Teaching for Scientific Literacy: Context, Competency, and Curriculum. Proceedings of the International Utrecht/ICASE Symposium (2nd, October 11-13, 2000) (original) (raw)

In science education research we aim toward giving the students a better understanding of science, be it mechanics, catalysis or ecology. But should all students learn mechanics, catalysis and ecology, and if so what should they learn about it, and to what end? To put it differently, is there a global rationale behind our secondary science curricula, and how should this rationale affect teaching? These were the central questions we tried to answer at the year 2000 edition of the biennial Utrecht/ICASE Symposium. Of course, different stakeholders, such as universities, employers, teachers, or students will have different answers to the above questions, and answers might differ for different branches of education. However, it is widely felt that science plays a role in everybody's lives, and that therefore the general public should have a basic understanding of science. The AAAS' curriculum reform initiative Project 2061 put it like this: Education has no higher purpose than preparing people to lead personally .fulfilling and responsible lives. For its part, science education meaning education in science, mathematics, and technology should help students to develop the understandings and habits of mind they need to become compassionate human beings able to think for themselves and to face life head on. It should equip them also to participate thoughtfully with fellow citizens in building and protecting a society that is open, decent, and vital [T] he science-literate person is one who is aware that science, mathematics, and technology are interdependent human 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 (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1991). 0. de Jong, E.R. Savelsbergh and A. Mikis (eds.) Teaching for Scientific Literacy, 1-4 20 01 CD13-Press. Utrecht, The Netherlands.. Elwin Savelsbergh et al. Science literacy, or as many people say, scientific literacy (SL)', is thus considered vital to participation in modem society. However, that is about the end of the agreement as scientific literacy is a fuzzy concept that masks many different meanings (for an overview, see Laugksch, 2000). For instance, the term SL has been used to refer to content knowledge, communicative competency, science theory, and cultural and ethical perspectives. Its fuzziness doesn't keep people from disagreeing 'with the idea. Shams (1995), for instance, pleads for the less ambitious goal of science appreciation, because he believes the essential scientific knowledge needed for political decisions goes far beyond the reach of the school curriculum. The stance taken by Shamos, not only reflects a belief about science (and about school), but also a view about society. According to this view scientists are knowledgeable individuals, and one has to put trust in the proper individuals. An alternative worldview is to see society as characterized by complexity, provisionality, uncertain and occasionally contradictory scientific knowledge, and an absence of general standards and values. In such a society, individuals and institutions must reflect on risks and uncertainties (Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1991). Where one view calls for trust and appreciation, the other sees participation and empowerment as central goals for science education. These are very different, albeit not mutually exclusive, goals for science education. One aspect that might be missed here is the practical relevance science and technology have to an individual. In contrast to Jonathan Osborne's belief, expressed at the symposium, that his generation must be about the last who could use their physics knowledge to fix their cars, the UNESCO/ICASE project Scientific and Technological Literacy for A/1 produced learning materials that put an emphasis on the practical relevance of science and technology, such as how to avoid malaria (Holbrook, Mukherjee, & Varma, 2000). In this volume, Marjan Margadant and Jonathan Osborne are most explicit about the relation between literacy and society. The same must be true for other SL learning goals, and therefore, an important step should be to develop teaching approaches to support SL. That is what most of the volume is about, where teaching is to be taken in a broad sense. Teaching thus involves the curriculum level as well as concrete teaching materials, and it includes classroom teaching as well as informal education. The contributions by Jonathan Osborne, and by Astrid Bulte, Hannah Westbroek and Albert Pilot deal with the curriculum level. Osborne first argues that current teaching practice is based on a number of fallacious assumptions. Next, he presents recommendations for future content and structure, and for the implementation process. Bulte et al. start from the interdependence between content, pedagogy and philosophy of science in the Chemistry curriculum. They propose that the philosophical starting point should be science as a social enterprise. Next, they describe how this view affects both content and pedagogy. Finally, they discuss the design of a prototype teaching-module based on this viewpoint. The contributions by Koos Kortland and by Daan van Wee lie both describe teaching materials with a focus on decision-making and participation in societal debate. Kortland discusses a teaching unit at lower secondary level about the waste issue. Van Wee lie discusses a teaching unit at upper secondary level about biodiversity. The projects described by Carlos Catalao and by Erik Plomp both aim at a positive attitude and interest in science. Cam lito describes Ciencia Viva, a project, initiated by the Portuguese Ministry of Science and Technology, to stimulate science culture among larger parts of the population. Plomp describes the development of Science Exhibits to evoke an interest in science among lower secondary students Finally, the materials Miia Rannikmae developed in cooperation with teachers are more geared towards the practical uses science can have. In her contribution she stresses the importance of gradual change, small scale development and teacher involvement. 3 IZ Elwin Savelsbergh et al. Clearly, there is a variety of perspectives and emphases: some authors advocate radical change, others promote gradual change; some take top down approaches, others start from grass root reforms; some promote critical thinking, others promote a positive attitude, and finally, some authors start from specific contents, whereas others take more generic teaching methods as their starting point. In a concluding paper, Harrie Eijkelhof compares the merits of the different approaches and identifies common trends, pitfalls and opportunities for further research and development. We found it illuminating to have this group of people together at the symposium, and, later on, to see their papers grouped together. Clearly, there is no single answer to the question of how to teach for SL. Nevertheless, there are shared concerns, and there are common elements in our ideas about how to proceed. Although scientific literacy may be a fuzzy concept, the reading of these papers makes clear that it is not an empty concept. References Beck, U. (1992). Risk society:Towards a new modernity. London: Sage. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-idonity: self and society in the late modern age.