However, the use of assessment to label schools raises the stakes for schools, which can, in turn, have an undesirable impact on teaching and learning. In a recent study, for example, researchers found that some teachers try to avoid teaching a grade level in which provincial testing takes place; and that, in some schools, principals discourage teaching subjects that are not tested (Sinclair, Orpwood, & Byers, 2007). In any agenda to improve schools, assessments that mirror those designed for accountability can narrow the scope of the curriculum taught, as mentioned above. School improvement needs to be conceptualized more broadly. While assessment results can form a component, they should form only part of a broader description of the character and effectiveness of schools. For example, in the case of SL-­in-action, analyzing the range of activities in which students are engaged can offer better evidence than statistics based on written tests narrow in scope. A fourth function of assessment focuses on improving student learning. In recent years, science educators (e.g., Black & Wiliam, 1998; Bell & Cowie, 2001) have argued persuasively that the most important purpose for assessment, which they call “assessment for learning” or “formative assessment,” is also the most neglected. Assessment for learning aims squarely at the individual student’s learning and is designed to have an immediate positive impact on that learning. It rep-

Scientific Literacy for a Knowledge Society   39 resents the antithesis of the other three approaches to assessment because: it is individual in its context; it is classroom-­based; it is designed and practiced exclusively by teachers; it lacks secrecy—indeed, the sharing of assessment criteria with students is a key to its success; and its results do not necessarily require documentation or reporting. It truly implements the view articulated by Wiggins (1993) that assessment is something we should do with students rather than to them. In summary, all four functions of educational assessment are valid in their own terms. All offer potentially valuable contributions to education and, in an ideal system, all would have a place. However, political and professional pressures tend to favor some over others, and the resulting imbalance can affect curriculum change. In particular, the choice of assessment function can threaten the implementation of SL-­in-action. Imbalances also create a hierarchy among the four sets of purposes based in terms of the political and professional power of those controlling each level of assessment. Power Over Purpose Senior levels of government typically have the power and resources to invest more in assessment than lower levels of government, senior bureaucrats more than junior bureaucrats, and school principals more than classroom teachers. It follows, therefore, that the needs and interests of the more senior levels will tend to take precedence over those below them. It is likely that international and national assessments designed for system accountability or student certification/ selection will have greater power over those designed locally for promoting student learning. Importantly, the first three functions of educational assessment have greater power over the fourth function that supports student learning. The evidence for the existence of such a hierarchy is the financial resources devoted to each type of assessment. For example, in Ontario the results of provincial mathematics and language assessments are used to make judgments about schools as a whole. Moreover, the content of these tests has a significant steering effect on the teaching and assessment carried out by teachers, whether or not this is appropriate (Sinclair, Orpwood, & Byers, 2007). This hierarchical competition among functions of assessment also means that reliability-­related criteria—critically important in large-­scale and high-­stakes assessments—are likely to be of more significance than validity-­related criteria—usually of much greater significance in the curriculum-­related assessments at the school and classroom levels. The implications for assessment are clear. It is cheaper, simpler, easier, and more aggrandizing to measure students’ memorization or accumulation of facts, abstractions, and algorithms than to assess the more complex competencies that make up a richer vision of SL for a Knowledge Society. Thus, in a competition for resources, political power wins out over education purpose every time, and SL-­ in-action is likely to suffer.

40   G. Aikenhead et al. Assessing Knowing-­in-Action If SL-­in-action is to become a reality, how should it be assessed when competence is judged as acting effectively, and assessment is seen as describing and monitoring that process? For a Knowledge Society, the focus is less on “what you know” but more on “what you can learn and what can you do with it in the context of the everyday world of work and responsible citizenship.” Science is understood in the context of technological and social challenges faced by individuals and societies. We propose that assessment move correspondingly away from science knowledge in a static and de-­contextualized sense (traditional assessment), and even beyond performance assessment with its focus on students’ ability to perform science experiments. Assessment can move toward giving students real-­world tasks where they learn relevant ST content and use this content to achieve a broader goal. Real-­world tasks can be of two kinds. First, more appropriate for elementary school, students can be given a simple task that requires the use of their knowledge, but its use is left to the student to determine. Examples of this kind of assessment can be found in the Assessment of Science and Technology Achievement Project (Orpwood & Barnett, 1997). A grade 1 student who has been taught about the senses (seeing, hearing, touching, listening, and smelling) is asked to design a game for students who are blind. A grade 6 student who has been taught about methods of heat transmission (conduction, convection, and radiation) is asked to design a cup that will keep a chocolate drink hot the longest. Second, more appropriate at a senior level, real-­world tasks can be broader and less concrete. Students can be asked for solutions to societal challenges to which there may be no right answers (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996). PISA does include a number of these types of challenges. Functional, have-­cause-to-­ know, and need-­to-know science content can be assessed through students’ analysis of socioscientific decision scenarios. This is illustrated by the Science Education for Public Understanding Program (SEPUP, 2003) in the United States (Thier & Davies, 2001), which explicitly connects its relevant science content (functional and have-­cause-to-­know science) to the wish-­they-knew science of the country’s National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). Assessing student decision making on ST-­related events and issues has been a research program in a number of countries (Gaskell, 1994; Kolstø, 2001; Kortland, 1996; Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003; Sadler, 2009; Zeidler & Sadler, Chapter 12, this volume). For policy makers, all of these examples are rich sources for alternative procedures for assessing SL-­in-action. These assessment methods go beyond marking answers as right or wrong, based on their matching a predetermined answer or based on a checklist of predetermined skills. Such simple methods are contradictory to preparing students for a knowledge-­based economy. Science students need to be exposed to situations where they can demonstrate their responses in a scientifically literate manner, and assessment specialists need to describe and monitor such responses. Because SL-­in-action is “knowing how to learn and knowing how to use that learning,” assessment of SL-­in-action must describe and monitor those complex processes.

Scientific Literacy for a Knowledge Society   41

Conclusion We succinctly reiterate two crucial concepts—“SL-­in-action” and “school science content.” A Knowledge Society requires employers, employees, and citizens to develop the capacity to treat knowledge in terms of action—knowing-­in-action. In science education this becomes SL-­in-action. We conceptualize school science content as a triad of scientific content, processes, and contexts, in which content and processes are invariably context-­bound as they are in the world of employment (i.e., context-­bound content and context-­ bound processes). This specified meaning for “school science content” harmonizes science education with SL-­in-action and ultimately with a Knowledge Society. A major implication for policy concerning student assessment logically follows. Context-­bound science instruction and learning are by and large incompatible with universal assessment ideologies found in many national and international testing institutions. In the agenda of a Knowledge Society, nonuniversal types of assessment for science-­technology (ST) learning would be given precedence over issues of accountability, student certification, student selection, and school improvement. SL-­in-action is about capacity building either for competence in ST-­related occupations, or for resolving ST-­related events and issues. If policies, curricula, teacher education programs, teacher professional development, and student assessment in science education do not support SL-­in-action, they hinder a country’s knowledge-­based economy and thereby undermine its Knowledge Society (Munby, Hutchinson, Chin, Versnel, & Zanibbi, 2003). We have offered policy makers a theoretical framework for selecting school science content in line with a Knowledge Society. In addition, we have clarified an ideology that would guide the development of student assessment policies that support a Knowledge Society. Current national and international assessment conventions and practices would have to give way to new ones, if all citizens are to develop the rich range of school science outcomes needed in a Knowledge Society.

References Aikenhead, G. S. (1991). Logical reasoning in science & technology. Toronto, Ontario: John Wiley of Canada. Aikenhead, G. S. (2005). Science-­based occupations and the science curriculum: Concepts of evidence. Science Education, 89, 242–275. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-­based practice. New York: Teachers College Press. APU (Assessment of Performance Unit). (1983). Science at age 11. London: Department of Education and Science. AQA (Assessment and Qualifications Alliance). (2003). General certificate of education: Science for public understanding 2004. Manchester, AQA. (And subsequent years). Bayliss, V. (1998). Redefining work: An RSA initiative. London: RSA. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment and science education. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

42   G. Aikenhead et al. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–71. Bybee, R. W., & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 349–352. Carlone, H. B. (2003). Innovative science within and against a culture of “achievement.” Science Education, 87, 307–328. Carter, L. (2008). Globalization and science education: The implications for science in the new economy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 617–633. Chartrand, H. H. (2007). Ideological evolution: The competitiveness of nations in a global knowledge-­based economy. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. Chin, P., Munby, H., Hutchinson, N. L., Taylor, J., & Clark, F. (2004). Where’s the science? Understanding the form and function of workplace science. In E. Scanlon, P. Murphy, J. Thomas, & E. Whitelegg (Eds.), Reconsidering science learning (pp. 118–134). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Désautels, J. (2004). Technobiological literacies and citizenship education. In J. Lewis, A. Magro, & L. Simonneaux (Eds.), Biology education for the real world: Student-­teachercitizen (Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of European Researchers in Didaktic of Biology) (pp. 9–26). Toulouse, France: École nationale de formation agronomique. De Vos, W., & Reiding, J. (1999). Public understanding of science as a separate subject in secondary schools in the Netherlands. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 711–719. Dori, Y. J., & Tal, R. T. (2000). Formal and informal collaborative projects: Engaging in industry with environmental awareness. Science Education, 84, 95–113. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24, 661–679. Fensham, P. J. (2000). Issues for schooling in science. In R. T. Cross & P. J. Fensham (Eds.), Science and the citizen for educators and the public (pp. 73–77). Melbourne: Arena. Fensham, P. J. (2002). Time to change drivers for scientific literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2, 9–24. Fensham, P. J. (2007). Values in the measurement of students’ science achievement in TIMSS and PISA. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The re-­emergence of values in science education (pp. 215–229). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Fleming, R. (1989). Literacy for a technological age. Science Education, 73, 391–404. Foray, D., & Lundvall, B. D. (1996). The knowledge-­based economy: From the economics of knowledge to the learning economy. In OECD, Employment and growth in the knowledge-­based economy (pp. 11–32). Paris: OECD. Fraser, S. W., & Greenhalgh, T. (2001). Coping with complexity: Educating for capability. British Medical Journal, 323, 799–803. Furnham, A. (1992). Lay understanding of science: Young people and adults’ ideas of scientific concepts. Studies in Science Education, 20, 29–64. Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Assessing STS literacy: What is rational? In K. Boersma, K. Kortland, & J. van Trommel (Eds.), 7th IOSTE symposium proceedings: Papers. Part 1 (pp. 309–320). Endrecht, NL: IOSTE Conference Committee.

Scientific Literacy for a Knowledge Society   43 Gaskell, P. J. (2002). Of cabbages and kings: Opening the hard shell of science curriculum policy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2, 59–66. Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the knowledge wave? The Knowledge Society and the future of education. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Gott, R., Duggan, S., & Johnson, P. (1999). What do practising applied scientists do and what are the implications for science education? Research in Science & Technological Education, 17, 97–107. Guo, C.-J. (2007). Issues in science learning: An international perspective. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 227–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22, 1–41. Hunt, A., & Millar, R. (2000). AS science for public understanding. Oxford: Heinemann. Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407–416. Ihde, D. (1991). Instrumental realism: The interface between philosophy of science and philosophy of technology. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Jenkins, E. (1992). School science education: Towards a reconstruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24, 229–246. Kolstø, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 645–664. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). “To trust or not to trust . . .”—pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-­scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877–901. Kortland, J. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689. Kortland, J. (2001). A problem posing approach to teaching decision making about the waste issue. Utrecht, NL: University of Utrecht Cdβ Press. Lave, U., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Law, N. (2002). Scientific literacy: Charting the terrains of a multifaceted enterprise. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2, 151–176. Law, N., Fensham, P. J., Li, S., & Wei, B. (2000). Public understanding of science as basic literacy. In R. T. Cross & P. J. Fensham (Eds.), Science and the citizen for educators and the public (pp. 145–155). Melbourne: Arena. Layton, D. (1991). Science education and praxis: The relationship of school science to practical action. Studies in Science Education, 19, 43–79. Lottero-­Perdue, P. S., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2002). Learning on the job: The acquisition of scientific competence. Science Education, 86, 756–782. Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in science education, 14, 33–62. Munby, H., Hutchinson, N. L., Chin, P., Versnel, J., & Zanibbi, M. (2003, February). Curriculum and learning in work-­based education: Implications for education in the new economy. Paper presented at the National Invitational Conference, “School-­to-Work and Vocational Education: The New Synthesis,” Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education, Philadelphia. NRC (National Research Council). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. OECD. (1996a). The knowledge-­based economy. Paris: OECD Publications. OECD. (1996b). Employment and growth in a knowledge-­based economy. Washington, DC: OECD Publications and Information Centre.

44   G. Aikenhead et al. OECD. (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris, OECD. Orpwood, G. (2001). The role of assessment in science curriculum reform. Assessment in Education, 8(2), 135–151. Orpwood, G., & Barnett, J. (1997). Science in the National Curriculum: An international perspective. Curriculum Journal, 8, 331–349. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-­scientific issues. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Rodrigues, S., Tytler, R., Darby, L., Hubber, P., Symington, D., & Edwards, J. (2007). The usefulness of a science degree: The “lost voices” of science trained professionals. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1411–1433. Roth, W.-M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–42. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-­scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1–42. SEPUP. (2003). SEPUP News. Berkeley, CA: Science Education for Public Understanding Project, Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California at Berkeley. Retrieved June 4, 2008 from: www.sepup.com. Sinclair, M., Orpwood, G., & Byers, P. (2007, April). Supporting school improvement in mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Solomon, J. (1984). Prompts, cues and discrimination: The utilization of two separate knowledge systems. European Journal of Science Education, 6, 277–284. Thier, H. D., & Daviss, B. (2001). Developing inquiry-­based science materials: A guide for educators. New York: Teachers College Press. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-­Bass.

4 Scientific Literacy Content and Curriculum Making Zongyi Deng

Introduction Widely accepted as the central goal of science education in the 21st century, scientific literacy (SL) has created a strong impact on discourse about curriculum policy, curriculum development, and assessment in contemporary school science education (see Bybee, 1998; McEneaney, 2003; Roberts, Chapter 2 this volume). An issue of heated debate, however, concerns what should constitute the content for teaching and learning SL. As implied in a variety of definitions, there are diverse ways of defining and conceptualizing this curriculum content. Roberts (2007) coined the terms Vision I and Vision II to represent two extremes on a continuum of SL definitions, foregrounding two paradigmatic ways of delineating SL content. Vision I defines SL by looking inward at science itself, which Roberts calls a focus-­on-science­and-scientists approach. The products and practices of science are employed as an essential frame of reference. Vision II gives meaning to SL by looking outward to the relationships of science to human affairs more broadly. This is a focus-­onsituations approach, for which the essential frame of reference is science-­related situations students are likely to encounter as citizens. This chapter explores the meaning of content for teaching and learning SL from the perspective of curriculum making—broadly construed, with particular attention to the two visions just mentioned. A careful interrogation of the meaning of content is needed for the obvious reason that curriculum content is at the heart of teaching and learning. My analysis is intended to lessen the confusion in our professional discourse about SL, by drawing attention to the fundamental importance of clarifying its content. At the same time, approaching questions of content by way of a curriculum-making framework highlights the need for consistency between policy, curriculum documents, and classroom enactment (cf. Roberts, Chapter 2 this volume). The analysis highlights areas of concern about both Vision I and Vision II, and calls attention to implications for further research and analysis.

Three “Levels” of Discourse About Curriculum Making Curriculum making operates across institutional, programmatic, and classroom domains, each of which is associated with a distinct kind of curriculum discourse.

46   Z. Deng •

•

•

The institutional curriculum is represented by curriculum policy at the intersection between schooling, culture, and society. It embodies a conception of what schooling should be with respect to society and culture. Curriculum making at this level “typifies” what is desirable in social and cultural orders, what is to be valued and sought after by members of a society or nation (Doyle, 1992a, 1992b). The programmatic curriculum is contained in curriculum documents and materials for use in schools and classrooms. Curriculum making at this level transforms the institutional curriculum into school subjects, programs, or courses of study provided to a school or system of schools (Doyle, 1992a, 1992b; Westbury, 2000). The process of constructing a school subject or a course of study involves “framing a set of arguments that rationalize the selection and arrangement of content [knowledge, skills, and dispositions] and the transformation of that content” for school and classroom use (Doyle, 1992b, p.  71). The programmatic curriculum thus embodies a “theory of content” with respect to both the institutional expectations and the activities of teaching (Doyle, 1992b). The classroom curriculum is characterized by a cluster of events jointly developed by a teacher and a group of students within a particular classroom (Doyle, 1992a, 1992b). Classroom curriculum making involves transforming the programmatic curriculum embodied in curriculum documents and materials into instructional events. It involves further elaboration of the programmatic curriculum, making it connect with the experience, interests, and capacities of students (Westbury, 2000).

Notice that the term classroom is used in a broad sense, encompassing school-­based curriculum development activities as well as those of individual classrooms. Readers may be familiar with a similar category system consisting of the abstract or ideal curriculum, the analytic or technical curriculum, and the enacted curriculum that parallel the above three curriculum domains respectively. At the classroom level this system also includes the achieved curriculum, the curriculum students actually learned, but this is beyond the scope of this chapter (see Doyle, 2008). SL is thus seen to be embedded in a network of curriculum considerations— institutional, programmatic, and school/classroom. Therefore, in any discussion of SL it is necessary to identify the locus of the discussion in this network. SL assumes three different faces with respect to the three domains of curriculum: (1) an overarching curricular aim or goal, (2) curriculum documents and materials, and (3) instructional events and activities. Each of these faces imparts distinctive meaning to the content of school science.

Institutional Discourse: SL as an Overarching Curricular Goal As an overarching curricular goal, SL embodies an inclusive and broad view of what school science education should be with respect to society and culture. At this level of discourse, SL is often connected with the slogan “Science for All,” a rallying cry for school science education that is appropriate for all students,

Content and Curriculum Making   47 regardless of their gender, ability, and cultural or ethnic background (Fensham, 1985, 1992). SL as “Science for All” is used to convey the view of a scientifically literate person in an increasingly scientific and technological society, signifying the kinds of attributes and capacities that need to be cultivated in all students. No matter how inclusively and broadly SL is conceived, at the institutional level it is inextricably connected with national (or perhaps state) interest. That is, what should count as content for teaching and learning SL has to do with discourses about why a nation needs citizens who understand and know about science. According to McEneaney (2003), three types of discourse or logics— economic, political, and cultural—have been used to promote SL by various nations around the globe. Each of these presents a distinctive notion of what is desirable and should be sought in school science education. Economic discourse underlines the need for a scientifically literate workforce for economic growth in an increasingly technology-­oriented economy. It advocates that the primary concern of school science education should be the development of technical skills and “know how” that could enhance economic productivity. Political discourse stresses the need for a scientifically literate public for political/social development, calling for the cultivation of informed decision-­making capacities of a scientifically literate citizenry as the central purpose of school science education. (World) cultural discourse places a high premium on the worldwide principles of universalism (the agency of all human beings and the law-­abiding nature of the universe), individualism (individuals as the most fundamental actors), and rationalization (the maintenance of a just and efficient society through the establishment of cultural rules and procedures). Cultural discourse especially calls attention to the importance of developing personal relevance and individual agency, of encouraging the participation of students of diverse backgrounds and ethnicities, and of strengthening science, technology, and mathematics for all students in the school curriculum (McEneaney, 2003). To recognize the importance of discourse of this sort is to situate SL in a broad economic, political, and cultural context, which relates such discourse directly to the content of school science. Although discourse at the institutional level can seem distant and removed from the classroom, authors such as Carter (2005a, 2005b) and Fensham (2007) have drawn attention to its significance. It has been argued that preparation of students for the world of work in an era of globalization and knowledge-­based economy exerts an urgent demand on school science education, a demand that has not received sufficient attention from science educators. In this regard, the work of Aikenhead, Orpwood, and Fensham (Chapter 3, this volume) represents an important attempt to explore the implications of a knowledge-­based economy for conceptualizing SL content and developing appropriate assessment procedures for students.

Programmatic Discourse: SL in Curriculum Documents and Materials SL is given programmatic form when translated into curriculum documents and materials such as standards, curriculum frameworks, instruction and assessment

48   Z. Deng guides, and textbooks. The translation entails reconceptualizing school science in a way that, on the one hand, honors a defensible view of SL as an overarching educational goal, and on the other hand, takes into consideration the requirement of curriculum making practice in schools and classrooms. Two features are central to the process of translation: (1) a “theory of content” (Doyle, 1992b)—a special way of selecting, arranging, and framing content for educational, curricular, and pedagogical purposes—and (2) a set of conditions or criteria about teaching, assessment, and professional development that are necessary for enhancing SL in school science. The National Science Education Standards for the United States (the Standards hereafter) illustrates these two features. The Standards purports to be the basis for enabling all students in the nation to achieve SL, which is characterized in terms of four major goals. It is intended that students will be able to: • • • •

experience the richness and excitement of knowing about and understanding the natural world, use appropriate scientific processes and principles in making personal decisions, engage intelligently in public discourse and debate about matters of scientific and technological concern, and increase their economic productivity through the use of the knowledge, understanding, and skills of the scientifically literate person in their careers. (National Research Council, 1996, p. 13)

It is important to bear in mind that, although the Standards document is “national,” it is not intended to be a curriculum. (There is no official national curriculum in the United States.) As a curriculum framework, it has very broad scope in specifying what is thought to be required to bring about SL. Content standards are included, of course, but other standards are included as well: teaching, assessment, professional development, school programs, and system reform. The content standards define what students should know, understand, and be able to do over the course of K-­12 education in terms of eight categories: (1) unifying concepts and processes in science, (2) science as inquiry, (3) physical science, (4) life science, (5) earth and space science, (6) science and technology, (7) science in personal and social perspective, and (8) history and nature of science. The first category consists of concepts and processes (e.g., systems, organization, equilibrium, and evolution) that connect different disciplines and allow interdisciplinary approaches to the curriculum. The second category “highlights the ability to do inquiry and the fundamental understanding about scientific inquiry that students should develop” (Bybee, 1998, p. 158). The third, fourth and fifth categories consist of bodies of concepts, principles, and theories that are fundamental to the disciplines of physical, life, and Earth and space science. The sixth and seventh categories respectively concern students’ grasp of relationships

Content and Curriculum Making   49 between science and the designed world, and of the place of science in personal and societal decision making. The last category pertains to an understanding of the nature of science and the historical, social, and human aspects of scientific knowledge. The second to eighth categories are formulated in a developmental, progressive sequence for grade levels K-­4, 5–8, and 9–12. All categories are interconnected and together constitute a theory of content that provides a basis for developing the content of school science for SL. The document also outlines teaching and assessment standards that support inquiry and social constructivist approaches to teaching and learning—standards that are believed to be necessary for promoting SL in schools and classrooms. Furthermore, there are standards for professional development, school programs, and system reform that purport to provide “systemic” support for classroom teachers to make the goal of SL a reality (Bybee, 1998). In the Standards, the approach to selecting, arranging, and formulating the content of school science for SL exemplifies a focus-­on-science-­and-scientists approach associated with Vision I. That is, the content and practices of scientific disciplines (content standards 1–5) are employed as the central frame of reference for defining and delineating school science content. Technological, social, historical, and human aspects of science (content standards 6–8) are companion meanings (see Roberts, 1998), to be sure, but all of them take science as their starting point. There are potential problems with a focus-­on-science-­and-scientists approach reflected in the Standards. At the level of institutional discourse, insufficient attention is being paid to discourses about economic, political, and cultural contexts of students’ lives in the 21st century, and therefore to the types of knowledge and competence necessary for them to function effectively and participate fully in the contemporary world (McEneaney, 2003). This narrows the scope of SL itself, and seriously weakens the third and fourth goals of the Standards, which are crucial for achieving SL. A more appropriate characterization of SL for the 21st century is SL-­in-action, with its emphasis on having students learn to use scientific knowledge to deal with specific science-­technology-related issues and develop the capacity for lifelong learning needed for a Knowledge Society (Aikenhead, Orpwood, & Fensham, Chapter 3, this volume). A focus-­on-science-­and-scientists approach also has two related kinds of negative influence on the theory of content developed in such a programmatic document. First, of the seven types of school science knowledge discussed in Chapter 3, only wish-­they-knew science is admissible. Functional science, have-­ cause-to-­know science, need-­to-know science, enticed-­to-know science, personal-­ curiosity science, and science-­as-culture, all supportive of SL-­in-action, are largely overlooked. Second, the theory of content would most likely reflect the familiar discipline-­based organization of school science (as we see in content standards 3, 4, and 5 in the Standards document). Fensham (1985, 2004 chap. 10), among others, has for some time pointed out that school science for SL must transcend those barriers, requiring a “a broader knowledge base from which to draw its knowledge of worth than single disciplinary sciences can provide” (Fensham, 2004, p. 158).

