Module 2

Article 2

Scientifc Literacy: Another Look at Its Historical and Contemporary Meanings and Its Relationship to Science Education Reform by George E. DeBoer

DeBoer begins by pointing out that the term scientific literacy has been used since the 1950s, when educators wanted the general public to be more familiar with science. He then gives a brief history of science education since the beginning of the 20th century.

In the early 1900s, science education was stressed as being an application of knowledge to life, rather than as a logically organized body of knowledge. As early as the 1930s, the National Society for the Study of Education, looked at goals for teaching science which would encourage science as important for effective living, but also involve an intellectual understanding of science. After the second world war, there were growing concerns about the development of science and technology, and their connection to national security. This culminated during the 1950s, when the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik. Disciplinary knowledge was emphasised, with little application to situations in real life.

National security became one of the justifications for science education reform. It was in these years that the goals of science teaching became known as scientific literacy. The Rockerfeller Brothers Fund in 1958 stated that it should be considered as to how science could prepare people to live and work in a world with rapidly developing technology such as nuclear weapons, brain physiology, cell biology, and space exploration.

Society was seen as needing educated citizens, who could make educated decisions about their societies. However, science courses in the 1960s were designed to be very academically rigorous, and to appeal only to the very brightest students. There was little focus on the interests and developmental needs of the students. From the 1970s through the 1980s, scientific literacy became more and more strongly connected to science in its social context.

Many were concerned that this would lead to aloss of integrity in the discipline of science. In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education issued the report, A Nation at Risk, The Imperative for Education Reform. This argued that our nation was at risk economically because of slipping academic standards and low test scores. The solution was seen as a more rigorous curriculum built around core subjects such as English, math, science, social studies, computer science and foreign language.

In 1989, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), published their findings in Project 2061 Science for all Americans. Their main goal was to set goals for science education, so that all students could attain scientific literacy. America was perceived to be lagging behind other countries in terms of science and technology education and integration.

Soon after this, the National Academy of Sciences established the National Science Education Standards in 1996.The result of this was that students would be required to master a set of standards to demonstrate scientific literacy.

One of the questions which still remains is how much content to teach? Since the very beginning of science education, science content has been the basis of curriculum. This is likely to continue to be the case, as in order to become scientifically literate, students must have an understanding of the basic principles of the natural world.

The author goes on to suggest that even though standards have been established with the best intentions, it may be argued that in the end they take away the teacher's autonomy and creativity. If a set of broad concepts was given to teachers, which they could interpret on the basis of their students' needs, they could teach their strengths and to those of their students. The constarints of benchmarks and standardized testing are seen as further inhibiting the autonomy of teachers.

Reflection:

Today, I see new and different science standards will be introduced in the follwoing school year. They are national standards, but I can't help wondering if they will steer science education in a significantly different direction from the course it has been on in previous years.  I agree with DeBoer's statements about the lack of autonomy and creatvity that teachers are allowed, and that most teachers simply see curriculum as something that needs to be "covered" before the testing. Having looked through the new standards, they do incorporate other disciplines, and the expectations from students and teachers will be different. However, I hear the same ideas which were stated in the 1950s and then later in the 1980s about how far behind the United States is when compared to other countries. I will be watching with great interest to see whether these new standards can help us to achieve greater scientific literacy for all students.

Reference:

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 (6) 582-601. Retrieved from:

http://web.nmsu.edu/~susanbro/eced440/docs/scientific_literacy_another_look.pdf