50   Z. Deng In a similar vein, Eisenhart, Finkel, and Marion (1996) have argued that a focus-­on-science-­and-scientists approach overlooks alternative kinds of human knowledge and ways of knowing that could be potential sources of curriculum content for SL. The approach does very little to address learners who are culturally and linguistically diverse; as a result, these learners are pushed away from school science education. Others, in their criticism, state that the approach is “based on an untenable, individualistic [neo-­liberal] ideology that does not account for the fundamental relationships between individual and society, knowledge and power, or science, economics, and politics” (Roth & Calabrese Barton, 2004, p. 3). Despite the potential problems of a focus-­on-science-­and-scientists approach, this analysis has shown the importance of programmatic curriculum making in the Standards document—that is, the development of curriculum documents and materials other than those intended for classroom use. It has brought to light that school science for SL is a purposeful creation, entailing a theory of content and a set of conditions on instruction and assessment. Furthermore, the Standards document illustrates the point that promoting SL is a complex and systematic endeavor, requiring a set of external conditions concerning professional development, school science education programs and system reform. However, those who place an unduly high premium on curriculum making at the school and classroom level can overlook the necessity and sophistication of programmatic curriculum making. The high-­profile critics of school science education who advocate a focus-­on-situations approach associated with Vision II introduce potential problems as well.

Discourse about SL as Instructional Events and Activities At the school and classroom level, SL takes the form of instructional events and activities initiated by a teacher and jointly developed by the teacher and a group of students within a particular context—in school or out. In the Standards the development of such activities and events is presumed to be grounded in the teacher’s understanding of the recommended programmatic curriculum. School systems and teachers implementing the Standards are supposed to understand and respect the inherent theory of content and related teaching and assessment procedures (Bybee, 1998). This is necessary for the disclosure and realization of the potential embodied in the document (Deng, 2009). This view of curriculum making at the school and classroom level necessarily assumes that SL is translated into curriculum documents or materials, and then into instructional activities and events. The appropriateness of this assumption has been challenged by several authors who are firm advocates of Vision II (e.g., Eisenhart et al., 1996; Roth & Calabrese Barton, 2004; Roth & Lee, 2002, 2004). Roth and Calabrese Barton (2004, p. 3) put it this way: Scientific literacy cannot be prepackaged in books or delivered to students away from the lived-­in world. It must be understood as community practice, undergirded by a collective responsibility and a social consciousness with

Content and Curriculum Making   51 respect to the issues that threaten our planet. We need to treat scientific literacy as a recognizable feature that emerges from the [improvised] choreography of human interaction, which is always a collectively achieved, indeterminate process. Authors taking this point of view reject the notion that SL is an attribute of individuals, which notion is presented in the Standards. There, the content of school science is construed in terms of concepts, models, and theories that students need to know and master, which can be decontextualized from physical and social settings. Against that, these authors emphasize curriculum making at the school and community level that employs a focus-­on-situations approach to defining and conceptualizing the content of school science. For example, in a program called Foundations of Science, students worked with science teachers and community members to investigate and take action on specific environmental issues in a particular setting. Eisenhart et al. (1996, p. 284) describe the situation as follows: In this program, students and teachers have adopted a local creek, where they spend most of a year collecting and analyzing the macroinvertebrates that inhabit the creek, describing and evaluating the habitats that exist within the creek, and analyzing and quantifying the quality of the creek’s water. Students write and revise a series of reports on their findings, and they present their analyses to members of the local environmental agency which monitors other parts of the same watershed. In addition, students’ presentations are aired on a local cable television station. SL is thus conceptualized as a property of the collective that emerges from interactions of students and teachers in particular situations with a focus on specific issues. In other words, their total discussion or interaction has to be scientifically literate. The content of school science is identified or determined by the teachers and students based upon an analysis of the issues and situations. Scientific knowledge is one of many sources from which students and teachers draw during collective decision-­making processes. Apart from scientific knowledge, content can be derived from a wide range of sources—including commonsense knowledge, local culture, and community wisdom—that are intimately connected with students and local contexts. Its advocates claim, among other benefits, that such an approach can enhance minority students’ interest in science, students who often fail or have been failed by science in conventional programs (Eisenhart et al., 1996; Roth & Calabrese Barton, 2004). However, there are problems associated with their approach. The over-­reliance on local contexts and issues in defining and theorizing SL content overlooks questions concerning the role of school science education with respect to culture and society at large. For example, how might the pursuit of SL in such local contexts contribute to social and economic development of a country? How might it prepare students for the world of work in a changing social and economic context characterized by globalization and a knowledge-­based economy? What should a scientifically and technologically literate person know, value, and do as a citizen

52   Z. Deng in the 21st century? Questions such as these demand that we look beyond the immediate neighboring settings to the broad economic, political, and cultural contexts in which school science finds meaning and significance as we define and theorize it. Reid (1992) warns us that when considering what kinds of knowledge should be taken into account as potential sources of curriculum content, we need to think not only of the character of knowledge found in local situations, but also of the capacity of such knowledge for serving the institutional aims of schooling with respect to the wider culture and society. These are concerns at the level of institutional curriculum making and discourse. Furthermore, a focus-­on-situations approach, as exemplified by those authors at least, fails to attend to programmatic curriculum concerns—such as concerns about developing a program of study with scope and sequence that could progressively lead students to a body of worthwhile scientific knowledge and understanding. An undue emphasis on the kind of knowledge and understanding dependent on and bound by immediate individual and social settings makes it extremely difficult to articulate a common core of learning—a body of concepts, models, and theories that students need to know and be able to do—across grade levels and across a state or a country. What these authors have proposed are small-­scale programs centered on specific topics or issues having a direct bearing on the physical and social environments of students. A full commitment to a focus-­on-situations approach could create significant problems for cross-­national or even national comparisons in student achievements and for systematic curriculum planning and implementation. In addition, lacking in this type of writing is a theory of content that allows curriculum developers and teachers to think productively about scientific knowledge. An attack on specialized scientific knowledge by associating it with privilege, interest, gender, ideology, and control in their writings implies a denial that some knowledge is more powerful and worthwhile than other knowledge. Yet, Young (2008) distinguishes between knowledge of the powerful and powerful knowledge. While the former reflects issues concerning the preservation of particular professional interests and privilege in intellectual fields, the latter speaks to the intellectual power knowledge gives to those who have access to it. According to Young, specialized and scientific knowledge is powerful because it provides “more reliable explanations and new ways of thinking about the world” and “a language for engaging in political, moral, and other kinds of debates” (p. 14). Rejection of the existence of powerful knowledge precludes important questions about how students—including minority students—can be introduced into (disciplinary) scientific knowledge or initiated into deeper discourse enabled by scientific knowledge. One final point is in order. Programmatic curriculum concerns about scope and sequence have a long educational tradition as one of the necessary conditions for the intellectual development and growth of students. According to Dewey (1938/1998), two principles are entailed in the construction of a school subject or a course of study if it is to render “educative” experiences—experiences that prepare students for later experiences of a deeper, more expansive quality. The first one is stated as: “Anything which can be called a study, whether arithmetic,

Content and Curriculum Making   53 history, geography, or one of the natural sciences, must be derived from materials which at the outset fall within the scope of ordinary experience” (pp. 86–87). The second one requires curriculum content to be selected and formulated in a way that ensures “the progressive development of what is already experienced into a fuller and richer and also more organized form” (p. 87)—a form that approximates the knowledge embodied in academic disciplines. Champions of Vision II can easily fall into the trap of emphasizing the first principle but neglecting the second principle. Such programs, Dewey would argue, cannot promote “the enriched growth of further experience” in students.

Implications for Further Analysis This chapter analyzes the meaning of content for teaching and learning SL by way of a curriculum-making framework. It shows that the meaning of content is embedded in a web of three distinct levels of curriculum discourse. Therefore, approaches to defining and conceptualizing content would be problematic and indefensible if any one particular level of curriculum discourse is overlooked or undermined. An interrogation of the meaning of content demands that we be aware of and attentive to all three levels of curriculum discourse and inter-­ relationships (cf. Deng & Luke, 2008). To conclude this chapter, I address the implications for further analysis in terms of three areas, with special attention to certain important content issues facing contemporary school science education. The first area concerns the meaning of content at the institutional level. Concerning curriculum policy, Fensham (2008, pp. 4–5) identifies three imperatives that make school science education of critical importance to governments around the globe. The first relates to the identification, motivation, and initial preparation of those students who will go on to further studies for careers in all those professional fields that directly involve science and technology. A sufficient supply of these professionals is vital to the economy of all countries and to the health of their citizens. . . . The second imperative is that sustainable technological development and many other possible societal applications of science require the support of scientifically and technologically informed citizens. . . . The third imperative derives from the changes that are resulting from the application of digital technologies that are most rapid, the most widespread, and probably the most pervasive influence that science has ever had on human society. These three imperatives imply three distinctive purposes of school science education: (1) the preparation for occupations related to science and technology, (2) the education of a scientifically literate citizenry, and (3) the preparation of students for the information age. Each of these purposes has distinct implications for what should count as curriculum content for teaching and learning SL. Purposes (1) and (2) have received significant attention from science educators, and are the primary concerns in the Standards and AAAS documents (e.g., American

54   Z. Deng Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993, 2000, 2001). Yet attention to purpose (3) remains relatively scant. Inextricably associated with this purpose are challenges created by a knowledge-­based economy and globalization. What should count as SL in the information age? What should constitute the content for teaching SL in the “new” era? Inquiry into these questions requires paying close attention to discourse about globalization and a knowledge-­based economy. The second area of analysis concerns the meaning of content at the programmatic level. The above three distinctive purposes of science education might be best served by different courses of study taught at the different stages of schooling (Roberts, 1988). As Fensham (2008) suggests, during secondary school years there could be a common course designed to equip young people to participate in current socioscientific issues as future citizens, and a separate course that prepares students for further tertiary studies in science and technology. At the primary school, science curriculum should be concerned with “engendering science as a means of stimulating curiosity and appreciation of beauty, wonder and curiosity about the natural world” (p. 16). No matter what these courses are and at what stages they are offered, each of them has an inherent design, entailing a theory of content that links the content backward to the institutional purposes of school science education and forward to the (enacted) curriculum in school and classroom. To inquiry into the programmatic meaning of content, therefore, is to understand an inherent theory of content. What are the various kinds of knowledge or ways of knowing—in addition to those embedded in academic disciplines—that could be potential sources of content? How might these different kinds of knowledge be selected, organized, and transformed into the content of school science in a way that, on the one hand, serves the institutional purposes of science education and, on the other, respects diversity and supports curriculum development activities at the school and classroom level? How can school science education be moved progressively toward a real world while building on a strong conceptual base of science? (See Fensham, 2008.) These are important, challenging questions for curriculum making. The third area concerns the meaning of content at the school or classroom level. What constitutes the content has to do with classroom enactment of the institutional and programmatic curriculum (in the form of curriculum documents and materials), which is largely influenced and shaped by the teacher and students within a particular instructional context. The teacher works not only with the content per se, but also with a theory of content embedded in curriculum materials—a theory of what the content is, how the content is selected and formulated, and what value and significance that content has for students (as future citizens) within wider social and cultural orders. How might teachers interpret, adopt, and transform this theory of content in a particular classroom context? How might the theory of content embedded in the curriculum framework interact with the existing theories of content (sets of beliefs and assumptions about curriculum content) possessed by classroom teachers? (For a thoughtful discussion of this matter see Doyle, 2008.) What are the structures and processes by which the content for teaching and learning SL is interpreted and constructed by teachers and students? These questions require close atten-

Content and Curriculum Making   55 tion to the transformation of content not only at the classroom level but also at the institutional and programmatic levels.

Acknowledgments I am very thankful for the thoughtful comments and editorial suggestions of Doug Roberts and Glen Aikenhead.

References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Designs for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: Author. Bybee, R. W. (1998). National standards, deliberation, and design: The dynamics of developing meaning in science curriculum. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 150–165). New York: Teachers College Press. Carter, L. (2005a). Globalization and science education: Rethinking science education reforms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 561–580. Carter, L. (2005b). Globalization and policy reforms: Science education research. In J. Zajda (Ed.), International handbook on globalization, education and policy research (pp. 733–744). Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Deng, Z. (2009). The formation of a school subject and the nature of curriculum content: An analysis of liberal studies in Hong Kong. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(5), 585–604. Deng, Z., & Luke, A. (2008). Subject matter: Defining and theorizing school subjects. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 66–87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education: The 60th anniversary edition. West Lafayette: Kappa Delta Pi. (Original work published in 1938). Doyle, W. (1992a). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 486–516). New York: Macmillan. Doyle, W. (1992b). Constructing curriculum in the classroom. In F. K. Oser, A. Dick, & J. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new syntheses (pp. 66–79). San Francisco: Jossey-­Bass Publishers. Doyle, W. (2008). Competence as a blurred category in curriculum theory. Paper presented at a conference, “Research on vocational education and training for international comparison and as international comparison,” Georg-­August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany. Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-­examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 261–295. Fensham, P. J. (1985). Science for all: A reflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415–435. Fensham, P. J. (1992). Science and technology. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 789–829). New York: Macmillan. Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic.

56   Z. Deng Fensham, P. J. (2007). Competences, from within and without: New challenges and possibilities for scientific literacy. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-­O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 113–119). Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University. Fensham, P. J. (2008). Science education policy-­making: Eleven emerging issues. Retrieved June 4, 2009 from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001567/156700e.pdf. McEneaney, E. H. (2003). The worldwide cachet of scientific literacy. Comparative Education Review, 47(2), 217–237. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Author. Reid, W. A. (1992). The pursuit of curriculum: Schooling and the public interest. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Roberts, D. A. (1988). What counts as science education? In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 27–54). London: Falmer Press. Roberts, D. A. (1998). Analyzing school science courses: The concept of companion meaning. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 5–12). New York: Teachers College Press. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Roth, W.-­M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Roth, W.-­M., & Lee, S. (2002). Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 33–56. Roth, W.-­M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in community. Science Education, 88, 263–291. Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: What might didaktik teach curriculum. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German didaktik tradition (pp. 15–39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Young, M. F. D. (2008). From constructivism to realism in the sociology of the curriculum. In G. J. Kelly, A. Luke, & J. Green (Eds.), Review of Research in Education, 32, 1–28.

Part II

Exploring Language Perspectives This part of the book is underpinned by two conceptual themes that draw extensively on one another both in praxis and in theory, spanning societal, school, and university learning. The first is a modeling of disciplinary learning in terms of attaining functionality in an associated disciplinary Discourse such as that modeled by James Gee. The second can be characterized as a modern semiotic-­ based view of communication that binds language and text in all its forms into a cohesive conceptual entity. In these chapters, blending of the two conceptual themes emerges from a rich history of exploration of the meaning of language and text vis-­à-vis the pedagogical assumptions that typically became associated with the traditional uses of the terms language and text. Gregory Kelly introduces this thematization by discussing associations in scientific literacy, discourse, and epistemic practices. In Chapter 5, Kelly argues that scientific literacy foregrounds the importance of discourse practices for the construction of knowledge in educational communities. He uses the field of literacy research and what Norris and Phillips describe as a “distinction between fundamental and derived senses of literacy” as a basis for analyzing how language is fundamental for the socialization processes of learning disciplinary knowledge. This framing is used to make a case that the social bases of scientific knowledge and associated discourse practices shed light on the political nature of choices regarding what counts as scientific literacy. In the second part of his chapter, Kelly proposes that the goals of science education include developing what he calls learners’ “epistemic practices”—assessing, producing, communicating, and evaluating knowledge claims. Then, in a way elegantly consistent with the sociocultural perspective developed in the chapter, Kelly ends by identifying legitimation issues in science curricula he sees as being salient, and unresolved research foci for scholars of scientific literacy. Drawing on a similar sociocultural perspective Caroline Liberg, Åsa af Geijerstam, and Jenny Folkeryd, in Chapter 6, take the next step in the scientific literacy exploration of language perspectives by discussing “Scientific literacy and students’ movability in science texts.” They model the meaning-­making in terms of organizing “genres” that project knowledge development as a broadening of ways of formulating a subject matter, which underpin the formulation of sophisticated forms of meaning-­making across an increasing array of subject-­specific activities. Here learning is taken to be an accumulative process in that it involves the

58   Exploring Language Perspectives ­ evelopment of an increasing repertoire of ways of expressing yourself. However, d the authors argue that becoming scientifically literate goes beyond being able to participate in practises where increasingly specified and sophisticated forms of meaning-­making are used. It must also include the ability to competently move between different ways of expressing oneself. Their positing is based on the assumption that increased “movability” capability also leads to an enhanced possibility to participate as an active citizen and as a co-­creator of meaning-­making across different practices. There is rich detail in this chapter about the types of genres and text movability that are asked for in school science, both in everyday classroom work and in assessments. The authors’ discussion draws on empirical studies of science classroom activities in Swedish schools (grades 5 and 8) and a discussion of the nature of the 2006 PISA results. In Chapter 7, Isabel Martins offers an insightful and fruitful extension of the sociocultural framing that underpins the other chapters in this part of the book. Martins illustrates how analysis of the concept of literacy enables a more complex view of scientific literacy. In so doing, she argues that this analysis is much needed in times where changes in both group and individual behavior towards health and environmental issues are crucial to the future of next generations. Her argument qualifies and extends analysis of the concept of literacy carried out in the field of literacy studies to elaborate a view in which scientific literacy is seen not just as a pedagogical issue, but also as a “political issue,” in other words, as a societal investment in humanist and liberating praxis. Martins starts by exploring a diversity of perspectives and approaches to science/scientific literacy through a discussion of the concept of literacy, and its cognates, in order to propose the idea that one should consider the use of literacy in the expression scientific literacy as a metaphorical appropriation from the field of language and literacy studies. She goes on to discuss the implications of such metaphorical appropriations, suggesting a necessary expansion of the agenda of the science education community so as to include political, affective, and multimedia dimensions in research and development of actions aiming at promoting scientific literacy. Chapter 8, by John Airey and Cedric Linder, is set in the context of higher education and introduces a new modeling of “bilingual scientific literacy.” They begin by noting that today there are many countries where two languages are typically used in higher education science programs (a local language and English). Airey and Linder then argue that many educational advantages are gained by this kind of arrangement; however, a dual-­language approach raises some important questions for the conceptualization of scientific literacy in such an educational environment. For example, starting from the viewpoint that the broad general goal for natural science degree programs is the production of scientifically literate graduates, the authors present the following challenge: what is the nature of this scientific literacy when a science education is built on two language foundations? To explore this question, Airey and Linder examine three aspects of a dual-­language approach in higher education in the area of science. They, then, propose that when two or more languages are used in, for example, undergraduate science courses, the construction of curricula should be anchored in both the form and content of the scientific literacy that educators want their

Exploring Language Perspectives   59 students to achieve. Three fundamental aspects of such a curriculum are presented: the language within which students are expected to become scientifically literate, the nature of the functionality required (interpretive or generative), and, following Roberts (cf. Chapter 2), the Vision of scientific literacy (I or II). Drawing on these three aspects, Airey and Linder introduce a new construct, “bilingual scientific literacy,” in order to offer an appropriate characterization of the particular set of language-­specific science skills to be fostered within a given degree program. The authors then create a profile of the type of student competencies one might expect to result from using this new construct as a guide.

5 Scientific Literacy, Discourse, and Epistemic Practices1 Gregory J. Kelly

Introduction Proponents of scientific literacy often tie the goals of science education to broad societal ideals (e.g., AAAS, 1993). These ideals extend beyond reading and writing scientific texts and beyond understandings of scientific concepts and procedures, and often concern knowledge required for effective citizenship. Rationales for scientific literacy include the economic well being of a nation, the perceived need for technological knowledge among citizens, and the value of scientific and technological knowledge for supporting social justice and taking actions in society (DeBoer, 2000; Hodson, 2003; Roberts, 2007). Often lost in the discussion of what (or whose) knowledge is of most worth for citizenship is the central role communication plays in the construction and assessment of knowledge. A focus on scientific literacy can bring to the foreground the importance of language in knowledge production, in both scientific and education communities. Discourse contributes in multiple ways to the production of scientific knowledge, from the banter in the process of discovery (Garfinkel, Lynch, & Livingston, 1981) to the development of specific genres for persuasion (Bazerman, 1988). Similarly, in education discourse processes are central to the everyday activity of knowledge construction. Discourse is central to the ways communities develop community norms and expectations, define common knowledge for the group, build affiliation, frame knowledge made available, and provide access to disciplinary knowledge, and invite or limit participation (Cazden, 2001; Gee & Green, 1998; Kelly & Green, 1998). Thus, the learning of individuals is situated in the cultural practices and norms of a relevant community, a community that changes over time as members take action to change the social knowledge, norms, and practices. A central mediating feature of these communities is language. Knowledge is constructed and reconstructed as members of a community bring together their respective experiences, local knowledge, and ways of being (Wells, 2000). While discourse practices vary in purpose across professional and educational settings, uses of language are central to both the creation and communication of knowledge in each setting. Thus, the ties of language to knowledge construction merit a closer look at literacy and epistemology. In this chapter, I consider views of scientific literacy and how the use of language is related to learning and knowing. I begin by drawing from work in the

62   G. J. Kelly field of literacy research, before turning to science studies and science education. Through the use of philosophy of science and various empirical studies of scientific practices across settings, I propose that the goals of science education include developing epistemic practices among learners. I then shift to discuss how, when conceiving of language and knowledge as ideological, we need to consider how knowledge is legitimated through discourse. Finally, I draw some practical applications of this perspective.

Literacy, Language and Knowledge Language in Scientific Literacy Norris and Phillips (2003) make a distinction between two senses of scientific literacy in the science education research literature. They define fundamental science literacy as coming from the ability to read and write on the subject of science and the derived sense of scientific literacy as encompassed in being knowledgeable, learned, and educated in science (Norris & Phillips, 2003, p. 224). Their argument continued to note that reading and writing in and about science do not stand alone as mere devices for the recording and communication of science (Norris & Phillips, 2003); but rather, science literacy in the fundamental sense serves as a central component in building the conceptual, epistemic, and societal dimensions associated with a derived sense of literacy. Norris and Phillips argue that there exist connections between the broad citizenship goals of scientific literacy articulated in science education reform documents and the uses of written and spoken language in educational settings. While I agree with Norris and Phillips that the derived sense of scientific literacy is dependent on the fundamental sense of literacy, particularly as related to the social and discourse features of scientific practices, there are two ways that this distinction needs to be examined closely. First, learning literate practices in a fundamental sense entails acculturation to a broader set of ways of speaking, acting, and being in the world. Second, this acculturation involves the communication, and thus privileging, of some(one’s) knowledge. Thus, choices about which types of literate practices entail choices about types of citizenship. To these issues I now turn. Discourse Practices, Socialization, and Literacy Literacy entails engaging in the discourse practices of a group or groups. Therefore, to understand views of literacy, we need to consider discourse broadly construed. I will use the term discourse to refer to ways of using language in social contexts. Each use of language is tied to specific instances of activity, and enacts specific identities. Gee (2001a) offers some clarity around the relationship of discourse and literacy. Gee’s argument is that discourses are social practices that combine with ways of acting to form Discourses—“ways of being in the world . . . forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes” (p. 526). A key feature of Discourses is that they are not mastered through overt instruction, but

Discourse and Epistemic Practices   63 rather, through participation as a member of a group exhibiting the practices of the particular Discourse. Gee distinguishes between primary and secondary Discourses. People learn a primary Discourse through enculturation into their first culture, primarily centered in one’s family and other associated social organizations. Secondary Discourses are learned through participation in social groups and acculturation. Gee defines literacy as “the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse” (p. 529). These secondary Discourses are powerful as they allow for analysis and criticism and, in particular, for critique of one’s primary Discourse. This perspective has application in the design of science pedagogy, as the view suggests that students need time and opportunities to participate in activities that engage them in the new secondary Discourses—that is, language use needs to be connected to purposeful activity where students learn social meanings of science communities through participation with more knowing others. Further extending Gee’s view of literacy into social practice, Green and her colleagues consider literacy in terms of the “literate practices” of learning disciplinary knowledge (e.g., Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group, 1992). This view of literacy, derived from anthropology and sociolinguistics, examines ways spoken and written texts are embedded in social processes and cultural practices. Through the study of literate practices across disciplinary areas, the Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group (1992) defines literacy as socially constructed and situationally defined and redefined within and across different social groups as members engage with, interpret, and construct text (Castanheira, Crawford, Dixon, & Green, 2001, p. 354). This view suggests that literacy is not achieved, but rather can be viewed as literate actions members of groups take as they engage with texts in everyday life. This view is similar to that of Gee. In both cases literacy involves more than just reading and writing texts, but rather entails actions, beliefs, values, social practices, and identity formation (Gee & Green, 1998). Viewing literacy and learning in this way suggests that the social practices of science interact with, draw upon, and in certain circumstances are similar to, other specialized ways of talking, writing, engaging, and being in the world. This view of literacy suggests that social groups construct the semiotic systems, roles and relationships, norms and expectations, and rights and obligations that are signaled through the actions and interactions among members (Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group, 1992; Kelly & Green, 1998). Therefore, the study of how the discourses of disciplinary knowledge are constructed in educational settings needs to include examination of the ways social groups affiliate, build cultural practices through interaction, and establish common knowledge within the group or class (Edwards & Mercer, 1987). These ways of being suggest that learning to engage in the discourses of science requires developing new repertoires for interaction with people, texts, and technologies. The consideration of identity then becomes crucial for the understanding of the socialization processes of ­education and how affiliation or alienation might occur through acculturation processes (Gee, 2001b; Brown, Reveles, & Kelly, 2005). This view suggests that identity is situational, contextualized, and becomes evident through discourse

64   G. J. Kelly and interaction—members of groups make decisions about how to position themselves with discourse that draws from a repertoire of ways of interacting (Brown & Spang, 2008; Reveles, Kelly, & Durán, 2007). The Ideological Nature of Language and Knowledge The view of literacy that entails learning a secondary Discourse (Gee, 2001a), with all the associated values, beliefs, and ways of being in the world, suggests that learning to participate in a social context is not value neutral. This argument is made forcefully by Street (2001) in referring to the “new literacy studies.” Street argued that initial studies of literacy often presupposed an “autonomous” view of reading and writing. This view suggests that literacy be conceptualized in “technical terms, treating it as independent of social context, an autonomous variable whose consequences for society and cognition can be derived from its intrinsic character” (pp. 431–432). Street proposes an “ideological” model of literacy that views “literacy practices as inextricably linked to cultural and power structures in society and to recognize the variety of cultural practices associated with reading and writing in different contexts” (pp. 433–434). Street uses ideological to refer to the social, cultural, and pragmatic dimensions of literacy practices—but not the “false consciousness” posited by Marxist views of ideology. The ideological model suggests that literacy practices are situated in some context with some set of purposes, uses, goals, and so forth. Street suggests moving away from only studies of literacy as an individual cognitive tool to consideration of the ways that language-­in-use is situated in culture and power, in institutions, and in ideologies of communication in the contemporary world (p. 437). Thus, from the contemporary views of literacy educators, the study of literacy should include ethnography of communication, communities, and institutions. Such work applied to science education may entail investigations of the many ways that science is constructed—that is, as interactionally accomplished through discourse and actions—both within schooling and in the many other contexts where local knowledge and practices involving the study of nature are evoked (Roth & Calabrese Barton, 2004).

Directions for Research Concerning Scientific Literacy Drawing from science studies (i.e., multidisciplinary study of scientific knowledge and practices) and the learning sciences (i.e., multidisciplinary study of learning and learning environments), Duschl (2008) proposes a focus on three integrated domains for science education: conceptual structures and cognitive processes; epistemic frameworks; and social processes shaping communication in science. A shift toward these domains would move science instruction beyond a traditional focus on the proposition knowledge of final form science, that is, the conclusions of scientific practices often articulated as concretized theories, laws, and facts. Such a move is consistent with the arguments above about learning through participation in discourse processes, but still leaves open the curricula decisions about what counts as science. Roberts (2007) identified two central

Discourse and Epistemic Practices   65 visions for scientific literacy in the field of science education. One vision turns inward toward the products and processes of science, while a second vision examines the situations citizens may encounter with a scientific component (p. 730). For each vision, the relevant conceptual knowledge, epistemic practices, and communicative demands are contingent upon what counts as knowledge and practice for some social group. As described above, the knowledge and practice are dependent on discourse in situated contexts of use. Thus, in this section I propose two avenues for research in scientific literacy that concern how what counts as knowledge and practices is accomplished within and across social groups, and how such knowledge and practices are legitimized. I discuss first the importance of learning in epistemic practices of science as part of the secondary Discourse of science and, second, the need to consider how certain discourses come to count as science in schools. There are, of course, many other plausible ways to research scientific literacy and ways of going about such research. I am not suggesting that research in scientific literacy be limited to these avenues, but rather, that the views of literacy, language, and knowledge sketched in the previous sections have such implications for research. Epistemic Practices and Science Learning Studies of epistemology in science education have tended to focus either on personal theories of knowing as related to learning, or disciplinary views of knowledge that inform curriculum or assessment development, but few such studies examine the ways that disciplinary knowledge is interactively accomplished through discourse and actions in local settings (Kelly, Chen, & Crawford, 1998). My argument here is that the three knowledge domains outlined by Duschl (2008) can be mutually supportive through a focus on the epistemic practices associated with assessing, producing, communicating, and evaluating knowledge claims (Kelly, 2008). While I do not believe that a focus on epistemic practices should be the only focus of research related to science pedagogy, it does offer some productive ways of examining the intersubjective nature of scientific ­literacy. The focus on epistemic practices derives from a social epistemology. Developments in the philosophy of science have refocused the epistemic subject from an individual mind to a relevant community of knowers (Longino, 2002; for review, see Kelly, 2008). The move to an intersubjective paradigm for epistemology is particularly relevant in the construction of scientific knowledge, as found in both professional and educational contexts. Community practices and values play important roles in empirical research. These practices and values have been well documented in science studies (e.g., Knorr-­Cetina, 1999; Lynch, 1993). Social practices of epistemic communities in science fields govern research directions, control outlets for publication, define the socialization of new members, and formulate and assess knowledge claims through collaborative research endeavors (Jasanoff, Markle, Petersen, & Pinch, 1995). A social epistemology has relevance for education in many ways, but perhaps most centrally in ways that people are initiated into particular frames of reference through language and participation

66   G. J. Kelly in cultural practices (Wittgenstein, 1958). Viewing science as social knowledge contrasts with some paradigms for educational research, which have focused on how individual students learn particular concepts (e.g., Pfundt & Duit, 1991). The alternative frameworks movement, conceptual change, and various forms of constructivism, have largely focused on individual learners. This has been true even if the individual learners were learning in a social situation. In such cases, epistemology was often reduced to how individual learners conceptualized knowledge in their own personal, idiosyncratic ways. A focus on epistemic practices offers an alternative. An emerging group of scholars are examining the knowledge building in everyday educational contexts (Jimenez-­Aleixandre & Reigosa, 2006; Kelly, 2008; Kelly, Chen, & Prothero, 2000; Lidar, Lundqvist, & Ostman, 2006; Sandoval, 2006; Wickman, 2004). The foci have been on discourse of students and teachers around the practical investigations of science, as well as discourse around aspects of knowledge assessment and evaluation. A common characteristic of these studies is a centering of the epistemic subject as a relevant social group, or minimally within a social group. By focusing closely on the ways that knowledge claims are formulated and assessed through discourse processes, these studies offer ways to examine how evidence for changes in conceptual understanding, scientific reasoning, and science in sociopolitical contexts can be understood in everyday learning situations. This focus connects to theories of social epistemology, as we may think of pedagogy as providing opportunities to engage in the knowledge and practices of a relevant community. The focus on situated epistemic practices poses challenges for students and researchers. A focus on epistemic practices situates science learning in social contexts and places a new set of literacy demands on students. The literacy demands entailed by the epistemic practices of science education suggest a need for studies of language in use in multiple settings. These studies need to account for the multimedia, interactionally accomplished nature of scientific reasoning in situationally defined settings (Lemke, 2000; Roth & Lee, 2002). Such studies would need to examine uses of language in spoken and written forms across different temporal units—that is, moments, lessons, science units and projects, histories of ideas (Kelly, 2008). What counts as science, who can participate, and how science is accomplished among members of a group, are all manifest in moment-­to-moment interactions embedded in social histories and cultural traditions (Kelly & Green, 1998). Thus, the study of literacy demands of the many actors relevant to school science (scientists, activists, teachers, students, and parents, among others) may shed light on the processes of representation, communication, and evaluation of the evidentiary bases of knowledge claims—often key features of the derived sense of scientific literacy, and open to the second vision of knowledge for citizenship suggested by Roberts (2007). The pedagogical emphasis on evidence use suggests the need to examine ways that social practices are instantiated, communicated, appropriated, interpreted, applied, and change over time. Such a research focus may identify ways science pedagogy supports or constrains students’ learning opportunities. A focus on epistemic practices that situates science learning in social contexts places a new set of demands on researchers examining learning. A focus on epis-

Discourse and Epistemic Practices   67 temic practices suggests units of analyses that include multiple actors, the ways that roles are established and positioned, norms and expectations, the mediating artifacts, and local history of sociocultural practices. Activity theory provides a methodological approach that considers a distributed view of learning by taking into consideration the many dimensions of collective, culturally mediated activity (Engestrom & Miettinen, 1999). This unit of analysis thus requires that the study of inquiry examine these many dimensions, through systematic, careful analysis of the concerted actions of social groups (Kelly, 2008). The focus on epistemic practices and social knowledge presupposes an interaction of more knowledgeable others and students in dialogue. This perspective raises questions about who and what counts in the negotiation of (what is taken for) legitimate knowledge. I would be remiss to not consider some of the legitimation issues in science curricula in the discussion of scientific literacy. Legitimation Issues in Science Curricula Whether considering the broad goals of science for citizenship, or the more narrow goals of the particular ways science texts are written and read, questions about what counts as science arise. A number of questions can be raised about scientific literacy from this point of view. How should a community decide which (whose) knowledge is worthy of inclusion in the curriculum? Who can legitimately make such decisions? What ought to be the nature of debate regarding the processes for choosing knowledge worthy of the students’ attention? Such questions are not easily answered. For example, Eisenhart, Finkel, & Marion (1996) suggested that important US-­based reform documents (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996) while claiming the goal of scientific literacy broadly defined, emphasize the theoretical and factual nature of science, at the expense of other goals related to the nature of science, understanding the societal impact of science, and a developing socially responsible science. In another example, Roth and Lee (2002) note that conceptions of scientific literacy often presuppose a view of knowledge acquisition on the part of individuals, rather than knowledge of, or for, a collective. By viewing literacy for a collective and assuming a distribution of expertise (Norris, 1995), Roth and Lee note that science education can be developed as and for sociopolitical action. Finally, Hodson (2003) noted that while documents such as Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1989) call for a more socially compassionate science, the authors did not suggest that scientific literacy include the “capacity and willingness to act in environmentally responsible and socially just ways” (p. 652). Hodson makes the case that, while notions of scientific literacy are of some value, there is a need to develop greater interest among young learners and to create a science for sociopolitical action. Just as questions can be raised about the views of literacy underlying definitions of scientific literacy, educators continue to challenge assumptions about science. Critiques of science have come from feminist perspectives (e.g., Calabrese Barton, 1998), multicultural education (e.g., Krugly-­Smolska, 1996), critical theory (e.g., Kyle, 1991), and from the point of view of indigenous knowledge (e.g., Aikenhead, 1997). Science and scientific knowledge will continue to be

68   G. J. Kelly c­ ontested (e.g., Calabrese Barton & Osborne, 1998; Harding, 1993), whether framed under the banner of scientific literacy or not, and these challenges pose important questions for the future directions of research in scientific literacy. The contested nature of science leads to the need for careful consideration of knowledge legitimation issues (Habermas, 1990). For example, Aikenhead (2006) argues that in much of North America the “pipeline ideology” of science education orients curricular choices away from knowledge students may need toward the knowledge of academic scientists. Knowledge legitimation poses difficult questions for considerations of future direction for scientific literacy. Undoubtedly, there is a certain power in science and its contributions to technology for solving problems. Whether the science under consideration is the final form, de-­politized often found in science textbooks (and sometimes articulated in recent standards-­based reforms, e.g., see Bianchini & Kelly, 2000), or science for sociopolitical action as suggested by Hodson (2003), there exist certain tensions between the value of students’ voices in contributing to curricular decisions and the value of expanding the horizons of students through inculcation of certain knowledge, beliefs, and values. Decisions about whose knowledge counts have a long history and indeed are central to important debates in education (Apple, 1993). These debates are healthy; as a research community, we can continue to argue for legitimation of knowledge from different moral points of view. Nevertheless, such discussions are difficult. In earlier work (Kelly, 2006), I drew from Strike (1995) to propose a framework of critical discourse to consider how, given the epistemic plurality of modern societies, questions of importance can be discussed across differences. The proposed framework involves considering a set of critical dialogues centered on building public reason, rather than defining a priori what counts as knowledge, science, literacy, and so forth. Education can have a key role in developing the capacity of citizens to engage in critical dialogues and can benefit from such dialogues when considering issues of knowledge legitimation.

Applications for Teaching and Learning Science The arguments in this chapter center on ways of conceptualizing literacy in a broad sense, that is, tied to social action, while recognizing the important ways that discourse processes contribute to the construction of everyday life. This perspective recognizes that knowledge is of a group, and that learning the relevant discourse of a group entails participation. There are a number of practical applications that can be derived from this perspective. First, science lessons can be organized to include the three goals for science education advocated by Duschl (2008): conceptual understanding, epistemic reasoning, and social processes. While any individual lesson may take up these foci with differing emphasis, teachers can examine and make explicit the importance of, not only understanding key scientific conceptions, but also the evidentiary support and ways of reasoning supporting these conceptions. For example, an emerging line of research in science education focuses on how students can learn to develop, assess, and critique scientific and socioscientific arguments (e.g., Berland & Reiser, 2009; McNeill, 2009; Sadler & Fowler, 2006; Sampson & Clarke,

Discourse and Epistemic Practices   69 2009; Zembal-­Saul, 2009). Creating arguments involves using theoretical knowledge and relevant data and adhering to disciplinary norms. Furthermore, creating arguments entails an audience, implied or real, and sets the use of scientific knowledge in the context of persuading others about the merits of ideas. Thus, through careful attention to the uses of evidence across contexts, these studies are showing how, when properly framed as a legitimate science activity, constructing arguments can help students learn the conceptual knowledge, epistemic practices, and social processes of science. Second, the role of discourse processes is often neglected in science education settings. It is well known that science has unique discourse features and that these features are difficult for students to ascertain (Kelly, 2007). Discourse processes can be seen in almost all activities in science classrooms and other settings such as museums. While there are many ways to reconsider the uses of language in science learning, one practical application of this is rethinking how we interpret experience. Many science lessons are organized around teacher lectures, demonstrations, or student practical work that involved observation of the material world. Coming to see the natural world in particular ways, and making events recognizable and witnessable, through shared discourse is often neglected or obscured in science teaching—events are often assumed visible for the keen observer. However, greater attention to the ways that language picks out and identifies natural phenomena would help students make sense of their experiences and learn to observe in ways consistent with more knowledgeable others. Third, the problems of science can be made problematic in science classes. I have argued that by viewing science as social knowledge and recognizing that only certain re-­presentations of science are made available to students’ schooling and science education in other settings involves making selections regarding possible (often implicit) views of science. Thus, even for an inward view of science, choices are made about how science gets enacted in educational settings. To achieve the citizenship view of scientific literacy (Roberts’ Vision II), any of these views of science itself can be contested. Applications that concern examining science in societal contexts provide students with the opportunity to question not only the application of science, but also the scientific knowledge itself (Cunningham & Helms, 1998). For example, in Schweizer and Kelly (2005), students were asked to examine the scientific basis for human contributions to global warming. Through the production and critique of arguments around this issue, students were able to question the evidence, scientific models, and knowledge claims of proponents of different views regarding the central scientific question. This process allowed for the questioning of what counts as science among and for students in the collective discussions. Thus students were able to pose important questions about the nature of scientific modeling, levels of certainty in science, and the role of expertise is adjudicating controversy.

Concluding Thoughts In this chapter, I have argued for a view of scientific literacy that considers the ways that language use is central to the development of community knowledge and

70   G. J. Kelly practices. The purpose of the chapter is not to provide a comprehensive review of all of the ways that considerations of knowledge and language might intersect with scientific literacy. Rather, I have examined some notions of literacy and how literacy focused on language in use (fundamental sense, following Norris & Phillips, 2003) is related to the scientific literacy for citizenship (derived sense of literacy, following Norris & Phillips, 2003). I have proposed a research focus on epistemic practices that considers the evidentiary bases of scientific knowledge claims: ways knowledge is framed, proposed, justified, evaluated, and legitimized. Such a focus builds on relevant domains for science learning and can contribute to different visions and meanings of scientific literacy. Furthermore, I have argued that framing reform in terms of scientific literacy presupposes notions of knowledge legitimation. Questions about what counts as knowledge and science remain and are part of a healthy on-­going dialogue. Directions for future research might include examining how engagement in epistemic practices provides for learning opportunities, answering descriptive questions about what and whose science counts in given contexts, and considering normative questions about what and whose knowledge should contribute to creating a more just and responsible citizenry.

Note 1. An earlier version of this chapter entitled, “Scientific literacy, discourse, and knowledge,” was presented at the Linnaeus tercentenary symposium Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction, Uppsala, Sweden, May 28–31, 2007.

References Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Toward a first nations cross-­cultural science and technology curriculum. Science Education, 81, 217–238. Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-­based practice. New York: Teachers College Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Apple, M. (1993). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. Boston, MA: Ark. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55. Bianchini, J. A., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Challenges of standards-­based reform: The example of California’s science content standards and textbook adoption process. Science Education, 87, 378–389. Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779–802. Brown, B. A. & Spang, E. (2008). Double talk: Synthesizing everyday and science language in the classroom. Science Education, 92, 708–732.

Discourse and Epistemic Practices   71 Calabrese Barton, A. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press. Calabrese Barton, A. & Osborne, M. (Ed.). (1998). Pedagogies in science education [Special Issue]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (4). Castanheira, M. L., Crawford, T., Dixon, C., & Green, J. L. (2001). Interactional ethnography: An approach to studying the social construction of literate practices. Linguistics & Education, 11, 353–400. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cunningham, C. M., & Helms, J. V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 483–499. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582–601. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-­part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291. Edwards, A. D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge. London: Methuen. Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. F. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-­examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 261–295. Engestrom, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1–16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingston, E. (1981). The work of discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 131–158. Gee, J. P. (2001a). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction and what is literacy? In E. Cushman, E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook (pp. 525–544). Bedford: St. Martins. Gee, J. P. (2001b). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–126. Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (translated by C. Lenhardt & S. W. Nicholsen). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harding, S. (Ed.). (1993). The “racial” economy of science: Toward a democratic future. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670. Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Petersen, J. C., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Jimenez-­Aleixandre, M.-P., & Reigosa, C. (2006). Contextualizing practices across epistemic levels in the chemistry laboratory. Science Education, 90, 707–733. Kelly, G. J. (2006). Epistemology and educational research. In J. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 33–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 443–469). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, Activity, and Epistemic Practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99–117; 288–291). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

72   G. J. Kelly Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Crawford, T. (1998). Methodological considerations for studying science-­in-the-­making in educational settings. Research in Science Education, 28(1), 23–49. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: Writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691–718. Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzetti & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world (pp. 145–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Knorr-­Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Krugly-­Smolska. (1996). Scientific culture, multiculturalism and the science classroom. Science & Education, 5(1), 21–29. Kyle, W. C. (1991). The reform agenda and science education: Hegemonic control vs. counterhegemony. Science Education, 75, 403–411. Lemke, J. (2000). Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum. Linguistics & Education, 10, 247–271. Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Ostman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers’ epistemological moves and students’ practical epistemology. Science Education, 90, 148–163. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice as ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and the social studies of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233–268. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Norris, S. P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: Toward a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79, 201–217. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education 87, 224–240. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1991). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science. Kiel, Germany: IPN. Reveles, J. M., Kelly, G. J., & Durán, R. P. (2007). A sociocultural perspective on mediated activity in third grade science. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 1, 467–495. Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Roth, W.-M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge/Falmer. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2002). Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 1–24. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93, 448–484. Sandoval, W. A. (2006). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656. Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group. (1992). Constructing literacy in classrooms:

Discourse and Epistemic Practices   73 Literate action as social accomplishment. In H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 119–150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Schweizer, D. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). An investigation of student engagement in a global warming debate. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 75–84. Street, B. (2001). The new literacy studies. In E. Cushman, E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook (pp. 430–442). Bedford: St. Martins. Strike, K. A. (1995). Discourse ethics and restructuring. Presidential address. In M. Katz (Ed.), Philosophy of Education, 1–14. Philosophy of Education Society. Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wickman, P.-O. (2004). The practical epistemology of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Education, 88, 325–344. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). New York: Macmillan Publishing. Zembal-­Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687–719.

6 Scientific Literacy and Students’ Movability in Science Texts Caroline Liberg, Åsa af Geijerstam, and Jenny W. Folkeryd

Introduction During the past 20 to 30 years, the call for a language perspective on learning has increased. In social sciences it has been treated under the heading “the linguistic turn.” One important source of inspiration within educational sciences has been the work by Bakhtin and his fellow scholars. The concept of polyphony of the word and the perspective on language as a medium for meaning-­making have been of vital significance. Within a social semiotic perspective developed in his discussion of systemic functional linguistics, Halliday states that In the development of the child as a social being, language has the central role. Language is the main channel through which the patterns of living are transmitted to him, through which he learns to act as a member of a “society.” (1978, p. 9) According to Halliday, the semiotic systems we live by are considered to form a meaning resource. It is from this meaning resource that we choose when we articulate and structure meaning. By these choices, certain aspects are foregrounded while other aspects are put in the background or completely excluded. In this respect, the selected language forms are highly significant and colored with ideology. In this chapter some central language dimensions of science texts will be discussed with respect to scientific literacy. Within this vein, becoming scientifically literate can be seen as a broadening of ways of formulating subject matter that ranges from more concrete to more specified and sophisticated forms of meaning-­making in more and more subjectspecific activities. This is a development of an increasing repertoire of ways of expressing yourself. Scientific literacy, as well as learning in general, can thus be considered to be the cumulative development of evermore active participation in social practices, where different ways of expressing oneself and talking about the world are used. Being an active participant also includes becoming a co-­creator of the social practices one is involved in. In this chapter, these aspects will be considered in terms of the concept of text movability.1 Text movability is demonstrated by the ability to talk about the texts you have read or have written yourself. An assumption is that an extensive repertoire of text movability will

Students’ Movability in Science Texts   75 result in a greater possibility to participate as an active citizen and co-­creator of the meaning-­making in social practices. Thus, in the terms of this book, an important dimension of becoming scientifically literate is to develop an extensive repertoire of text movability in science texts. The teacher is a very important person in a student’s educational life. He/she can be looked upon “as a creator of social man—or at least as a midwife in the creation process” (Halliday, 1978, p.  9). In this position a teacher has a great impact on the meaning resources being used as well as the text movability that is shaped within the official classroom space. The teacher is thus responsible for which aspects of the subject matter are foregrounded and how this is done. In this chapter, these aspects, and their bearing on students’ development of scientific literacy will be treated by discussing the contexts of the science texts in school.

Language Dimensions in Science Texts The language of science differs from language in other subjects in several ways. In the following we will look into some of the language dimensions considered central to scientific literacy. The dimensions discussed here are genre, abstraction, lexical density, logical relations, objectivity, and multimodality. These dimensions will be addressed by looking into a text written by Robert, a 14-year-­old boy. Here he is writing about a laboratory experiment. For the purposes of this analysis, we will assume the use of HCI instead of H2SO4 in the equation was a simple mistake, since both of those acids, as well as HNO3, were used in the experiment.2 Robert’s written text (Swedish, see Figure 6.1) translated to English: 2HCL+Mg → H2(g)+Mg2++SO42– This is how we did it: The assignment: What happens when an acid reacts with magnesium? Hypothesis: I thought there would be smoke and big bubbles. We need: A test tube, a test tube with a pipe, plug, funnel, water, tripod, muff, clips, matches, goggles, diluted solutions of hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, nitric acid. Result: I thought that the laboratory experiment was fun and it went well. Conclusion: The reaction between hydrogen and oxygen in the air is very explosive. Genre We immediately recognize this text as written within science. The laboratory report is a very common science genre. According to Veel (1997), there are 12 different communicative genres or social processes typical of science, which are organized into four domains: Doing science, Explaining events scientifically, Organizing scientific information, and Challenging science. Veel discusses a line

76   C. Liberg et al.

Figure 6.1  Robert’s (14 years) laboratory report. of development between the different genres, where some are considered more advanced and thus occurring later in the development of a person’s genre repertoire. Within genres from the domain Doing science, meaning is, for example, built up by practical activity and skills in procedures and procedural recounts, while in the domain Explaining events scientifically, there is a need for a generalized account of objects and events, often outside the students’ experience. The explanations can be sequential, causal, factorial, consequential, or theoretical. Genres within the domain Organizing scientific information have the function of storing scientific knowledge as in descriptive and taxonomic reports. Veel states that explanations and reports play a complementary role in exploring a topic. Reports give a static snapshot of how the world is, while explanations are dynamic and tell us how and why the world behaves as it does. These two main types of genre are also considered to be more advanced than the genres within the domain Doing science. The most advanced main type of genre is found within the domain Challenging science.

Students’ Movability in Science Texts   77 The genres in this domain have arguing and persuading functions with respect to issues in science. This is accomplished through discussion or exposition and can be found for example in debates. A dimension of becoming scientifically literate is thus the development of being able to participate in these different types of genres. The text cited earlier is a “procedural recount.” It is not as advanced as, for example, factorial or causal explanations. Robert’s text contains an expressed goal for the experiment “what happens when an acid reacts with magnesium?,” the material used, a result (although the expressed result is more of an evaluation) and a conclusion. Even if the different stages are very short, Robert’s text contains genre typical features to the extent that a reader recognizes the text as a laboratory report. Abstraction and Lexical Density We recognize Robert’s text as used and produced in school science not only through the different stages in the texts (i.e., hypotheses, result, conclusion). There are also other features seen in the text that are typical of the language of science. Veel (1997, pp. 182–184) states that students learn to use and write texts in science with an increasing degree of abstraction and lexical density. There are many abstract and technical terms in Robert’s text, for example sulphuric acid, magnesium and solvent. The use of technical terms in a text makes it possible to extend the meaning potential in language. Technical terms can, for instance, be created through nominalizations. Nominalizations have been described as typical for science texts (Halliday, 1993; Schleppegrell, 2004). In a nominalization, processes and qualities are expressed by noun phrases instead of by verbs and adjectives. Through nominalization, processes and qualities can be treated as things in the text, which makes it possible to place a process instead of a person as the agent in a clause, as in “Pollution has stopped all swimming in the lake.” An example of a more congruent way of expressing the same content would be “Company X has polluted the lake. Therefore the inhabitants in the village cannot swim in their lake anymore.” As can be seen from this example, nominalization is also a way of packing information into the nominal phrases, which makes a text denser. Scientific texts often have a high density. Nominalizations in combination with other technical terms such as “pH value” or “test tube” as in Robert’s text make a text more academic and more distant to everyday language. Technical terms also open up the possibility to build taxonomies with a hierarchy of meanings, such as the taxonomy “element”— “metal”—“gold,” where “element” functions as a higher-­level concept than “gold.” The use of technical terms also includes the phenomenon where some of the concepts used in everyday life (e.g., force and reaction) lose their everyday meaning, and are instead ordered in hierarchical structures and used with specific meanings. Technical terms in this case are not just an unnecessary way of making science more difficult, but rather are intrinsically linked to doing science and to science itself. A dimension of being scientifically literate is thus being able to move back and forth between more congruent and everyday language to a more incongruent, technical and packed language.

78   C. Liberg et al. Logical Relations The passages in Robert’s text are short and consist of only one sentence each. Each sentence stands alone with no expressed development in another sentence. One way of expressing how a clause is related to what follows, is through the use of logical relations such as expansions. In their discussion of systemic functional linguistics Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) discuss three different types of expansive relations. Elaboration is used when defining or clarifying an idea (e.g., for example, in other words, at least, actually, etc.). Extension on the other hand is used when joining two ideas by addition or variation (e.g., and, but, on the contrary, instead). Finally enhancement is used when qualifying something with more information such as time, place or cause (e.g., then, next, likewise, so, consequently, in that respect). Expansions are typically used in science texts, in particular those expressing time, cause and so forth. Keys, Hand, Hall, and Collins (1999) also argue that a high level of expansion in a student text indicates a higher level of understanding of the content. This is further discussed in af Geijerstam (2006) where it is found that students who write texts with many expansions also show a more advanced way of talking about their own text and its content—an expanding repertoire of text movability as discussed later. Objectivity In his text, Robert expresses his personal opinion about the laboratory experiment by writing that he thought it was fun, and that the work went well. To an external reader, this comment is seen as “not scientific.” Scientific language is expected to express objectivity and to be free from personal evaluations. It is also an authoritative language and it has been suggested that this may make it hard for the student to identify with (Lemke, 1990). This expressed objectivity is accomplished through different grammatical resources. Apart from nominalizations, another grammatical resource is the passive voice, as in “The drops of culture were placed on a clean microscope slide.” In that way, there is no need to express the agent of a process, we do not need to know who put the drops on the slide. Hereby, scientific language puts the human actors and interpreters in the background and instead foregrounds the processes and entities involved. Becoming scientifically literate involves being able to use this kind of objective and authoritative language. Multimodality The illustration of the laboratory equipment plays a central role in Robert’s text. By writing “This is how we did it” under the picture Robert actually lets the illustration alone describe how the laboratory experiment is carried out. Multimodality, the use of different meaning resources, is considered to be a central feature in science. Multimodality can be discussed in terms of different activities in the classroom (e.g., laboratory work, field trip, writing, talking) but also in a more narrow sense as the use of different meaning resources in a text (e.g., illustra-

Students’ Movability in Science Texts   79 tions, tables, graphs). In this respect, Airey and Linder (2009) have suggested that there is a critical constellation of these resources that is necessary for a holistic understanding of any given science concept. Robert also writes the chemical reaction with a chemical formula, which can be looked upon as a third modality used in the text. Although chemical formulas use letters and numbers, the composition is different from other written language. The illustration, the text and the chemical formulas together create Robert’s text. Students’ Science Texts Previous studies on the above mentioned dimensions of scientific language show that from a structural point of view students’ texts in science are in an early developmental stage, and are characterized with a low degree of expressed logical relations (af Geijerstam, 2006). But af Geijerstam identifies an emerging use of the features of density, technicality and abstraction with increasing age from grade 5 to grade 8. This increase of density, technicality and abstraction in the student texts is not, however, followed by a developed structure or more expressed relations between the clauses in the student text. These student texts very often have the textbook texts or the teacher’s notes on the blackboard as models. In contrast to the students’ texts, the level of abstraction and density increases quite dramatically between grade 5 and grade 8 in textbooks in science (Edling, 2006).

Text Movability in Science Texts If a text or a text assignment (such as the laboratory report exemplified earlier) is to function as a tool for further learning and development, it is essential for the student to have a thorough understanding of the text at hand. This includes being able to understand and express the scientific content as well as the language resources that are used to make scientific meaning. One way of studying how students relate to texts and thereby express their understanding is in terms of text movability.3 The notion of text movability is inspired by the work of several researchers. Smidt (2004, pp.  31–32) for example discusses reading as a walk in an ever-­shifting textual landscape. With the work of Langer (1995) this walk can become more specified. She identifies four different ways of moving in a text in order to build an envisionment or a mental textworld. A first move, or stance in Langer’s terminology, is to step into the text and to get acquainted with it on a surface level. Another move is to get into the text in more depth and become immersed in various aspects of it. To step out from the text and relate to other experiences is a third move, and to critically reflect upon what has been read is a fourth move. All of these moves or stances are considered by Langer to be equally important. Also of importance for the development of the concept of text movability has been Kress’ (1989) discussion of how a reader’s habit of participating in different discourses and knowledge of different genres, contributes to the reading position taken by the reader and to the understanding that develops during the

80   C. Liberg et al. reading activity. Furthermore, Langer (1995) states that “we build envisionments all the time when we make sense of ourselves, of others, and of the world” (p. 9). Based on such a broad perspective text movability has been extended to cover both the reading process as such, and the activity when someone is talking about what has been read or written. Within this frame of research the concept of text movability has been operationalized as the students’ ability to show their moves in a text by how they talk about this text. This concerns the students’ ability to: a. b. c. d. e. f.

locate and reproduce information in the text, reflect upon choice of wording, extract main points from the text, summarize the text, explain passages that would require a reader to fill in gaps in the text, generalize and expand from the main points in the text, distancing themselves from the text, g. reflect upon motives, feelings and relations in the text, h. examine the content in the text critically, i. associate from the text to personal experience, j. express awareness of the functionality or genre of the text, and k. adapt the position of being a writer and writing for a specific purpose and reader. More specifically, students’ ability to talk about the texts that they have read or written is discussed in terms of three major types of movability; text based mov­ ability (expressing aspects a–h), associative text movability (expressing aspect i), and interactive text movability (expressing aspects j–k). As stated earlier an extensive repertoire of text movability is an important dimension of being scientifically literate. Such an extensive repertoire of text movability is characterized by being able to make different types of text based, associative, and interactive moves in order to show a dynamic relationship to a text, where the student can extract and explain details as well as discuss the general message and perspective of the text. Such a student reflects on the text in relation to personal experience and shows an ability to discuss the purpose and addressee of the text. The student could thereby be said to stand in a dialogical relationship with the text and to be an active creator of the text message as well as a co-­creator of the social practice in question. The opposite is true for a student with a quite restricted repertoire of text movability. Text Based Movability A very restricted repertoire of text based movability is, for example, shown if a student when asked to talk about his or her text, only makes simple statements by repeating a couple of words from a fraction of the text as in the example below.4 In this example a boy in grade 8 has written answers to text questions and is discussing what his text is about:

Students’ Movability in Science Texts   81 Oscar:  Atoms that are ions, plus negatively loaded. Positive. Interviewer:  What is an ion? Oscar:  It says here (laughs and points in the text) Interviewer:  Could you say it in your own words? Oscar:  (shakes his head and makes denial clicking sounds)

As an answer to the question of what the text is about, the boy reads out aloud parts of the text lying in front of him. He does not develop the subject further or say anything about the content of the text in his own words. Students who in this way experience difficulties when asked to speak about their own text production or texts they have read express very restricted text based movability. The text does not seem to get them involved. They move just on the surface of the text and do not always cover the whole text, and in the best of situations they are able to evoke a limited recollection of the overall message of the text. A more extensive repertoire of text based movability is shown by another boy in grade 8 who makes a summary of a textbook text in chemistry. Interviewer:  Could you make a summary of the text? Jens:  First it says that everything is made out of materia

and materia is built up from atoms, which means indivisible in Greek. Then there are elements that consist of one kind of atoms, and there are 90 of those in the nature and 20 that are artificial, approximately. And then there are chemical compounds that are made up of different “atoms.” [This summary continues until he has covered the entire text.]

Jens makes a very detailed summary that shows that he has moved through the entire text. He exhibits a good text based movability when it comes to making a straightforward recollection and summary of the text. However, he does little apart from mentioning what is explicitly formulated in the text. An extensive repertoire of text based movability is, on the other hand, observed in students who show signs of not just moving on the surface, but are also getting beneath this surface, and make inferences or interpretations based on the content of the text. An example of an extensive repertoire of text based movability is shown in an interview with a girl from grade 8, as she clarifies a part of the text to the interviewer. The students in this class had been given a written assignment to answer questions about rust: The text question: Why does a car rust slower in Särna than in Gothenburg? Olivia’s written answer: The air in the country is dryer than by the coast. And iron doesn’t rust in dry air or in pure water without dissolved gases. The interviewer asks her to clarify the passage.

82   C. Liberg et al. Olivia: 

Mm, but it’s like it needs moisture and oxygen to rust. And by the coast the air is moister, and then there is also salt in the air by the coast, and the salt helps it rust quicker.

From her answer, Olivia shows that she can move on the surface as well as under the surface of the text and fill in the gaps in the text that she has written. In the conversation she manages to explain why the car rusts slower in Särna than in Gothenburg and thereby clarifies what was not explicitly formulated in her original text. Associative Text Movability When students are asked if the text (or the process of writing the text) made them think of anything in particular, they may move in an associative way to their own experience. Such associations may include reflections on everyday events outside of school or comments related to school experiences. What these associations have in common is that they are triggered in some way by the text that the student has written or read, and that they show an involvement with the text on the part of the student. This is exemplified below as a boy in grade 5 is discussing a text about the human body. Daniel:  Can I ask a question? Interviewer:  Mm. Daniel:  There is something that

I’ve seen in two movies, they like do like this, someone is sleeping and then they like take warm water and put his hand in it and then they start peeing in bed. Interviewer:  Yes. Daniel:  Without them noticing Interviewer:  Yes. Daniel:  Why is it like that? Interviewer:  I don’t really know why it’s like that. Daniel:  Is it like because you feel something wet? I’m gonna try it sometime! The boy is making an association between the text that he is reading and movies that he has seen. He is reflecting upon the content and actively looking for further knowledge. In addition, he wants to try it out himself. In different respects he shows signs of a good ability to make an intertextual move by creating an associative connection between everyday knowledge and the more specialized knowledge encountered in school. Interactive Text Movability Reading and writing are social activities and everything we say or write is addressed to someone (Bakhtin, 1986). To various degrees we therefore shape what we write to meet the expectations of the audience and the purpose of the task. We are interacting with an addressee. When a student shows an extensive

Students’ Movability in Science Texts   83 repertoire of interactive text movability he/she manages to discuss a text in relation to purpose and audience. This can be shown by the student expressing awareness of the purpose and receiver of the text, but also through expressing awareness of the text’s genre and which specific language traits have been used. The two girls in the following example are discussing their ideas of why they are supposed to write laboratory reports: Interviewer:  Why then is one supposed to write this text? Sarin:  Because for example one time, I think like this, if

you want others to maybe you want to save it I mean save it for when I grow up. Interviewer:  Yes. Sarin:  Then I’ll see what kind of things I have. Interviewer:  OK, what about you Anju? Anju:  Maybe then I will forget. Interviewer:  Yes. Anju:  Some time someone will ask me what is this and I’ll have these. Interviewer:  Yes. Sarin:  For example, I’ll say do you want me to look in the book (laughs). The two girls are together formulating a function for the text by agreeing that the text might be used for reading when they are adults. By doing this, they are showing signs of an extensive repertoire of interactive text movability. Text Movability Results from the project Students’ Encounters With Different Texts in School show that not many of the Swedish students in grades 5 and 8 demonstrate an extensive repertoire of text movability in science texts they have read or written themselves (Edling, 2006; af Geijerstam, 2006). To a great extent students thus fail to talk about the text in extensive and independent ways. However, there is a difference between students generally considered by their teachers to be low-­achievers versus high-­achievers. Nearly half of the group of low-­achievers (n = 84) has a very restricted repertoire while the same proportion has a moderate repertoire. Very few have an extensive repertoire. In contrast, approximately half of the group of the high-­achievers (n = 33) has an extensive repertoire and the other half has a moderate repertoire. But there are also a few high-­achievers whom, in this study, show signs of a restricted repertoire. Amongst both high-­achievers and low-­ achievers there is also, for some of them, a small difference between their repertoires when talking about a textbook text and when talking about a text they have written themselves. It is easier for some of the students to talk about a textbook text than the text they have written themselves. In this study it also became clear that more students, both low-­achievers and high-­achievers, have a wider range of text movability repertoire in the school subjects of mother tongue education (in this study: Swedish) and social science compared to science. This means that with respect to the dimension of text movability more students are well developed in mother tongue literacy and social science literacy than in scientific literacy.

84   C. Liberg et al.

Science Texts in School Contexts Texts encountered in science teaching become, with increasing school grades, more and more developed consisting of more technical, lexically dense, and objective language. Furthermore, not many of the Swedish students show signs of an extensive repertoire of ways of moving in a text. This is a challenge for Swedish society and more precisely for its schools and teachers. But this challenge also has a wider international significance (see e.g., Bybee & McCrae, 2009). In an international context such as PISA, the students in Finland very often come out on top in science. One important factor raised in the Finnish context, as well as in other more general overviews of success in teaching, is the role of the teacher (Kesler & Lavonen, 2009; Barber & Mourshed, 2007). Kesler and Lavonen (2009) state that “only teachers who participate in curriculum planning are able to develop their own teaching to keep up with current developments” (p. 88). The core of curriculum planning is to recognize the relation between teaching and learning. It is the outcomes of what is done in the classroom that count. As a dimension of scientific literacy, students’ repertoires of text movability are such significant outcomes. In order to develop this ability the students have to be part of interactions where the ways to talk science are developed and scaffolded. In a study of the results from PISA 2006, Tyler, Stuhlsatz, and Bybee (2009) show “that at least three key learning experiences can be associated with students becoming, in general, more scientifically literate, and, in particular, more capable of explaining phenomena scientifically” (p. 128). These three key aspects involve interactions in different ways and are thereby scaffolding students’ text movability: • • •

students are asked to draw conclusions from experiments they have conducted, students are given opportunities to explain their ideas, the teacher explains how a science idea can be applied to a number of different phenomena.

But Prenzel and Seidel (2009) demonstrate in their study of US science teaching and learning that the kind of learning experiences exhibited in PISA 2006 are insufficient. Time on task and longer and coherent phases of teaching and learning activities are required, because learning science is a complex process. A dimension of this learning process is to develop ways of talking science including an extensive repertoire of text movability in relation to text. Before getting into studies concerning features of classroom interactions that support the development of student text movability, some studies discussing more general aspects of curriculum planning in science teaching will be presented. Teaching That Takes the Learner and Learning Into Account Fensham (2009) points out that it is time to re-­engage the interest of students in science by showing the relevance of learning science for their lives, personally and socially. Furthermore, the learning of science should empower students to engage

Students’ Movability in Science Texts   85 with the real world where it involves science and technology. Science teaching is in this respect favored in comparison with other school subjects because of a long tradition of laboratory activities as an inherent part of the designed learning experience. The synergy of using the genres of explanation and explorations in the real world in different types of modalities can come into play in the classroom in order to be a launching pad for further elaborations. However, as has been pointed out earlier, the constellation of these resources is critical for the students’ learning process (Airey & Linder, 2009). When acts are performed in different modalities, the switches comprise transformations from one mode to another (Knain, 2006). An example of this would be describing earlier learning experiences and conceptions, doing lab work and talking about it, then writing it down in a lab-­report, and finally discussing different ways of explaining the results and evaluating what has been learned. This is a process of at least four modality switches: talking–doing; doing–talking; talking–writing; writing–talking. It is also switches between genres from more simple to more advanced. All these transformations may scaffold learning. An example of a nearly one-­month teaching sequence in science is presented by Mason (2001). An experienced teacher in grade 4 was introduced by the researcher to a systematic sequencing of collaborative discourse-­reasoning and writing together with lab work and reading. Mason shows in her study of this sequence how student reasoning and arguing collaboratively on different beliefs and ideas, as well as individual writing to express, clarify, reflect and reason on, and communicate own conceptions and explanations, are fruitful tools in the knowledge revision process. Mason has focused on one particular type of writing; writing in the service of learning. In these situations the students use writing to express personal ideas on a topic, to communicate what has been temporarily understood or what puzzles, to record any changes of ideas, and to give a final explanation of a phenomenon. Thus, a large variety of writing occurs in this teaching sequence. The designing of long and coherent teaching-­learning sequences is an intricate matter. Buty, Tiberghien, and Le Maréchal (2004) show how the validation of a teaching-­learning sequence could, in the best of worlds, be based on both the educational system and hypotheses on students’ knowledge and learning. It presupposes a well-­informed teacher. Interaction and Learning The transformations between different modalities discussed earlier, as well as the interaction between students and teachers, have the potential to scaffold the learning process. But what type of learning that is taking place and, for example, what type of repertoire of text movability is developed, is dependent on the form of the interaction. For example, two opposite teacher positions were identified by Buty and Mortimer (2008): “either the teacher hears what the student has to say from the student’s point of view, or the teacher hears what the student has to say only from the school science point of view” (p. 1638). The first position is called a dialogic communicative approach, where more than one voice is heard. The

86   C. Liberg et al. opposite position is referred to as an authoritative communicative approach, where only one voice is heard and there is no exploration of different ideas. It is important to note that these two approaches fulfill different functions. But as Buty and Mortimer conclude from their analysis of a class on optics in grade 11, it is difficult to reach a suitable balance between dialogic and authoritative discourse in a science classroom. The way teachers interact with students was also studied in more detail by Lidar, Lundqvist, and Östman (2005). They identified five so-called epistemological moves that a teacher uses in order to give the students directions on what counts as knowledge and appropriate ways of getting knowledge in a chemistry course in grade 7. The epistemological moves are confirming, reconstructing, instructional, generative, and reorienting. Furthermore, Wickman and Jakobson (2005) show how expressions derived from the aesthetic language resources such as “cool,” “funny,” and “hell” are used by teachers as well as students in establishing norms of action, and in talking about what objects, events, and actions are to be included and excluded. When students are working in groups without a teacher the interactions can take very different forms. An example of this is a study by Hägerfelth (2004) of how students in a secondary high school collectively constructed the content in the subject area of science in group conversations. Hägerfelth finds three main patterns of textual constructions. The student groups with so-called “skimmers” constructed content rapidly and mechanically by means of short recited questions and replies. The “waders” created a superficial content using a colloquial language. The third group, the “weavers,” constructed content in a methodical way moving effortlessly within the subject using scientific language. Both the skimmers and the waders would probably profit greatly from having a teacher coming in and scaffolding their learning in a dialogical manner and with different epistemological moves. In these and other ways teachers have the possibility to direct their students’ development of an expanding repertoire of text movability.

Potential and Realized Meaning Resources in Scientific Literacy In order to facilitate learning and to cope with the linguistic overload placed on the students, there is thus a need for an orientation to language that allows all students to develop their linguistic resources as they enter classroom contexts. This includes teachers’ awareness of the language dimensions presented earlier. It includes awareness of the way language construes content, how a particular text type or genre can be structured, and how certain lexical choices make one text more powerful than another. In this chapter we have emphasized student ability to talk about texts in science. This implies their ability to move both within the texts in a text based fashion and out from the texts in associative and interactive ways. From this perspective we want to draw attention to the fact that being able to read and write a text does not just imply the reading and writing act as such. It also includes the ability to use the text in different contexts and in that way being able to participate as an active citizen and co-­creator of the meaning-­making in social practices.

Students’ Movability in Science Texts   87 Both the language dimensions and the text movability dimension are filled with potential meaning resources. These potential resources can be realized in texts and through text movability that are more restricted or more developed. The teacher’s assignment is to support the students’ development of a repertoire of being in the language of science, that is, a repertoire of “languageing” (Liberg, 1990, p. 25) in science, including text movability in relation to texts. This is done by using the potential that is inherent in a context of classroom work. Scientific literacy includes among other things a repertoire of languageing in reading, writing, and talking science that embraces both more restricted and more developed ways of languageing. It also includes an ability to easily move between a more restricted and a more developed languageing. By this means it becomes possible to both adapt to a context and at the same time be able to be a co-­creator of a new one.

Notes 1. The concept of text movability was developed within the project Students’ Encounters with Different Texts in School (Liberg, Folkeryd, af Geijerstam, & Edling, 2002). For further reading about text movability see, for example, Edling, 2006; af Geijerstam, 2006; Folkeryd, 2006; Folkeryd et al., 2006; and Liberg, 2004. 2. This text was collected within the project Students’ Encounters with Different Texts in School (Liberg et al., 2002). In this project texts used and produced in Social Science, Natural Science and Swedish were studied in grades 5, 8 and 11. Interviews were also carried out with students and teachers, and observations of the classroom practices surrounding texts were made. 3. For references see Endnote 1. 4. The examples are taken from the data collected in the project Students’ Encounters with Different Texts in School (Liberg et al., 2002). They are translated from Swedish to English by the authors.

References Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-­performing school systems came out on top. London: McKinsey. Buty, C., & Mortimer, E. F. (2008). Dialogic/authoritative discourse and modelling in a high school teaching sequence on optics. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1635–1660. Buty, C., Tiberghien, A., & Le Maréchal, J.-F. (2004). Learning hypotheses and an associated tool to design and to analyse teaching-­learning sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 579–604. Bybee, R. W., & McCrae, B. J. (2009). PISA Science 2006. Implications for science teachers and teaching. National Science Teachers Association. Edling, A. (2006). Abstraction and authority in textbooks. The textual paths towards specialized language. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia 2.

88   C. Liberg et al. Fensham P. J. (2009). Teaching science to achieve scientific literacy. In R. W. Bybee & B. J. McCrae (Eds.), PISA science 2006. Implications for science teachers and teaching (pp. 187–202). National Science Teachers Association. Folkeryd, J. W. (2006). Writing with an attitude—Appraisal and student texts in the school subject of Swedish. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia 5. Folkeryd, J. W., af Geijerstam, Å., & Edling, A. (2006). Textrörlighet—hur elever talar om sina egna och andras texter [Text movability—how students talk about their own and others texts]. In L. Bjar (Ed.), Det hänger på språket! (pp. 169–188). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur. af Geijerstam, Å. (2006). Att skriva i naturorienterande ämnen i skolan [Writing in natural sciences in school]. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia 3. Hägerfelth, G. (2004). Språkpraktiker i naturkunskap i två mångkulturella gymnasieklassrum. En studie av läroprocesser bland elever med olika förstaspråk [Language practices in natural science in two multicultural classrooms in secondary high school]. Malmö Studies in Education no 11. Malmö Högskola. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science. Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69–86). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiesen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold Publishers. Kesler, M., & Lavonen, J. (2009). What lies behind Finnish students’ success in PISA science? In R. W. Bybee & B. J. McCrae (Eds.) PISA science 2006. Implications for science teachers and teaching (pp. 79–90). National Science Teachers Association. Keys, C., Hand, B., Hall V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristics as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084. Knain, E. (2006). Achieving science literacy through transformation of multimodal textual resources. Science Education, 90, 656–659. Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langer, J. A. (1995). Envisioning literature. New York: Teachers College Press. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Liberg, C. (1990). Learning to read and write. Reports from Uppsala University Linguistics (RUUL) 20. Liberg, C. (2004). Rörelse i texter, texter i rörelse [Movements in texts, texts in a move]. In I. Bäcklund, U. Börestam, U. Melander Marttala, & H. Näslund (Eds.), Text i arbete/Text at work. Festskrift till Britt-­Louise Gunnarsson, den 12 januari 2005 (pp. 106–114). Uppsala, Sweden: ASLA & Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala universitet. Liberg, C., Folkeryd, J. W., af Geijerstam, Å., & Edling, A. (2002). Students’ encounter with different texts in school. In K. Nauclér (Ed.), Papers from the third conference on reading and writing. Working papers no 50 (pp. 46–61). Lund University, Sweden: Department of Linguistics. Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Östman, L. (2005). Teaching and learning in the science classroom. The interplay between teachers’ epistemological moves and students’ practical epistemology. Science Education, 90, 148–163. Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. Learning and Instruction, 11(6), 305–329.

Students’ Movability in Science Texts   89 Prenzel, M., & Seidel, T. (2009). A perspective on US science teaching and learning. In R. W. Bybee & B. J. McCrae (Eds.), PISA Science 2006. Implications for science teachers and teaching (pp. 111–116). National Science Teachers Association. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling. A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Smidt, J. (2004). Sjangrer og stemmer i norskrommet [Genre and voices in Norwegian mother tongue education]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Tyler, J. A., Stuhlsatz, M. A. M., & Bybee, R. W. (2009). Windows into high-­achieving science classrooms. In R. W. Bybee & B. J. McCrae (Eds.), PISA Science 2006. Implications for science teachers and teaching (pp. 123–132). National Science Teachers Association. Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean—scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions. Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161–195). London: Cassell. Wickman, P.-O., & Jakobson, B. (2005). Den naturvetenskapliga undervisningens estetik. En studie av praktiska epistemologier [Aesthetic aspects of science teaching] Utbildning & Demokrati [Education and Democracy], 14(1).

7 Literacy as Metaphor and Perspective in Science Education Isabel Martins

Introduction Scientific literacy (SL hereafter) has become an object of frequent debate in the field of science education worldwide. Beneath a superficial consensus, SL reveals itself to be a rather polysemic expression. Extensive research and practice on SL has indicated that it can be conceptualized, amongst other alternatives, as a teaching objective, as a learning goal, as a framework for curriculum development, as a basis to assess public understanding of science, and as a research topic (Roberts, 2007). SL has been understood either as an individual attribute or as something that is distributed within social systems (Roth & Calabrese Barton, 2004) and also been connected with the fields of citizenship education and multicultural education (Martins, in press). In Brazil, contributions explore links between SL and sociocultural dimensions of scientific knowledge in teaching (Chassot, 2003), trace the history of policies for SL (Cazelli & Franco, 2001), elaborate the influence of critical education and Freirean approaches to SL actions (Santos, 2008; Auler & Delizoicov, 2001), and establish relationships between SL and vocational and professional training (Lacerda, 1997), and between SL and science–technology–society (STS) education (Leal & Sousa, 2000; Mamede & Zimmermann, 2005). Internationally we find theoretical and empirical discussions of SL and its implications for science education, as well as exhaustive literature reviews (Laugksch, 2000; Roberts, 2007), comparisons between experiences of different countries (Yore, Chinn, & Hand, 2008), and implementation of related classroom activities (Jarman & McClune, 2007). Traditionally linked to the reaffirmation of the relevance of science for responsible citizenship, there has been considerable growth and opening out in both SL research and development agendas which led to the discussion of issues such as inclusion, identity, disciplinary engagement, assessment, social transformation, and legitimacy (Linder, Östman, & Wickman, 2007). According to Roberts (2007), definitions of SL typically involve relationships between society and scientific knowledge, though some of them (Vision I) place a stronger emphasis on science’s internal agenda, and others (Vision II) broaden the scope of what is to be considered relevant knowledge for a scientifically literate person. However, both visions reinforce the view that science plays an important part in a number of matters of both private and public importance. Quite

Literacy as Metaphor and Perspective   91 often SL goals and actions are justified in terms of the need to prepare citizens for living and coping with the demands of an increasingly science-­technology based society, and are identified with preparation for work, informed decision making, and responsible citizenship. In both cases (Vision I and Vision II), SL would respond to demands posed either by science itself or by society and would help achieve objectives consonant with functionalist approaches for education,1 which advocate the need for people to fit in, contribute to, and participate in (a democratic) society. In this chapter I will try to show that an analysis of the concept of literacy allows for such complexity in SL definitions—much needed in times where changes in both group and individual behavior towards health and environmental issues are crucial to the future of next generations on this planet. This argument qualifies and extends analyses of the concept of literacy carried out by Soares (2003) in the field of literacy studies, so as to elaborate a view in which SL is seen not just as a pedagogical issue but also as a political issue, that is, as an investment in humanist and liberating praxis. I start by exploring a diversity of perspectives and approaches to SL through a discussion of the concept of literacy, and its cognates, in order to propose the idea that we should consider the use of literacy in the expression SL as a metaphorical appropriation from the field of language and literacy studies. I then discuss implications of such metaphorical appropriations, suggesting a further expansion of the agenda of the science education community so as to include political, affective, and multimedia dimensions in research and development of actions aiming at promoting SL.

On Language and Literacy Consideration of the “literacy” component as a metaphor within SL calls for a foreword about metaphors themselves. Considered central in the processes of discursive appropriation, metaphors involve establishing parallels between conceptual domains and arriving at inferences about properties of entities that inhabit such domains. This way, metaphors take part in a dynamic process, which potentially advances our understanding about a given theme, object or issue related to a domain we are not familiar with (the target domain) based upon what we already know in another domain (the source domain). As metaphors can be embedded in one another, it is possible to think about the literacy metaphor as resting upon another underlying and all too often neglected metaphor, namely that of the language of science. There are, of course, different ways to conceptualize language, for instance, based upon emphases on its communicative and discursive dimensions. Whereas the former focuses on the processes through which information is exchanged with reference to the possibility to codify messages, deliver them through a medium to be decodified at the other end of the communication chain (“what is said” or “how to say something to someone”), the latter considers that all social situations are constituted through and in linguistic/semiotic interaction (“who says what, to whom, when, and what for”). These two dimensions are related to two other metaphors: language as code and language as social action. Apt as they are, these two ways of

92   I. Martins conceptualizing language lead to radically different approaches to the question of learning how to read, write, and talk in such a language. In other words, different conceptualizations of language will lead to quite diverse meanings for literacy. Another important point to develop a notion of literacy is the very definition of the language domain it applies to. In our case we are especially concerned with the language of science, which in this chapter will be defined with reference to Bakhtin’s concept of social language (1981). A social language involves stable linguistic patterns that are typically associated with certain domains of human activity. It is identified with professional, generational, ideological, or linguistic elements in the discourses of different social groups and, more specifically, with genres, that is, regular discursive patterns elaborated within different spheres of human communication. For instance, the objective writing of scientific papers, the hierarchical presentation of science concepts in textbooks, and the imagery evoked in popular science accounts are examples of fairly stable generic features in texts typically associated with social practices such as scientific research, teaching science in schools, and communicating science through the media. From this perspective, language is not just a symbolic system of resources for communication, but is also a constitutive element of social practices, identities, relationships between subjects, and relationships among subjects, institutions, and knowledge. Likewise, texts contain traces of both social and historical processes of meaning-­ making and cannot be conceived or understood without reference to the processes of their production, distribution, and reception in social practices. Bakhtinian views of language have been influential and instrumental for critical approaches to the study of language (Hodge & Kress, 1988; Fairclough, 1992) as something used to do things, and not just to represent things. The inextricable relationship between language and society suggests the possibility that linguistic/ discursive change could indicate or lead to social change. Critical approaches to language and discourse can help us question the overrated importance given to discussions about which specific bits of knowledge, technical terms, or vocabulary scientifically literate people should possess—which are quite common in the agenda of the SL projects identified with what Roberts (2007) identifies as Vision I. When we consider the language of science as the result of a (semiotic) reconstruction of human experience (Halliday, 1998), some of its characteristics, such as high lexical density, technical terminology, and so forth, acquire new significance having to do with the nature of scientific knowledge and of its social processes of construction. Moreover, becoming proficient in the language of science involves understanding social practices of production and validation of knowledge in scientific laboratories as well as their recontextualizations in both formal and nonformal educational settings. Also, an extension of such an argument can help us reconceive the way we think about other science-­related texts which play a central role in SL research and praxis, such as science curricula, results from evaluation studies, and media science, and to problematize their potential to promote learning and engagement with science. As these texts cease to be seen as just recommendations to be followed or contents to be learned and become instances of the materialization of discourses about science in society, we can ask to what extent they reflect the plurality of the perspectives needed to deal with

Literacy as Metaphor and Perspective   93 SL. Finally, the act of understanding texts with respect to their social conditions of production does not mean becoming trapped in the pessimism of deterministic approaches, since Critical Discourse Analysis is equally interested in both social effects on texts as well as social effects of texts, calling our attention to the fact that people respond to texts in an active transformative and interested manner. Thus, the focus shifts towards the possibilities for meaning-­making and social action of the literate person, allowing us to think about which sorts of contexts are set out in society for participation and what the individual and collective expectations for social action in science-­related situations are.

Literacy as Metaphor and Perspective According to Soares (1995), the term literacy started to be used in a more widespread fashion around the end of the 19th century, two centuries after the term illiteracy was coined. The word literacy appeared as social demands concerning the use of language became more varied and complex, that is, the new word corresponded to a new social reality. Since then, there seems to be an increasing need to define the meaning of literacy. Soares distinguishes two main contexts for use of the term literate. The first, related to a communicative dimension of language, designates the condition of people who are capable of reading and writing, that is, of interpreting texts and expressing themselves according to grammatical canons. It relates to an instrumental view of language, emphasizing what people should know, as opposed to what they actually know, and promotes actions leading to acquisition of information. The second context refers to those who not only master the necessary competencies, but who are also fully integrated into social practices which demand reading and writing and, for this reason, are able to transform their social condition. However, this relationship between literacy and society can be realized in (at least) two ways. One possibility, consonant with functionalistic approaches, considers that reading and writing enables people to adjust socially, participating and contributing to society and its progress as well as upholding its institutions.2 On the other hand, based upon critical approaches, one can argue that reading and writing not only allow participation in society but also permit questioning of its foundations and transformations. Different demands faced by individuals who live in different societies explain the impossibility of a unique definition of the concept of literacy. The dependency of the definition of literacy on its social, historical, and political context materializes in the existing diversity of theoretical and methodological frameworks for its study. According to Soares (2003) it is possible to identify a number of different relevant dimensions for the study of literacy, namely, historical, anthropological, sociological, psychological and psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, linguistic, discursive, textual, literary, educational or pedagogical, and political. Each one of these is described below with reference both to Soares’ definitions and to their actual and potential implications for science education (Martins, in press); this may help highlight significant aspects of different kinds of appropriations made or yet to be made by the science education community. In doing so,

94   I. Martins the discussion about the political dimension of SL will be further elaborated and the multimedia dimension will be proposed to qualify contemporary societal demands on (science) learners. The Anthropological Dimension Anthropology offers the concept of enculturation, which has been widely used by science educators to refer to practices aimed at introducing students to scientific culture. By focusing attention on the role of forms of representation and expression, anthropological perspectives highlight the potential of SL for enabling significant changes in how one perceives and signifies reality. This is usually expressed by changes from phenomenological to theorized language (Ogborn, Kress, Martins, & McGillicuddy, 1996). On the other hand, an anthropological perspective calls us to consider the complexity and the risks involved in both the design and the evaluation of school-­based activities that view learning as an enculturation process through familiarization with practices concerning reading and writing science-­related texts (Roth, 2001). A discussion of science learning as enculturation presupposes a detailed analysis of the specificities of the classroom as a discursive environment, of the characteristics of teacher and students as a social group, and of considerations about school culture and institutional relations in society. It also entails a discussion about the relationships between school and other learning environments, such as museums and science centers, and with primary contexts of knowledge production such as laboratories and research institutions. That, together with the consideration of science as an epistemological enterprise, also helps problematize possible links between SL and authentic science activities (Bencze & Hodson, 1999; Woolnough, 2000). The Historical Dimension Literacy studies carried out from a historical perspective focus on analyses of the history of reading, of readers and their practices, and as well the history of writing systems. In doing so, the historical perspective highlights the need to consider the evolving dimension of the relationships among texts, readers, and reading contexts and practices (Soares, 2003). Such a perspective highlights the importance of knowing the history of textbooks and curricula, as well as the institutionalization of reading practices in schools and their role in both student and teacher education. In spite of that, literacy has not featured as a major issue in investigations about the history of scientific disciplines and of science curricula. Another important, but as yet underdeveloped, area of investigation concerns the history of SL practices in informal settings. It seems crucial to consider the history of media, the possibilities for access and dissemination of scientific information, and the criteria for characterizing experts and nonexperts, especially nowadays when there is an increasing legitimation of the educational role of popular science and of experiences provided by museums and science centers.

Literacy as Metaphor and Perspective   95 The Sociological Dimension Sociological perspectives on literacy discuss reading and writing as social practices and problematize relationships between such practices and social roles of subjects involved in them (Soares, 2003). They explore how social variables such as gender, social class, level of instruction, and so forth, influence both access to and the acquisition of knowledge. For science educators, this perspective is important because it takes into account individual as well as institutional issues that impact both planning and implementation of educational policies. Not less important is its relevance for the field of science popularization and in the context of research results establishing that different groups have different interests, needs, and expectations about science-­related information, which thus result in different modes of engagement with scientific knowledge (Layton, Davey, & Jenkins, 1986; Martins, 1992). The Psychological and Psycholinguistic Dimensions Focused on studies of cognitive processes and structures of literate and illiterate individuals (Soares, 2003), psychological and psycholinguistic perspectives explore relationships between language acquisition and the development of ways of thinking. These dimensions resonate with educational actions aimed at constructing structures of reasoning typically associated with thinking, such as control of variables, logical deduction, and development of argumentation skills. Moreover, the bases of psychological and psycholinguistic perspectives on literacy often refer to issues such as metacognitive abilities, critical thinking, habits of mind, and so forth which are also present in most contemporary definitions of SL (Yore, 2008). Important as they are, such recommendations usually overshadow other important dimensions of psychological perspectives on literacy, especially those concerning the need to systematically develop educational activities that view reading as an active and interactive enterprise involving hypothesizing and making inferences. Such an approach would emphasize the need for making readers aware of the importance of prior knowledge and stimulate a more autonomous attitude to reading. The Sociolinguistic Dimension A sociolinguistic perspective on literacy focuses on the effects of social contexts in the learning of reading and writing (Soares, 2003). Its main contribution rests on the possibility of analyzing the influences of different contexts where practices related to learning the language of science take place within SL practices (e.g., classroom teaching, induction or vocational programs, and visits to museums). Each of these discursive settings allows interactions that follow certain patterns and obey specific rules, and constitute particular linguistic forms that are to be appropriated in particular ways.

96   I. Martins The Linguistic Dimension According to Soares (2003), the linguistic perspective emphasizes aspects of language proper, such as lexicon, syntax, and orthography. In the context of SL, it highlights the importance of acquiring scientific vocabulary and of becoming familiar with technical terminology. Furthermore, this approach draws our attention to the importance of knowing about both organizational structures of knowledge and symbolic codes of representations, which constitute scientific ways of thinking and need to be elaborated in order to be used in concrete situations by literate subjects. The Discursive Dimension From a discursive perspective, literacy is akin to meaning-­making and is analyzed with respect to social conditions of production of both oral and written discourses. Meaning is not unique; it is neither fully determined by the intentions of authors nor restricted by language potentials. It depends on subjects’ possibilities for reading and expression. Also, meaning relates not only to the diversity of texts present in a given discursive situation but also to the images that interlocutors have of one another. Such a perspective suggests that both credibility and intelligibility of scientific information depend on our perceptions about our own possibilities for understanding and about science, scientists, and their social role. The importance of language in meaning-­making has been quite well established (Lemke, 1995) by several studies inspired by discursive perspectives. Initially focused on classroom dynamics and interactions (Edwards & Mercer, 1987; Ogborn et al., 1996; Mortimer & Scott, 2003), the interest in language became wider in scope and included issues such as the construction and development of students’ discursive identities in the classroom (Brown, Reveles, & Kelly, 2005), ways through which authority and legitimation are associated to discourses in science and in the school curriculum (Yerrick & Roth, 2005), and political participation in social contexts where science-­related issues play a role . The Textual Dimension A textual perspective on literacy explores differences between oral and written texts. Except for studies of classroom talk and the recent interest in oral debates and argumentation (Erduran & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2007), the traditionally higher value attributed to the written over oral form has defined parameters for classroom work aimed at promoting SL. This valuation can be seen, for instance, in the priority given to written examinations. Nevertheless, the consideration of differences between oral and written modes is essential for creating strategies for the development of specific abilities necessary for participation in discursive situations in which being able to comprehend and to express oneself in the language of science is mandatory.

Literacy as Metaphor and Perspective   97 The Literary Dimension A literary perspective on literacy analyzes relationships among textual genres and problematizes the access of different social groups to literature. Within the field of science education such a perspective would imply a necessity to characterize the different texts that are related to the different social spheres of production of scientific knowledge, along with the development of related learning practices. Thinking about the production of scientific texts (e.g., experiment protocols, reports, papers) entails the identification of canonical textual formats, which relate syntactic and semantic patterns to discursive activities linked to contexts of knowledge production. Definitions, reports, expositions, classifications, and so forth, are listed as genres related to scientific discourse and it is possible to develop activities to stimulate their learning in school situations. Narratives, as structurally involved in scientific explanation (Ogborn et al., 1996), can also be explored in activities such as “storytelling” invoking scientific concepts. Narrative approaches are also common in informal education settings, or in the elaboration of literary texts, for both children and adults. The Educational/Pedagogical Dimension An educational perspective on literacy prioritizes the development of methods for the promotion of SL as well as analyses of experiences of both success and failure in learning to read and write (Soares, 2003). This perspective also emphasizes the need for concrete definitions and operational recommendations for achieving SL. Moreover, the consideration of the role of the mediation, in the form of texts or interaction, in both formal and informal learning settings strengthens the necessity not only to consider the typical discursive dynamics of the spaces where literacy occurs, but also the importance of training teachers, museum mediators, and other science educators. The Political Dimension A political perspective on the study of literacy highlights concerns about the objectives of actions directed to the general public as well as their ideological dimension (Soares, 2003). Likewise, taking a political stance in the issue of literacy emphasizes the potentially reflexive and transformative character implied in the acquisition of reading and writing (Freire, 1970). In the SL debate this dimension is assimilated in the definition of both goals and desirable outcomes of the actions aimed at promoting SL through the instrumentalization of individuals for responsible decision making in society. However, in order to accomplish this goal, literacy cannot be seen just as a pedagogical issue. It has to be conceptualized as a political issue, that is, as an investment in humanist and liberating praxis.

98   I. Martins

Further Perspectives on SL Literacy as Emancipation An important source domain for developing the political dimension of the literacy metaphor in SL can be found in the work by Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator who developed a critical pedagogical theory based upon concepts such as dialogue, consciousness awakening, and emancipation. From this perspective, educators and those to be educated are subjects who engage in a mutual world-­ mediated learning process. Commonsense and other forms of knowledge, including scientific knowledge, are never dichotomized but integrated in dialogical relationships. Education is conceived as a political act aimed at social transformation toward a more democratic and egalitarian society. Freire’s philosophy of education was materialized in a literacy method for young people and adults, which had at its heart the identification of the subjects’ cultural vocabulary universe and of the social, political, and existential situations in which these subjects take part. In his framework, such experiences give meaning to words and themes in a process that allows the awakening of a critical consciousness that leads to action and social change. For Freire, teaching involved professional knowledge as well as ethical and political responsibility, that is, teachers are authorized by demonstrating both competence in their fields of knowledge and a lifelong commitment to learning. Freire defines teaching someone to read as engaging in a creative experience of comprehending and communicating. This is why, for Freire, reading is never dissociated from writing. As a key concept within Freire’s framework, reading is constructed not just as a possibility of textual decodification but also as a process that relates the subject’s experience and world views with his or her potential to question and transform this world. It involves the articulation between reading the world, reading the word and, then, (re)reading the world. Thus reading is not repeating other people’s words but being able to say one’s own words. Being literate involves, therefore, the possibility of becoming aware of one’s own socioconceptual horizons as well as relating individual and societal levels. Thus, from this perspective literacy cannot be defined solely in terms of the nature of symbolic systems of representation and expression.3 This standpoint clearly contrasts with views of language as a code system, where literacy means proficiency in the use of a code, and reading and writing are activities exclusively linked to the ability to understand and combine elements in a symbolic system. According to these views, which have been quite influential in the structuring of traditional science curricula, SL is achieved by learning the building blocks of knowledge in order to be able to reach more complex levels of representation. Likewise, they inspired many large-­scale surveys of public understanding of science4 conducted in the 1980s, which actually measured the ability to recall factual information. Another important point is that, from emancipatory perspectives, the answer to the question of why we should promote SL is not defined solely by the nature of science or of scientific activity but by the need to transform men and women

Literacy as Metaphor and Perspective   99 into citizens. In this way, they reinforce views that school science is not just a didactically authorized version of scientific knowledge, but new knowledge that arises from an amalgamation of scientific, ethical, moral, cultural, pedagogical, and commonsense knowledge. Multimedia Literacy Another reflection concerning the nature of the concept of literacy and its evolving character is found in Kress’ discussions about the impact that transformations of social, technological, and economic order have had on our future conceptualization of literacy (Kress, 2003). Kress points out the possible influences that this new conceptualization have on the ways reading and writing will be reconceived in society and culture as a whole. From a theoretical perspective that brings together the fields of education and communication, Kress emphasizes two especially significant changes. The first one has to do with the increasing prevalence of image over word, as means of representation and communication, in diverse contexts in society. The second relates to changes in the support of different texts we frequently come across—from the pages in books and printed matter in general, to computer screens. For Kress these two changes will have implications of unimaginable scope in economic, social, cultural, conceptual/cognitive, and epistemological domains. However, an important starting point for thinking about the nature of these effects is the consideration of the specificities of each different semiotic mode in terms of its possibilities of meaning-­making. This debate is an extremely opportune one in view of the inherently multimodal nature of scientific knowledge and discourse (Kress, Ogborn, & Martins, 1998). From the first steps in the conceptualization of scientific phenomena until the final stages that correspond to the dissemination of consolidated results, science deploys a variety of semiotic resources. The necessity of becoming proficient in different modalities, namely verbal, visual, computational, and so forth, is already recognized as part of the demands for multimedia literacy in science curricula (Lemke, 2001; Airey & Linder, 2009) and in communication in general. Scientific texts, as well as their authorized versions, didactic or popularized, are in fact semiotic hybrids (Lemke, 1998) and efforts to achieve SL involve the consideration of the multimodal nature of such texts. Still with respect to science education, it is important to think about how new formats and possibilities allowed by, and amongst, new media will impact what counts as SL. Examples are role playing games (RPG), navigation on the Internet, real time interfacing, remote sensing, as well as computer animation, simulation and modeling. It is important to consider the extent to which these new formats will suggest new roles for students and teachers. Added to the expanded possibilities of access and networking allowed by the convergence of media, it is possible to anticipate profound changes in the ways people interact with information and with one another. It is essential, however, that multimedia literacy not be confused with computer literacy as a value-free necessity of modern life.5

100   I. Martins

Implications for SL The ideas expressed so far can be potentially useful for a revision and expansion of the concept of SL. The first aspect to be emphasized is the diversity of perspectives through which the concept can be approached. It may help us go beyond reductionist views, which equate literacy with competence in coding and decoding information, towards conceptions of literacy that lead to a different kind of participation in society. From such a viewpoint, subjects do not simply reproduce, re­inforce, or consolidate relationships already established but actively engage in questioning and transforming society. Also, this diversity of perspectives demands a multidisciplinary approach, which involves the consideration of historical, statistical, ethical, and moral arguments. There is a choice to be made as to whether knowledge related to these fields is to be considered as a relevant context to or as constitutive of the knowledge of science itself. That would, of course, depend on the ways through which science evolves but also on the ways we want to evolve as a society. The different dimensions of literacy can be regarded as complementary, as each one of them suggests both relevant and unique aspects for the debate. Examples are the connections between thought and language (psychological perspective), the relationship between social contexts and uses of language (sociolinguistic perspective), and the impacts of media in representation and communication practices (multimedia perspective). This is important if one considers the complexity of social contexts where interaction with scientific information occurs. A second aspect concerns acceptance that scientific knowledge is a necessary, though not sufficient, element in the fostering of responsible citizenship. A political perspective on literacy stresses that changes to the patterns and possibilities of public participation do not happen automatically as a direct consequence of improved scientific knowledge. First, these changes presuppose democratic systems in which people are free to express their aspirations and concerns. Second, they require awareness that in society there are different levels of social responsibility, namely, the individual, institutional, and corporate. Very often, individuals are considered responsible for both damages to and conservation of the environment but if one treats environmental awareness as a political issue, individual local actions (e.g., saving water, using public transport, preferring recycled materials, etc.) are as important as collective organized action (e.g., exerting pressure on legislators to regulate the disposal of industrial waste, often the major cause of pollution). A third aspect recognizes that rational conviction alone may not lead directly to the adoption of responsible behavior. How else could we explain the fact that information about reproductive health and contraception is not enough to prevent girls and boys putting themselves at risk of having a child while in their teens, or contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases? Or that the proven correlation between ultraviolet absorption of radiation and skin cancer is frequently relativized with respect to sun tan aesthetics? Cultural perspectives can certainly illuminate the question. Another relevant dimension concerns the often neglected affective and emotional bases of the relationship between individuals and knowledge.

Literacy as Metaphor and Perspective   101 I also wish to argue that both SL research and practice cannot be conceptualized on the basis of a split between formal and nonformal education, especially now when it is acknowledged that media science can help promote SL in society (DeBoer, 2000) and in schools (Halkia & Mantzouridis, 2005). A number of issues can be raised in a discussion about how to overcome the split without blurring the edges that confer identity to formal and nonformal contexts. Let us take the example of using media science texts in science lessons. To what extent are patterns of interaction with texts dependent on the nature of these discursive settings? What are the recontextualization practices that are needed so that media texts can serve pedagogical purposes? How can we deal with questions of authority, legitimacy, and credibility in scientific/school science and in media texts? In any case these questions must be considered against a background of current debates that challenge traditional views of school as a (or the) place to acquire (scientific) skills to be later applied in life contexts and instead, consider it as one (amongst other) life contexts that offer opportunities for learning of a certain kind.

Implications for Teaching and Learning Science In this chapter I argued that the “literacy” component in SL is a metaphor and that any use of the expression made by science educators must consider the complex multiple perspectives of literacy. This would avoid appropriations that do not contribute to widening the scope of the debate beyond the usual recommendations concerning adequate selection of and approaches to science content. I close the chapter by posing the question that perhaps should have been the first rather than the last to be raised: why should we promote SL? The answer seems obvious enough to a community that has science teaching and science popularization as its raison d’être. However, an analysis of the research literature suggests that the answers to this question are, in one way or another, subordinated to scientific knowledge canons and not to the necessities of society, of which science is only a part. In accordance with Roberts (2007), one part of the definitions found in the literature is based on science’s own internal agenda, identified by its products, processes, and agents. Only a fraction of the studies Roberts reviewed included understanding the nature of science and scientific activity, together with the processes of production of the scientific knowledge, amongst the contents to be mastered by the scientifically literate person. A step further would be the adoption of a critical perspective, which would lead individuals to question the objectives of science and to propose alternatives based upon these reflections. In fact, the adoption of critical perspectives for education distinguishes functional SL (where citizens adjust to the society and contribute to its progress, strengthening and consolidating already established relations) from emancipatory SL (in which people engage not only in practices that transform their condition in society but also in practices that change society itself ). Even running the risk of sounding too catastrophist, I would say this is the only possibility to educate for the survival of our civilization on the planet.

102   I. Martins The question of how to incorporate this perspective to the educational system’s agenda implies a discussion about how it can be done in schools. Culture is a key element that can be explored in the development of teacher education programs and classroom activities aimed at promoting SL. Likewise, there are straightforward connections between SL and STS (science-­technology-society) approaches which may be explored and lead to more solid epistemological and methodological bases for SL research and practice. SL also calls for a greater degree of interaction between scientists, science teachers, students, and indeed policy makers. These demands suggest the development of a number of actions— such as innovative trans-­disciplinary curriculum approaches, and cross-­level and cross-­teaching co-­teaching experiences—aimed at abolishing the view that decontextualized abstract principles can be later applied to solve problems. It is also mandatory to think about the necessity to implement emancipatory SL actions at the society level. This would involve, among other things, the creation of forums where related socioscientific issues can be debated fully and consensus can be constructed. One example is the practice of calling public hearings held by the Brazilian Congress to debate governmental policies for research and development. Recently, different social groups discussed the use of frozen embryos for genetics research and its ethical, moral, scientific, and religious implications. However, the fact that the degree of participation is still modest, even within the scientific community, points to the role of schooling in helping to create a culture of participation from an early age. Another example is the creation of contexts where the public and scientists can discuss the impacts of research in its initial or intermediate phases, in order “to inform and socially shape” innovation processes.6 The awareness that science is a product of social practices marked by power struggles is essential for a project that requires people to express opinions, to form attitudes, and to extend this conscience to other questions of interest in a way that leads to participation. In this way a plural engagement in these dialogical processes could lead to a more democratic basis for the construction of social consensus. In fact, lessons learned from discursive perspectives on literacy show that texts are not only products of social practices and activities, but also constitutive and transformative elements of these practices, allowing new citizens to construct new relations with knowledge and society.

Notes 1. Refer to Zeidler (2007) on the need to distinguish between technocratically and humanistically functional. 2. This perspective is usually connected to the notion of functional illiteracy. 3. For further elaboration of how Freirean perspectives illuminate issues around SL, see Santos (2008). 4. For the relationships between SL and public understanding of science, see Roberts (2007). 5. For a discussion of the need to problematize the concept of computer literacy, see Goodson and Mangan (1996). 6. An example is the research project Encouraging Early Public Engagement with Nanotechnology, developed at the University of Lancaster in the United Kingdom in 2005 with funds from the Economics and Social Research Council.

Literacy as Metaphor and Perspective   103

References Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49. Auler, D., & Delizoicov, D. (2001). Alfabetização científico-tecnológica para quê? Ensaio pesquisa em educação em ciências, 3(1), 1–13. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (M. Holquist (Ed.), C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Trans.)) Austin: University of Texas Press. Bencze, L., & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 521–539. Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779–802. Cazelli, S., & Franco, C. (2001). Alfabetismo científico: novos desafios no contexto da globalização. Ensaio pesquisa em educação em ciências, 3(1), 1–18. Chassot, A. (2003). Alfabetização científica: questões e desafios para a educação Ijuí: Ed. UNIJUÍ. DeBoer, E. G. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6) 582–601. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom based research. Dordrecht: Springer. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. London: Polity Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Goodson, I., & Mangan, J. M. (1996). Computer literacy as ideology. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17(1), 65–79. Halkia, K., & Mantzouridis, D. (2005). Students’ views and attitudes towards the communication code used in press science articles. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1395–1411. Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspective on discourses of science. London: Routledge. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. London: Polity Press. Jarman, R., & McClune, B. (2007). Developing scientific literacy. Berkshire: Open University Press McGraw Hill Education. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Kress, G., Ogborn, J. & Martins, I. (1998). A satellite view of language: Some lessons from the science classroom. Language Awareness 7(2&3), 69–89. Lacerda, G. (1997). Alfabetização científica e formação professional. Educação & Sociedade, 60, 91–108. Laugksch, R. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94. Layton, D., Davey, A., & Jenkins, E. (1986). Science for specific social purposes (SSSP): Perspectives on adult scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 13, 27–52. Leal, M. C., & Sousa, G. G. (2000). Narrativa, mito, ciência e tecnologia: o ensino da ciência na escola e no museu. Ensaio pesquisa em educação em ciências 2(1). Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics. London: Taylor and Francis.

104   I. Martins Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading Science. London: Routledge. Lemke, J. (2001). Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum. In J. Cumming & C. Wyatt-­Smith (Eds.), Literacy and the curriculum. Melbourne: ACER, pp. 170–180. Linder, C., Östman L., & Wickman, P.-­O. (Eds.). (2007). Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction, Uppsala, Sweden. Retrieved from: www.fysik.uu.se/didaktik/lsl/. Mamede, M., & Zimmermann, E. (2005). Letramento científico e CTS na formação de professores para o ensino de física. XVI Simpósio Nacional de Ensino de Física, Sociedade Brasileira de Física, Rio de Janeiro. Retrieved from: www.sbf1.sbfisica.org.br/eventos/ snef/xvi/cd/comunicacoes_orais_a05_01.html. Martins, I. (1992). Pupils’ and teachers’ understandings of scientific information related to a matter of public concern. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Institute of Education, University of London. Martins, I. (2007). Contributions from critical perspectives on language and literacy to the conceptualization of language and literacy In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-­O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction, Uppsala. Martins, I. (in press). Problematizando o conceito de alfabetização científica a partir de contribuições dos estudos de linguagem e letramento. In N. M. D. Garcia (Ed.), A Pesquisa em Ensino de Física e a sala de aula: articulações necessárias (pp. 127–140). São Paulo: Sociedado Brasileira de Fisica. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham: The Open University Press. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Roth, W.-­M. (2001). Enculturation: Acquisition of conceptual blind spots and epistemological prejudices. British Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 5–27. Roth, W.-M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Santos, W. P. (2008). Scientific literacy: A Freirean perspective as a radical view of humanistic science education. Science Education, 93, 361–382. Soares, M. B. (1995). Letramento: um tema em três gêneros. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica. Soares, M. B. (2003). Alfabetização e Letramento. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica. Woolnough, B. E. (2000). Authentic science in schools?—an evidence-­based rationale. Physics Education, 35, 293–300. Yerrick, R., and Roth, W.-M. (2005). Establishing Scientific Discourse Communities: Multiple voices of teaching and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. Yore, L. D. (2008). Science literacy for all students: Language, culture, and knowledge about nature and naturally occurring events. L1—Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 8(1), 5–21. Yore, L. D., Chinn, P. W. U., & Hand, B. (2008). Editorial: Science literacy for all: Influences of culture, language, and knowledge about nature and naturally occurring events. L1—Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 8(1), 1–3.

Literacy as Metaphor and Perspective   105 Zeidler, D. (2007). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-­O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction, Uppsala.

8 Bilingual Scientific Literacy John Airey and Cedric Linder

Introduction As a global lingua franca, English enjoys an unrivalled status among world languages (Graddol, 2006)—so much so, in fact, that in many countries the teaching of university science is divided between two languages: the local language and English. Worldwide, the use of English is on the increase. For example, European higher education has recently seen a sharp rise in the number of university courses taught in English (Maiworm & Wächter, 2002; Wächter & Maiworm, 2008). Although this movement towards teaching in English has been largely welcomed by teachers and students alike, a worrying aspect is the lack of research into the effects on disciplinary learning that may be related to changing the teaching language in this way. In this chapter, as part of a new modeling of the notion of scientific literacy, we examine the relationship between the choice of teaching language and student learning in university science. Following some preliminary orientation to these matters, we present findings and insights from three research programs that shed light on the following issues: • • •

student adaptation to being taught in a second language, the goals of university science with respect to bilingual scientific literacy, and the relationship between the teaching language and spoken bilingual scientific literacy.

Preliminary Remarks Language and Scientific Literacy Before we begin our discussion of the role of a second language (L2) in science learning, it is perhaps useful to say something about the relationship between a person’s first language (L1) and scientific literacy. Gee sees language as divided into one primary and many secondary Discourses. Our primary Discourse is the oral language we learn as a child, “It is the birthright of every human and comes through primary socialization within the family” (Gee, 1991, p.  7). Secondary Discourses, on the other hand, are specialized for use in other specific sites in

Bilingual Scientific Literacy   107 society outside the home. We master secondary Discourses by building on and extending our primary Discourse. Gee defines literacy as the control of these secondary Discourses. Thus, there are as many applications of the word literacy as there are secondary Discourses or, put differently, there are as many types of literacy as there are specific sites in society. From this perspective, it can be argued that scientific literacy is the ability to use the specialized language of science (a secondary Discourse) in a particular site in society. We will return to a discussion of this site in society later. For the moment we will restrict ourselves to simply noting that secondary Discourses will have varying degrees of separation from a person’s primary Discourse. For example, the language you use with your friends from childhood may be quite similar to your primary Discourse, whereas the type of language control necessary to produce a written legal text is probably very far removed from this. The differences between any person’s primary Discourse and their secondary Discourse in university science—that is, the scientific Discourse—are particularly large, and hence learning to become fluent in this scientific Discourse usually presents a major challenge to learners. Lemke (1990) points out that learning science depends on the ability to understand the disciplinary language in which the knowledge is construed. However, Östman (1998) reminds us that this type of language is abstract and represents special communicative traditions and assumptions. Säljö (2000) takes this further, arguing that difficulties in student learning are in fact difficulties in handling and understanding highly specialized forms of communication that are not found to any great extent in everyday situations. However, the problem may be even more complex than this. Geisler (1994, pp. xi–xii) observes that disciplinary language appears to “afford and sustain both expert and naïve representations: the expert representation available to insiders to the academic professions and the naïve representation available to those outside.” In this respect, Englund (1998) suggests analyzing the causes of problems in student understanding with a view to changing institutionalized communicative patterns, thus making the discourse of disciplines more accessible. However, the other side of the coin is expressed by Wickman and Östman (2002) who align themselves with Gee’s (1991) modeling of discourse, by insisting that learning itself is a form of discourse change. To summarize, then, we can appreciate that the relationship between scientific literacy (a secondary Discourse) and a student’s first language (a primary Discourse) is complex and nontrivial in nature. But what of scientific literacy and a second language? (in other words the relationship between two secondary Discourses). This is the question we address in this chapter, but first we will examine what happens when students are taught science in a second language. Teaching and Learning in a Second Language Unfortunately, little is known about the effects on learning of science at university level when teaching in a second language. Whilst there are a number of studies from lower levels of schooling which suggest that there may in fact be some direct benefits of bilingual education (see Willig, 1985, for a summary of

108   J. Airey and C. Linder research findings in bilingual education), Marsh, Hau, and Kong (2000; 2002) found high school teaching in a second language had negative effects on learning of subject knowledge. They point out that the focus of earlier bilingual studies has been on learning languages with “a remarkable disregard for achievement in non-­language subjects” (Marsh et al., 2000, p.  339). Thus, they suggest that the positive effects found at lower levels of schooling may not be found at the high school and university levels. They argue that this is due to increasing demands placed on language in the formulation of knowledge at these levels. In this respect, both Met and Lorenz (1997) and Duff (1997) have similarly suggested that limitations in a second language may inhibit students’ ability to explore abstract concepts in nonlanguage subjects. Only a small number of studies have examined the effects of the teaching language on disciplinary learning in higher education. These studies point to negative correlations between disciplinary learning and changing the teaching language to English (Gerber, Engelbrecht, & Harding, 2005; Klaassen, 2001; Neville-­Barton & Barton, 2005; Vinke, 1995). However, in the most comprehensive of these studies, Klaassen (2001) found that the negative effects on disciplinary learning disappeared over the period of a year. Klaassen concluded that the students in her study had adapted to the language switch, and suggested follow-­up work to identify the mechanisms by which this adaptation may occur.

Analyzing Students’ L2 Science Experience So what happens when students are taught science in a second language? In an attempt to answer this question we carried out an in-­depth study with 22 undergraduates from two Swedish universities (Airey & Linder, 2006; 2007). The students attended physics lectures in both Swedish and English as part of their regular degree program. A number of these lectures were videotaped, with each interviewed student being present at two lectures—one lecture in English and one in Swedish. Since at this stage it was not known what aspects of a lecture might be important, it was decided to focus on as many different types of activity as possible. Thus, the two-­hour video footage from a typical lecture session was edited down to four short clips, which together lasted less than 10 minutes. These clips dealt with similar types of activity for both of the lectures that a student had attended—a mathematical derivation, an oral explanation, a diagram, and a question asked to the class by the lecturer. Semistructured interviews were then carried out individually with each student in the study (approximately 90 minutes per student). The Interviews The student interviews were split into two stages. First, students were invited to talk about their experiences of learning in the two courses they had attended, their working patterns for each course, and their thoughts about learning in English rather than in Swedish. Then, building on Klaassen’s (2001) recommendations, the eight clips from the two lectures that the student had attended were

Bilingual Scientific Literacy   109 shown in order to generate stimulated recall (Calderhead, 1981). This technique allows students to describe what they did and how they were thinking during the lecture and how they experienced the material presented (Bloom, 1953). This two-­stage approach to interviewing was adopted because one of the study’s research goals was to ascertain whether there were differences between students’ perceptions of their learning in the two languages and their “actual” learning experiences as recounted during stimulated recall. The Findings Language is Unimportant The most compelling result of the Airey and Linder (2006; 2007) study is that all the students interviewed felt that language played an insignificant role in their disciplinary learning. This result is similar to that of Neville-­Barton and Barton (2005): second-­language mathematics students self-­reported levels of understanding similar to those of first-­language students. However, despite their initial expressions to the contrary, during the stimulated recall interviews the same students went on to readily identify a number of problems they had experienced due to the shift to a second language. Reduced Interaction Early in the study we noticed that student willingness to ask and answer questions appeared to be reduced when the lectures were given in English (their second language). In the interviews students confirmed this observation. This is an important finding because if the interaction between teacher and students is limited in this way (in the worst case scenario lectures could turn into a teacher monologue), then the shared space of learning (Tsui, 2004) will be correspondingly reduced. Focus on Note-­taking When lectures were in English, those students who took notes described how a large portion of their attention was focused on the process of writing instead of on understanding content. The disciplinary learning of these students depended on work done after the lecture. Naturally we do not mean to suggest that, when lectures were in Swedish, students did not need to do work outside the lecture, but rather that students were less accomplished at taking notes whilst following the lecturer’s line of reasoning when the lecture was in English. Multiple Representations Students reported finding second-­language lectures easier to follow when the lecturer either followed a book closely or wrote a lot on the whiteboard. We interpret this as students utilizing the redundancy and extra affordances1 made

110   J. Airey and C. Linder available by these multiple representations in order to better make sense of the disciplinary content. Student Coping Strategies The students changed their study habits in response to the shift from Swedish to English. • •

•

In many cases, rather than asking a question during the lecture, students preferred to come forward at the end to ask questions. Some students read sections of work before the lecture, claiming that they could then better understand the concepts that the lecturer was describing during the lecture. A number of students stopped taking any notes in class, whilst others reduced the amount of writing required by annotating the textbook. However, as mentioned above, for some students lectures had become sessions for mechanical note-­taking, with extra work needed to make sense of these notes later.

Thus it can be seen that a number of differences arise when students are taught in a second language. The next question is whether the goals of university science courses also change when a second language is employed. We will address this issue in the next section.

Analyzing What University Science Courses Offer If we assume that the central goal of university science is the production of scientifically literate graduates, then we need to be clear about what we mean by scientific literacy before embarking on an examination of university course offerings. Yet, since its introduction by Hurd (1958), there has been little useful agreement as to the precise meaning of the term scientific literacy (Laugksch, 2000), particularly for higher education teaching–learning environments. So, what do we mean when we use the term? Earlier, we drew on Gee’s (1991) concept of secondary Discourse, suggesting that scientific literacy is control of the language of science in a particular site in society. We would like to add three observations here. Categories of Semiotic Resources First, we feel it necessary to point out that scientific literacy is about much more than acquiring control of language—there are in fact a large number of semiotic resources that come together to make up the secondary Discourse of science. We have previously divided these disciplinary semiotic resources into three categories: representations, tools, and activities (Airey & Linder, 2009). We suggest that for natural science the representations category includes: oral and written language, mathematics, tables, graphs, and diagrams. The tools category refers to any physical

Bilingual Scientific Literacy   111 objects used within science, whilst activities refers to the methods and praxis of the discipline. Thus, we claim that students need to learn to control a particular constellation of these semiotic resources in order to be deemed scientifically literate. This brings us to our second observation—that there are, in fact, two types of control necessary for each semiotic resource: interpretive control and generative control. By interpretive control we mean the ability to appropriately apprehend the ideas that are represented, that is, to be able to “read” the semiotic resource. Generative control goes one step further and refers to the ability to appropriately use the semiotic resource to make meaning for oneself. Clearly, scientific literacy involves both types of control. Two Sites for This Secondary Discourse For our final observation we return to the question of the particular site in society to which scientific literacy refers. Generally, scientific literacy has been taken to refer to an everyday use of science. However, others—including ourselves—have used scientific literacy to refer to the ability to do science. Here, Roberts (2007) has extended our thinking by introducing the notion of two visions of scientific literacy: Vision I—learning to work within science itself, and Vision II—learning to apply science in relation to everyday situations. For the purposes of analysis, we

Scientific literacy

Consists of The ability to work within science (Vision I)

The ability to apply science in society (Vision II)

Expressed through

Control of representations, tools and activities

Interpretive

Generative

Figure 8.1 Scientific literacy within a natural science degree will be a combination of Roberts’ (2007) two visions. This can be modeled in terms of interpretive and generative control of disciplinary representations, tools, and activities. Interpretive control involves being able to “read” the resource, whilst generative control is the ability to use the resource to make meaning for oneself (source: adapted from Airey, 2009).

112   J. Airey and C. Linder propose to examine the extent to which any given undergraduate science course provides for learning the type of scientific literacy that is representative of these two complementary visions. Thus for the purposes of this research, Figure 8.1 illustrates how our use of the term scientific literacy includes both the ability to work within science and the ability to apply science to everyday life. Analyzing the Course Offerings Figure 8.1 is a tool that we have created for the analysis of the various components of scientific literacy present in a given university course. It is uncommon for course syllabuses to specify educational outcomes for all these components of scientific literacy in an explicit manner. We therefore suggest it would be interesting to examine the implied goals, with respect to our suggested components of scientific literacy, that form part of the “hidden curriculum” of natural science degree courses. As an illustration of using this tool we audited a sample of 30 syllabuses from undergraduate courses in physics offered in the spring term 2008 at one of Sweden’s foremost universities in science and engineering (Airey & Linder, 2008). For each syllabus the course content was analyzed in terms of the practice (and hence the control) that is implied in the representations, tools, and activities of science. Table 8.1 gives the analysis of the control of semiotic resources (other than language) that was implied in the 30 syllabuses that we examined. Here we see that the activities planned for the 30 courses imply high levels of interpretive and generative control within the discipline (Vision I), but the implication is that there is little use of these semiotic resources with respect to the problems of everyday life (Vision II). This suggests to us that either lecturers do not see it as their job to encourage societal scientific literacy, or that they assume that disciplinary literacy automatically leads to an ability to use the semiotic resources of science in an everyday context.

Conceptualizing, Detecting, and Assessing Bilingual Scientific Literacy How does our definition of scientific literacy relate to the increase in the use of L2-medium (English) for teaching university science that we described in our Table 8.1  Implied control of semiotic resources other than language Vision I

Mathematics Graphs Diagrams Tables Tools Activities

Vision II

Interpretive

Generative

Interpretive

Generative

High High High High High High

High High High High High High

Low Low Low Low Low Low

Low Low Low Low Low Low

Bilingual Scientific Literacy   113

Bilingual scientific literacy

Consists of The ability to work within science (Vision I)

The ability to apply science in society (Vision II)

Expressed through

Control of L1

Control of L2

Interpretive

Generative

Interpretive

Generative

Reading and Listening

Writing and Speaking

Reading and Listening

Writing and Speaking

Figure 8.2 Bilingual scientific literacy within a natural science degree is expressed through a combination of control of the student’s first language (L1) and second ­language (L2).

introduction to this chapter? At this point we reach the central theme of this chapter—bilingual scientific literacy. We define this simply as scientific literacy in two languages. This is illustrated with respect to Roberts’ two visions in Figure 8.2. An analysis of the same 30 syllabuses with respect to bilingual scientific literacy is presented in Table 8.2. Here again, the implication is that a Vision II perspective is most likely absent. However, a new pattern emerges. Within the discipline (Vision I), there is now no longer a uniformly high level of practice. Control of spoken disciplinary English and Swedish does not appear to be encouraged. This lack of expressed focus on oral skills is, in fact, a common finding in science—even without a dual-­language approach (Lemke, 1990). Lemke has suggested that students should be given the chance to “talk science,” whilst Tobias (1986) believes that science learning would be enhanced if students were encouraged to “kick the ideas around” as they typically are in the social sciences and humanities. Here we extend these assertions by suggesting that control of spoken L1 and L2 may be an important factor in becoming scientifically literate. Table 8.2 also shows that the higher levels of implied control appear to be in interpretive rather than generative forms, that is, higher in reading in English and

114   J. Airey and C. Linder Table 8.2  Implied control of linguistic semiotic resources (language) Vision I

Reading Listening Writing Speaking

Vision II

English

Swedish

English

Swedish

High Medium Medium Low

Medium High Medium Low

Low Low Low Low

Low Low Low Low

listening in Swedish. This might suggest that students become less able to use language themselves when a dual-­language approach is adopted. Finally, the analysis raises questions for reading, listening, and writing. In these forms there is only some practice in one or both languages. It could be argued that this is a result of a dual-­language approach—that is, if learning had been limited to one language alone, higher levels of practice might have been recorded for these forms. In our division of disciplinary semiotic resources into representations, tools, and activities (Airey & Linder, 2009) a further claim was made: appropriate constitution of a given disciplinary concept entails control of a particular constellation of semiotic resources. Since we identify control of spoken language as the least developed within university science (Vision I) we are naturally interested in this semiotic resource—particularly with respect to a dual-­language approach to science education. Hence we now report an analysis of spoken bilingual scientific literacy, where student oral descriptions of scientific concepts in both languages are analyzed and related to the language in which the concept was originally taught. Assessing Levels of Spoken Bilingual Scientific Literacy The main question that presents itself when contemplating the assessment of spoken bilingual scientific literacy is one of validity. What constitutes a legitimate measure of a student’s ability to speak about science? In linguistics, syllables per second (SPS) is often used to measure spoken ability—this is because higher speech rate is seen as an indicator that knowledge has become proceduralized (Anderson, 1982). Another related method used in linguistics involves documenting pauses. Chambers (1997, p. 539) discusses the types of pauses that exist in speech, dividing them into natural and unnatural pauses: Natural pauses, allowing breathing space, usually occur at some clause junctures or after groups of words forming a semantic unit. Pauses appearing at places other than these are judged as hesitations, revealing either lexical or morphological uncertainty. These hesitations may be either simply a silent gap or marked by non-­lexical fillers (“uh,” “um”), sound stretches (or drawls on words) or lexical fillers with no semantic information (such as “you know,” “I mean”).

Bilingual Scientific Literacy   115 We can thus expect the difference between first- and second-­language speech to be in the frequency of unnatural pauses, indicating lexical gaps in the second language. However, a number of studies have claimed that the most statistically significant measure of speaking ability is the amount of speech uttered between pauses (Kormos & Dénes, 2004; Towell, Hawkins, & Bazergui, 1996). Here, the average phrase length in syllables is calculated. In the literature, this value is termed mean length of runs (MLR). Hincks (2005; 2008) compared presentations on the same topic given by the same students in English and Swedish using the SPS and MLR measures. Her main finding is that when Swedish students speak English they pause more often, use shorter phrase lengths and speak on average 23% slower. However, Hincks advises caution when comparing speaking ability between students based on SPS and MLR, pointing out that there is a strong effect of individual speaking style which carries over from a student’s first language to their second-­language use. Where two languages are involved, lexical gaps may also be filled by code-­ switching (i.e., inserting a word or phrase from another language). The benefits of code-­switching in the learning environment have been widely documented. Researchers from a range of backgrounds acknowledge that the use of two languages concurrently offers better opportunities for representing and accessing knowledge (see, for example, Fakudze & Rollnick, 2008; Liebscher & Dailey-­ O’Caine, 2005; Moreno, Federmeier, & Kutas, 2002; Üstünel & Seedhouse, 2005). However, for this chapter, the term involuntary code-­switching is adopted to describe a situation where code-­switching occurs in a monolingual setting. In the interviews described earlier, students were instructed to use one language exclusively for a given description. Any code-­switching that occurred was thus deemed involuntary and indicative of a lexical gap in the language being spoken. Finally, in order to be deemed scientifically literate, what is spoken needs to make sense from a disciplinary perspective. For example, the SPS and MLR values for a linguistically fluent metadescription of a lack of understanding would provide misleading information about a student’s scientific literacy. To summarize, then, we believe that it may be possible to triangulate bilingual scientific literacy by considering; linguistic fluency measures (SPS, MLR), involuntary code-­switching, and a judgment about the “disciplinarity” of what has been said. In the remainder of this chapter we illustrate the application of these three approaches to actual student interviews. Assessing Bilingual Scientific Literacy Through Interviews In this section, illustrative examples from three student interviews are presented. The raw transcripts were prepared for analysis in four stages. First, all speech by the interviewer was deleted and marked by a double return in the transcript. Next, all noticeable pauses—both filled and unfilled—were marked by entering a single return. This created a transcript of phrases of various lengths, each on a separate line. Then, all utterances in filled pauses—where the student uses sounds such as aah, um, er, and so forth—were deleted. Finally, each word in the transcript was divided up into syllables. The SPS value was calculated by dividing the

116   J. Airey and C. Linder Table 8.3  Criteria for judging the disciplinarity of a student description Grade

Label

Description

1

Weak

Student clearly has major problems when talking about disciplinary concepts in this language.

2

Intermediate

Student uses some disciplinary terms appropriately, but either has clear disciplinary lexical gaps or uses other terms inappropriately.

3

Good

Student uses disciplinary terms appropriately in the sequence, but does not develop ideas fully.

4

Excellent

Expert explanation.

total number of syllables in the transcript by the total student speaking time (interviewer speaking time was first subtracted from the total time). MLR was calculated by dividing the total number of syllables in the transcript by the number of text lines (excluding empty lines). Instances of code-­switching were highlighted in bold and a subjective judgment about the disciplinarity of the description was made, using the criteria outlined in Table 8.3. The first excerpts are taken from interviews with two students, Andy and Hope (pseudonyms). The students are from different Swedish universities, but were both reading two different physics courses simultaneously, one taught in Swedish and another taught in English. For each lecture, the students were twice asked to describe a particular physics concept that had been covered. These two descriptions of the same concept were elicited at different places in the interviews, one of the descriptions being in English and the other in Swedish. These descriptions were then compared and contrasted. Andy Andy is a second-­year student in a large, research-­oriented department. He has experienced physics lectures in English in earlier courses. Below are his descriptions of the content from a course, taught in Swedish, about the different types of mathematical series that can be useful for solving engineering problems: Translated Swedish description 1. No, you know 2. uniform convergence wasn’t intuitively 3. clear 4. why you can’t choose 5. then choose one—if there’s 6. one n for all x, why can’t you take the largest first? SPS 3.7  MLR 8.7  Disciplinarity 3

Bilingual Scientific Literacy   117 English description (code-­switching to Swedish in bold, translations of these are given in the square brackets) 1. All the part about this supremum, well, that was clear to me. 2. This last 3. part about uniform convergence it’s 4. well, it’s not in 5. intuit 6. intuitiv [intuitive]. SPS 1.95  MLR 6.1  Disciplinarity 3 And here are Andy’s descriptions from a course in electromagnetism taught in English that was read in parallel with the course in Swedish described earlier. The lecture discussed in the interview dealt with the derivation of Maxwell’s equations. Translated Swedish description (code-­switching to English in bold) 1. Yes, yes it means 2. that 3. the curl of E there is 4. is minus the derivative of the B field but 5. then exactly what a curl is I’ve still not really got a, you know direct in intuitive picture of it. SPS 2.6  MLR 9.5  Disciplinarity 3 English description   1. Yeah,   2. well what he says right now is   3. basically is that the E field is a conservative field   4. even though a mathematician wouldn’t say that   5. but   6. which allows us to,   7. to create a potential and   8. also it says that   9. a line integral 10. describing the work for example is 11. independent of, independent of time 12. in this, when you’ve got the zero there. SPS 2.3  MLR 7.4  Disciplinarity 3–4 In the four transcripts, Andy shows the anticipated pattern of reduced SPS and MLR values when talking about concepts in English that have been found in ­previous studies. There is one lexical gap in his English description of the concept that was taught in Swedish, although it could be argued that the word “intuitive” that he is searching for has no real bearing on scientific literacy. Here we see an

118   J. Airey and C. Linder interesting result; when taught in English, Andy code-­switches in his first ­language—Swedish—using the word “curl” (line 5) and the phrase “curl of E” (line 3) instead of the standard Swedish term “rotation.” Hope Hope is a first-­year student in a small teaching-­oriented department. She has not been taught in English before. What follows are her descriptions of the content from a course taught in Swedish where students were introduced to the “damped harmonic oscillator.” The lecturer discussed the consequences of adding a damping cylinder to a simple mass and spring system. Translated Swedish description 1. I don’t think so much about b times v, you know—b times the velocity that’s a constant—b times v what is that really but 2. aha he says 3. that, you know 4. the total force is the force of the spring minus 5. the force from this damping system 6. which is the same as the total force, which is equal to the mass times acceleration 7. I understand that, but I don’t think so much about 8. where does, what is this b times 9. times the velocity. SPS 4.1  MLR 12  Disciplinarity 3 English description (code-­switching in bold, translations of these are given in the square brackets)   1. The mass which is   2. ska jag prata på . . .? [should I speak in . . .?]   3. massan [the mass]   4. the mass which is   5. det är svårt alltså [it’s difficult you know]   6. which is   7. fast? [stuck?]   8. connected to, to a   9. spring 10. and on here we have 11. dämpnings system [damping system] which also is connected to the mass. 12. this is the velocity 13. of the mass 14. this is the fjä fjäder kraften som verkar i motsatt riktning [spring force which acts in the opposite direction] 15. som [which] 16. which

Bilingual Scientific Literacy   119 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

acts in the opposite side to the displacement this is the spring constant which determines the spring and this is dämp dämpnings konstant [damping constant] which determines the dämpnings system [damping system].

SPS 2.0*  MLR 4.4*  Disciplinarity 1 *Note: values should actually be even lower due to the high amount of Swedish in the transcript. And here are Hope’s descriptions from a course in rotational mechanics taught in English that was read in parallel with the oscillations course in Swedish. The lecture discussed in the interview dealt with the analogy between straight-­line and rotational mechanics. Translated Swedish description (code-­switching to English in bold) 1. This torque thing 2. that’s a bit strange and that too 3. but otherwise that 4. the torque is analogous to the force in one dimension 5. I understand that. SPS 3.7  MLR 8.7  Disciplinarity 2 English description (code-­switching in bold, translations of these are given in the square brackets)   1. This equation   2. jag alltså jag [I, well, I]   3. the   4. the torque   5. alltså [well]   6. jag kan läsa ut vad det vad det [I can read out what it, what it]   7. okay the torque   8. kraf(t) [for(ce)]   9. the tangentia 10. the tangential force times the distance 11. to the point P 12. from the 13. axis. SPS 1.6  MLR 3.8  Disciplinarity 1–2

120   J. Airey and C. Linder Clearly, Hope has extreme difficulty talking about science concepts in English— so much so that the SPS and MLR values from both of her English descriptions become effectively unusable due to the high proportion of Swedish. Interestingly, she had few problems using English to talk about her background and the organization of the courses, giving reasonably fluent descriptions of these in the introductory part of the interview. We can thus conclude that it is precisely scientific literacy in English that is absent. Although we cannot draw conclusions from such limited material, it is interesting to note that this interview took place in the early stages of the first course Hope had read in English. In comparison, Andy’s more fluent descriptions came well into that particular course, and after previous experience of taking courses in English. Taken together then, the interviews with these two students may give some anecdotal support for Klaassen’s (2001) finding that the negative effects of a language shift to English disappear over time. Despite her problems with English, Hope, like Andy, code-­switches to English in her Swedish description of concepts that were taught in English. Mia Mia attended a single course in introductory quantum physics taught in both English and Swedish. The main lecture topics for this course were taught in English due to the presence of a number of exchange students in the group. However, when this large group was divided up for problem-­solving sessions Mia’s group was taught in Swedish. Thus Mia was, in fact, taught the same material by the same lecturer in two languages. The course was offered in the first year of study and represents Mia’s first university-­physics experience of being taught in English. In the main session, the lecturer discussed in English the various conditions that the wave function must satisfy. Later the same day, the lecturer used Swedish to discuss a strategy for solving quantum mechanical problems. Translated Swedish description   1. Psi has to be a continuous function   2. it has to   3. well it, for each x-­value or equivalent—what it is on this axis   4. there can only be one y-­value   5. and   6. it’s not allowed to   7. go to infinity anywhere   8. and   9. and the sum of 10. of well the area under 11. under the graph 12. from plus—minus, minus infinity to plus infinity in the x-­direction must be one 13. well the integral 14. when you solve the integral to plus infinity. SPS 3.0  MLR 7.5  Disciplinarity 3

Bilingual Scientific Literacy   121 English description   1. Draw a picture of   2. the electron or what it is   3. and   4. visualize   5. what, what forces that affect the   6. the electron and   7. what its potential energy would be like   8. and then   9. therefore 10. and thereafter make some sort of a function of the potential energy 11. depending on the where 12. where the electron 13. is 14. then 15. because you can 16. use that function in the Schrödinger equation. SPS 2.4  MLR 5.3  Disciplinarity 3 Mia does a good job of describing the content of the lectures in both languages— this is in stark contrast to the other first-­year student, Hope, who was taught separate courses in English and Swedish and found it impossible to describe disciplinary concepts in English. It is also noticeable that no code-­switching occurs in Mia’s descriptions in either language.

Tentative Conclusions and Future Work Our analysis of the limited dataset presented in the final section of this chapter is a first attempt to estimate students’ oral bilingual scientific literacy from stimulated recall interviews, and to relate this estimation to the teaching language used. As such this section should be read as a discussion of the methods needed for such work and clearly cannot claim to make recommendations as to the form and content of undergraduate science programs. However, a number of issues have been raised which warrant further investigation. The Problem of L2 Scientific Literacy One thing that is clear from the data is that some students do have problems with spoken scientific literacy in English (L2). Klaassen (2001) suggests that this may be something that reduces over time. Indeed, in this limited analysis, the one student who had previous experience of courses in English exhibited high levels of English scientific literacy without major negative effects on his Swedish scientific literacy. Whether this is a generalizable result, and if so, whether the decreasing trend of this problem over time is simply due to student drop-­out, or the adaptation strategies we have outlined earlier in this chapter is a major question for

122   J. Airey and C. Linder ­ niversity science education. A full analysis of the data collected in this study u (n = 22) may help shed some light on this important area. Teaching in Two Languages In the interview data presented here, two of the students were experiencing lectures in English for the first time. It is noticeable that the student who was taught using a dual-­language approach performed better than the student who was taught exclusively in English. This may, of course, be pure coincidence and further work is needed to assess whether a dual-­language approach may indeed be a useful method for introducing students to teaching through the medium of English and to foster bilingual scientific literacy.

Practical Implications As part of the expanded modeling of the notion of scientific literacy that inspires this book, we have examined the relationship between the choice of teaching language and student learning in university science. From this perspective a number of considerations for teaching for bilingual scientific literacy and the learning of science can be recommended. Teachers should discuss, with their students, the kinds of difficulties that may arise, and how certain learning-­practices may be able to limit the impact of these difficulties. For example, students in L2 classes should be actively encouraged to pre- and post-read learning content and create outside-­class peer-­instruction groups to explore their understanding of the content. Teachers can also enhance the possibilities for learning in three ways: First, by creating a “delay-­space” for their questions to allow students time to discuss the question with one another before attempting an answer. Second, by reducing the time and effort spent note-­taking by giving out lecture notes for students to annotate during lectures, and finally, by systematically extending the range of semiotic resources drawn on to represent different attributes of knowledge that they wish to share with students. From an institutional perspective, we have argued for a discussion amongst faculty of the particular “blend” of bilingual scientific literacy that a given course or program aspires to foster. In this respect, we suggest that Figure 8.2 may be a useful tool in guiding this discussion. It is our hope that such a discussion will lead to a better appreciation of the relationship between scientific literacy and learning to control disciplinary semiotic resources in both L1 and L2.

Note 1. Here, redundancy refers to the same aspects of a disciplinary concept being presented in a different manner, whilst extra affordances relates to different aspects of a disciplinary concept made available by changing the representational format.

Bilingual Scientific Literacy   123

References Airey, J. (2009). Science, language and literacy. Case studies of learning in Swedish university physics. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 81. Uppsala. Retrieved from http://publications.uu.se/theses/abstract. xsql?dbid=9547. Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2006). Language and the experience of learning university physics in Sweden. European Journal of Physics, 27(3), 553–560. Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2007). Disciplinary learning in a second language: A case study from university physics. In R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (Eds.), Researching content and language integration in higher education (pp. 161–171). Maastricht: Maastricht University Language Centre. Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2008). Bilingual scientific literacy? The use of English in Swedish university science programmes. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 145–161. Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406. Bloom, B. (1953). Thought processes in lectures and discussions. Journal of General Education, 7, 160–169. Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 211–217. Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by fluency? System, 25(4), 535–544. Duff, P. A. (1997). Immersion in Hungary: an ELF experiment. In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 19–43). Cambridge, UK: CUP. Englund, T. (1998). Teaching as an offer of (discursive) meaning? In B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum. An international dialogue (pp. 215–223). New York: Peter Lang. Fakudze, C., & Rollnick, M. (2008). Language, culture, ontological assumptions, epistemological beliefs, and knowledge about nature and naturally occurring events: Southern African perspective. L1—Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 8(1), 69–94. Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 3–11). New York: Bergin & Garvey. Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gerber, A., Engelbrecht, J., & Harding, A. (2005). The influence of second language teaching on undergraduate mathematics performance. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(3), 3–21. Graddol, D. (2006). English next. Retrieved 12 June, 2008 from: www.britishcouncil.org/ learning-­research-englishnext.htm. Hincks, R. (2005). Computer support for learners of spoken English. Doctoral Thesis in Speech and Communication. KTH Stockholm. Sweden. Hincks, R. (2008). Presenting in English or Swedish: Differences in speaking rate. Paper presented at the FONETIK 2008, Department of Linguistics, University of Gothenburg. Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13–16. Klaassen, R. (2001). The international university curriculum: Challenges in English-­medium engineering education. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Communication and Education, Delft University of Technology. Delft, NL.

124   J. Airey and C. Linder Kormos, J., & Dénes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System, 32, 145–164. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Liebscher, G., & Dailey-­O’Caine, J. (2005). Learner code-­switching in the content-­based foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 234–247. Maiworm, F., & Wächter, B. (Eds.). (2002). English-­language-taught degree programmes in European higher education, trends and success factors. Bonn: Lemmens Verlags & Mediengesellschaft. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Kong, C.-K. (2000). Late immersion and language of instruction (English vs. Chinese) in Hong Kong high schools: Achievement growth in language and non-­language subjects. Harvard Educational Review, 70(3), 302–346. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Kong, C.-K. (2002). Multilevel causal ordering of academic self-­ concept and achievement: Influence of language of instruction (English compared with Chinese) for Hong Kong students. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 727–763. Met, M., & Lorenz, E. B. (1997). Lessons from US immersion programs: Two decades of experience. In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 243–264). Cambridge, UK: CUP. Moreno, M., Federmeier, K., & Kutas, M. (2002). Switching languages, switching palabras (words): An electrophysiological study of code switching. Brain and Language, 80, 188–207. Neville-­Barton, P., & Barton, B. (2005). The relationship between English language and mathematics learning for non-­native speakers. Retrieved September 21, 2005 from: www. tlri.org.nz/pdfs/9211_finalreport.pdf. Östman, L. (1998). How companion meanings are expressed by science education discourse. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science education (pp. 54–70). New York: Teachers College Press. Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken: ett sociokulturellt perspektiv [Learning in practice: a sociocultural perspective]. Stockholm: Prisma. Tobias, S. (1986). Peer perspectives. On the teaching of science. Change, March/April 1986, 36–41. Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84–119. Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). The shared space of learning. In F. Marton & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning (pp. 165–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Üstünel, E., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Code-­switching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 302–325. Vinke, A. A. (1995). English as the medium of instruction in Dutch engineering education. Delft: Department of Communication and Education, Delft University of Technology. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2008). English-­taught programmes in European higher education. The picture in 2007. Bonn: Lemmens. Wickman, P-­O., & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86(5), 601–623. Willig, A. C. (1985). A meta-­analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55, 269–318.

Part III

Exploring Themes of Scientific Literacy This part examines the learning of scientific literacy. There are five different themes that are explored: (1) learning scientific literacy as action, (2) learning about nature of science and scientific inquiry, (3) the role of values and norms in learning science and socioscientific reasoning, (4) learning about moral and ethical meanings as part of learning science and socioscientific reasoning, and (5) learning scientific literacy as related to questions of gender equity. They all in different ways treat the relationship among concepts, values, and actions in the learning of scientific literacy. In Chapter 9, Norman and Judith Lederman argue that at the classroom level, addressing the goal of scientific literacy involves a balancing act between attention to subject matter, abilities to do scientific inquiry, knowledge about scientific inquiry, and understandings of nature of science. It is assumed that when students master each of these important knowledge and performance domains that they can apply scientific knowledge to make informed decisions about scientifically based personal and social issues. This chapter clearly and concretely defines the constructs of nature of science and scientific inquiry. In addition, the research related to the teaching and learning of nature of science and scientific inquiry is reviewed, along with the challenges they present to classroom practice. Finally, an extensive discussion of how teachers can balance the demands and tensions created by addressing inquiry, nature of science, and subject matter to develop scientific literacy in their students is pursued. In Chapter 10, Per-­Olof Wickman and Florence Ligozat explore the question how improved conceptual understanding in science is related to improved action competence in dealing with various contexts where science is involved. In doing this they treat two alternative tenets about progression and learning. It is argued that for the learning progression of scientific literacy John Dewey’s concept of “end-­in-view” is helpful, namely that the students from the start and continually along the way need to grasp the various purposes of school activities in such a way that they can judge how the things they do and say help them reach those purposes. The chosen activities should introduce purposes along the way that make it relevant to improve concepts and skills in such ways that ends can be achieved that better consider our values. The activities are identified not because they teach students the correct explanation or correct scientific concepts, but because they help them to deal with nature and the material world in ways that

126   Exploring Themes of Scientific Literacy they and society value. Authentic examples of progressions along these lines are given in the chapter. In Chapter 11, Leif Östman and Jonas Almqvist are dealing with a basic difference between the two major visions of scientific literacy, what Roberts calls Vision I and Vision II, namely how to approach and understand the normative dimension of human lives. The authors investigate the learning process in order to get more knowledge about the roles of values and norms in learning science. This research shows that without involving values (aesthetical, ethical, etc.) or norms of some kind learning of science is not possible. They also draw on research in order to illustrate that when learning science one is simultaneously socialized into certain values and norms. The chapter also introduces two pragmatic methodological approaches, one for analyzing moral meaning-­making and one for analyzing the implicit learning that is called the learning of companion meanings. In Chapter 12, Dana Zeidler and Troy Sadler give substance to six core questions regarding SL, originally used to analyze the PISA project. These questions deal with the distinction between SL and functional SL, the role of argumentation and SSI for developing SL, how developmental frameworks can inform us, scientific inquiry within an SSI context, and who controls (should control) SL. In answering these questions they argue that any conceptualization of SL falls short of the mark, if moral reasoning, ethical considerations, and character development are not part of our understanding of SL. SSI can provide an epistemological context for students’ conceptual understanding of important scientific and social matters. In doing so, a more inclusive stance of Vision II SL becomes necessary. They conclude that socioscientific reasoning—advanced as a construct—can best provide scholars and practitioners a means of linking SSI to SL, as well as aiding in addressing key “core questions” related to SL. Chapter 13, by Nancy Brickhouse, provides an overview of recent sociocultural research regarding scientific literacy and gender, and especially girls’ engagement in science. She shows how progress in research during the last decade has increased our understanding of gender, equity, and scientific literacy and has forced us to reconsider some ideas that were hegemonic a decade ago. For example, research has shown that it is not enough to focus on achievement and participation in scientific education and professions in researching equity, it is also necessary to bring in new understanding of identity and learning in research. By doing so it has become apparent that the social community within which they learn science is extremely important for girls’ and women’s future engagement in science. Thus the question for girls becomes “Is this a community I desire to be part of and have the requisite skills so that others will recognize and value my contribution?”

9 The Development of Scientific Literacy A Function of the Interactions and Distinctions Among Subject Matter, Nature of Science, Scientific Inquiry, and Knowledge About Scientific Inquiry Norman G. Lederman and Judith S. Lederman

Introduction The phrase scientific literacy has been around for over half a century and its connection to an understanding of nature of science and scientific inquiry was, perhaps, most formalized by the work of Showalter (1974) and by a National Science Teachers Association position statement on science-­technology-society (NSTA, 1982). In general, scientific literacy was always at least partially associated with an individual’s ability to make informed decisions about scientifically based personal and societal issues. However, the achievement of literacy was not always strongly associated with understandings of nature of science and scientific inquiry. The purpose of this chapter is not to debate the various definitions of scientific literacy (for a discussion of the various flavors of literacy see Roberts, 2007), but more importantly to discuss the complex task of developing scientific literacy in K-­12 students. Meeting the stipulation of what it means to be scientifically literate requires that an individual understand subject matter, nature of science (NOS), and scientific inquiry (SI). Each of these areas of knowledge presents students with difficulties in and of themselves. In addition, the context of a typical science classroom places much more emphasis on the learning of subject matter than either of the other two areas of knowledge. Consequently, when a teacher attempts to integrate NOS and SI into instruction there is a real, or perceived, tension created that less time is devoted to the learning of subject matter. This is exacerbated by the fact that many standardized and high stakes tests focus on subject matter, as opposed to SI and NOS. A focus on science subject matter is familiar to all of us. But the meanings of NOS and SI are not always familiar to teachers and often are contentious within the science education and science communities. A discussion of the meaning of these constructs is presented first. It is important to note, when understandings of SI and NOS are viewed as instructional outcomes, that the audience of interest is K-­12 students. Hence, one must

128   N. G. Lederman and J. S. Lederman consider developmental appropriateness, empirical evidence that students can learn the constructs, and a justification that knowledge of such constructs is necessary for scientific literacy (or the general citizenry). Using this lens, the often contentious debates about what constitutes SI and NOS disappear (Lederman, 1998).

The Meaning of SI and NOS Conceptualizing Scientific Inquiry Although closely related to science processes, SI extends beyond the mere development of process skills such as observing, inferring, classifying, predicting, measuring, questioning, interpreting, and analyzing data. SI includes the traditional science processes, but also refers to the combining of these processes with scientific knowledge, scientific reasoning, and critical thinking to develop scientific knowledge. From the perspective of the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), students are expected to be able to develop scientific questions and then design and conduct investigations that will yield the data necessary for arriving at answers for the stated questions. Students are also expected to develop an understanding about scientific inquiry. The Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) is a bit less ambitious as it does not advocate that all students be able to design and conduct investigations in their entirety. Rather, it is expected that all students at least be able to understand the rationale of an investigation and be able to critically analyze the claims made from the data collected. In this document, SI refers to the systematic approaches used by scientists in an effort to answer their questions of interest. Precollege students, and the general public for that matter, believe in a distorted view of SI that has resulted from schooling, the media, and the format of most scientific reports. This distorted view is called “the scientific method,” a fixed set and sequence of steps that all scientists follow when attempting to answer scientific questions. A more critical description would characterize this distortion as an algorithm that students are expected to memorize, recite, and follow as a recipe for success. Against that, the contemporary view of SI is that the research questions guide the approach and the approaches vary widely within and across scientific disciplines and fields (Lederman, 1998). The perception that a single scientific method exists owes much to the status of classical experimental design. Experimental designs very often conform to what is presented erroneously as the scientific method, and the examples of scientific investigations presented in science textbooks most often are experimental in nature. The problem, of course, is not that investigations consistent with an authentic account of a scientific approach do not exist. The problem is that experimental research is not representative of scientific investigations as a whole. Consequently, a very narrow and distorted view of SI is promoted in our K-­12 science curriculum. At a general level, SI can be seen to take several forms (i.e., descriptive, correlational, and experimental). Descriptive research is the form of research that

The Development of Scientific Literacy   129 often characterizes the beginning of a line of research. This is the type of research that derives the variables and factors important to a particular situation of interest. Whether descriptive research gives rise to correlational approaches depends upon the field and topic. For example, much of the research in anatomy and taxonomy is descriptive in nature and does not progress to experimental or correlational types of research. The purpose of research in these areas is very often simply to describe. On the other hand, there are numerous examples in the history of anatomical research that have led to more than a description. The initial research concerning the cardiovascular system by William Harvey was descriptive in nature. However, once the anatomy of blood vessels had been described, questions arose concerning the circulation of blood through the vessels. Such questions led to research that correlated anatomical structures with blood flow and experiments based on models of the cardiovascular system (Lederman, 1998). To briefly distinguish correlational from experimental research, the former explicates relationships among variables identified in descriptive research, and experimental research involves a planned intervention and manipulation of the variables studied in correlational research in an attempt to derive causal relationships. In some cases, lines of research can been seen to progress from descriptive to correlational to experimental, while in other cases (e.g., descriptive astronomy) such a progression is not necessarily possible. This is not to suggest, however, that the experimental design is more scientific than descriptive or correlational designs, but instead to clarify that there is not a single method applicable to every scientific question. SI has always been ambiguous in its presentation within science education reforms. In particular, inquiry is perceived in three different ways. It can be viewed as a set of skills to be learned by students and combined in the performance of a scientific investigation. It can also be viewed as a cognitive outcome that students are to achieve. In particular, the current visions of reform (e.g., NRC, 1996) are very clear (at least in written words) in distinguishing between the performance of inquiry (i.e., what students will be able to do) and what students know about inquiry (i.e., what students should know). For example, it is one thing to have students set up a control group for an experiment, while it is another to expect students to understand the logical necessity for a control within an experimental design. The third use of “inquiry” in reform documents relates strictly to pedagogy and further muddies the water. In particular, current wisdom advocates that students learn science best through an “inquiry-­oriented” teaching approach. It is believed that students will best learn scientific concepts by doing science (NRC, 1996). In this third sense, scientific inquiry is viewed as a teaching approach used to communicate scientific knowledge to students (or allow students to construct their own knowledge) as opposed to an educational outcome that students are expected to learn about and learn how to do. Indeed, it is the pedagogical conception of inquiry that is unwittingly communicated to most teachers by science education reform documents, with the two former conceptions lost in the shuffle. Although the processes that scientists use when doing inquiry (e.g.,

130   N. G. Lederman and J. S. Lederman observing, inferring, analyzing data, etc.) are readily familiar to most, knowledge about inquiry, as an instructional outcome is not. In summary, the knowledge about inquiry included in current science education reform efforts includes the following: • • • • • • • •

scientific investigations all begin with a question, but do not necessarily test a hypothesis, there is no single set and sequence of steps followed in all scientific investigations (i.e., there is no single scientific method), inquiry procedures are guided by the question asked, all scientists performing the same procedures may not get the same results, inquiry procedures can influence the results, research conclusions must be consistent with the data collected, scientific data are not the same as scientific evidence, and explanations are developed from a combination of collected data and what is already known (NRC, 1996).

Again, these are cognitive instructional outcomes targeted by science instruction, as opposed to the performance of inquiry skills. Conceptualizing Nature of Science Given the manner in which scientists develop scientific knowledge (i.e., SI), the knowledge is engendered with certain characteristics. These characteristics are what typically constitute NOS (Lederman, 2007). As mentioned before there is a lack of consensus among scientists, historians of science, philosophers of science, and science educators about the particular aspects of NOS. This lack of consensus should be neither disconcerting nor surprising, given the multifaceted nature and complexity of the scientific endeavor. However, many of the disagreements about the definition or meaning of NOS that continue to exist among philosophers, historians, and science educators are irrelevant to K-­12 instruction. The issue of the existence of an objective reality as compared to phenomenal realities is a case in point. There is an acceptable level of generality regarding NOS that is accessible to K-­12 students and relevant to their daily lives. Moreover, at this level, little disagreement exists among philosophers, historians, and science educators. Among the characteristics of the scientific enterprise corresponding to this level of generality are that scientific knowledge is tentative (subject to change), empirically based (based on and/or derived from observations of the natural world), subjective (theory-­laden), necessarily involves human inference, imagination, and creativity (involves the invention of explanations), and is socially and culturally embedded. Two additional important aspects are the distinction between observations and inferences, and the functions of, and relationships between scientific theories and laws. What follows is a brief consideration of these characteristics of science and scientific knowledge. First, students should be aware of the crucial distinction between observation and inference. Observations are descriptive statements about natural phenomena

The Development of Scientific Literacy   131 that are directly accessible to the senses (or extensions of the senses) and about which several observers can reach consensus with relative ease. By contrast, inferences are statements about phenomena that are not directly accessible to the senses. For example, objects tend to fall to the ground because of gravity. The notion of gravity is inferential in the sense that it can only be accessed and/or measured through its manifestations or effects. Second, closely related to the distinction between observations and inferences is the distinction between scientific laws and theories. Individuals often hold a simplistic, hierarchical view of the relationship between theories and laws whereby theories become laws depending on the availability of supporting evidence. It follows from this notion that scientific laws have a higher status than scientific theories. Both notions, however, are inappropriate because, among other things, theories and laws are different kinds of knowledge and one cannot develop or be transformed into the other. Laws are statements or descriptions of the relationships among observable phenomena. Boyle’s law, which relates the pressure of a gas to its volume at a constant temperature, is a case in point (Lederman, 1998). Theories, by contrast, are inferred explanations for observable phenomena. The kinetic molecular theory, which explains Boyle’s law, is one example. Moreover, theories are as legitimate a product of science as laws. Scientific theories, in their own right, serve important roles, such as guiding investigations and generating new research problems in addition to explaining relatively huge sets of seemingly unrelated observations in more than one field of investigation. For example, the kinetic molecular theory serves to explain phenomena that relate to changes in the physical states of matter, others that relate to the rates of chemical reactions, and still other phenomena that relate to heat and its transfer, to mention just a few. Third, even though scientific knowledge is, at least partially, based on and/or derived from observations of the natural world (i.e., empirical), it nevertheless involves human imagination and creativity. Science, contrary to common belief, is not a totally lifeless, rational, and orderly activity. Science involves the invention of explanations and this requires a great deal of creativity by scientists. The “leap” from atomic spectral lines to Bohr’s model of the atom with its elaborate orbits and energy levels is a case in point. This aspect of science, coupled with its inferential nature, entails that scientific concepts, such as atoms, black holes, and species, are functional theoretical models rather than faithful copies of reality. Fourth, scientific knowledge is subjective or theory-­laden. Scientists’ theoretical commitments, beliefs, previous knowledge, training, experiences, and expectations actually influence their work. All these background factors form a mind-­set that affects the problems scientists investigate and how they conduct their investigations, what they observe (and do not observe), and how they make sense of, or interpret their observations. It is this (sometimes collective) individuality or mind-­set that accounts for the role of subjectivity in the production of scientific knowledge. Observations (and investigations) are always motivated and guided by, and acquire meaning in reference to questions or problems. These questions or problems, in turn, are derived from within certain theoretical perspectives.

132   N. G. Lederman and J. S. Lederman Fifth, science as a human enterprise is practiced in the context of a larger culture and its practitioners (scientists) are the product of that culture. Science, it follows, affects and is affected by the various elements and intellectual spheres of the culture in which it is embedded. These elements include, but are not limited to, social fabric, power structures, politics, socioeconomic factors, philosophy, and religion. An example may help to illustrate how social and cultural factors impact scientific knowledge. Telling the story of the evolution of humans (Homo sapiens) over the course of the past seven million years is central to the biosocial sciences. Scientists have formulated several elaborate and differing storylines about this evolution. Until recently, the dominant story was centered about “the man-­hunter” and his crucial role in the evolution of humans to the form we now know (Lovejoy, 1981). This scenario was consistent with the white-­male culture that dominated scientific circles up to the 1960s and early 1970s. As the feminist movement grew stronger and women were able to claim recognition in the various scientific disciplines, the story about hominid evolution started to change. One story that is more consistent with a feminist approach is centered about “the female-­gatherer” and her central role in the evolution of humans (Hrdy, 1986). It is noteworthy that both storylines are consistent with the available evidence. Sixth, it follows from the previous discussions that scientific knowledge is never absolute or certain. This knowledge, including “facts,” theories, and laws, is tentative and subject to change. Scientific claims change as new evidence, made possible through advances in theory and technology, is brought to bear on existing theories or laws, or as old evidence is reinterpreted in the light of new theoretical advances or shifts in the directions of established research programs. Finally, it is important to note that individuals often conflate NOS with science processes (which is more consistent with SI). Although these aspects of science overlap and interact in important ways, it is nonetheless important to distinguish the two. Scientific processes are activities related to collecting and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions (AAAS, 1990, 1993; NRC, 1996). On the other hand, NOS refers to the characteristics of scientific knowledge that are directly, and necessarily, derived from how the knowledge is developed. What follows is a brief review of the research on students’ conceptions of SI and NOS.

Research on SI and NOS Research on Teaching and Learning of Scientific Inquiry The reader is reminded that scientific inquiry, as an educational objective, has been viewed as a set of abilities and process skills that students develop, and as a set of cognitive understandings. Unfortunately, there has been little research on students’ understandings about inquiry; what does exist is primarily at the elementary school level. Unlike NOS and inquiry abilities, understandings about inquiry has not been a specific research topic. Rather, relevant research studies have been conducted within the research on NOS or epistemological beliefs (e.g., Carey, Evans, Honda, Jay, & Unger, 1989; Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock, 2001; Smith, Macline, Houghton,

The Development of Scientific Literacy   133 & Hennessey, 2000). It is important to note that early researchers in the 1960s and 1970s considered understandings about SI to be part of NOS. In addition, some science educators (e.g., Carey & Smith, 1993; Carey et al., 1989; Smith et al., 2000) also combine understandings about inquiry and epistemology of science. For example, Carey et al. (1989) explored students’ views of scientific knowledge (e.g., absolute versus tentative), which pertained to the nature of scientific knowledge, and also their understanding of how scientists conducted scientific investigations, which aligned with understandings about inquiry. Carey et al. (1989) assessed students’ epistemological views within an inquiry unit because they assumed knowledge about inquiry and students’ views of NOS could be assessed only within an activity that engaged students in authentic inquiry. The purpose of the study was to investigate grade 7 students’ initial understanding of the nature and purpose of SI and to explore whether it was feasible to move students beyond initial conceptions with a relatively short classroom-­based intervention. The three-­week instructional unit consisted of a two-­week series of lessons on yeast, in which students formulated and tested their theories; also there was a week of introductory lessons that oriented students toward inquiry. The two-­week series of yeast lessons exposed students to the phenomena of bread dough rising. The students developed and tested hypotheses then performed experiments. The students’ first efforts were unsystematic and their view of the task was limited to trying things out. When the teacher challenged the class to draw conclusions from their experiments, they could not support any of their conclusions. Carey et al. interpreted this as the result of students’ lack of process skills and limited understanding about the nature and purpose of experiments. Ultimately, Carey et al. concluded that most of the grade 7 students in their study thought that scientists seek to discover facts about nature by making observations and trying things out. These results were congruent with previous research. Although the grade 7 students initially failed to make distinctions between ideas and activities of science, Carey et al. believed that it was possible to move students beyond their initial understandings. However, students’ improvement was limited. Smith, Maclin, Houghton, and Hennessey (2000) examined the development of 6th grade students’ epistemologies of science through two different experiences, a constructivist and a “traditional” group. To compare the two curricula, interviews with the science teachers and a separate two-­hour meeting with the principal were conducted. All participants were interviewed by using the Nature of Science Interview (Carey et al., 1989) and the interview took 20–30 minutes during which students responded to direct questions about the scientific enterprise. Data analyses revealed that more students in the constructivist class (83%) generated deep explanatory questions at some point in the interview than students in the comparison classroom (37%), X2 (1, n = 45) = 9.36, p