Science Literacy vs. Scientific Literacy
by Irma S. Jarcho and John L. Roeder
Reading The Bayer Facts of Science Education II (Resource #25, Fall 1995 issue) caused John Roeder to editorialize in that issue that the human resource directors and elementary principals polled in that survey were not using the same definition of scientific literacy. A subsequent reading of What America Thinks About Science Education Reform: An Analysis of The Bayer Facts of Science Education I, II, III indicates that he was right. This analysis examines not only the interviews with human resource directors and elementary principals done in 1996 but also the surveys of parents and teachers of elementary school children (1995) and of elementary, middle, and high school students (1997) and, among other things, reports that "Principals agree that science provides a strong foundation for the world of work . . . but they only partly recognize that the workplace of the future will demand employees who can solve problems, adapt to changes, and work well in teams." It then goes on to observe that "These differences in viewpoint between the school staff who prepare students for the workplace and the business leaders who hire new workers recur throughout the survey findings. The substantial gap that exists between the world of school and the world of work suggests that principals and teachers need to become more aware of business' specific requirements for current and future graduates. . . . the gap between the world of school and the world of work . . . suggests the need for closer communication between leaders of business and leaders of education about both goals and standards for education, and a need to consider whether current school assessments of student performance appropriately reflect workplace skills."
A subsequent editorial by Jane Maienshein, with students, in the 14 August 1998 issue of Science also addresses the contrast of these two different definitions of scientific literacy. That of the principals in the Bayer study, which "emphasizes practical results and stresses short-term instrumental good," Maienshein calls science literacy. The definition of the human resource directors, which "emphasizes ways of knowing and the process of thinking critically and creatively," she calls scientific literacy.
The two approaches, Maienschein writes, "are often in tension and have different implications for education, testing, and public funding of science. Promoting scientific literacy," she adds, "requires a new way of teaching, one for which few teachers are prepared. It stresses long-term processes over short-term product and questions over answers. The student may possess less specific knowledge but develops skills for adapting to the challenges of a rapidly-changing world."
"Political leaders and educators resist working toward the long-term goals of scientific literacy because of pressure to generate immediate outcomes such as higher test scores or more people with B.A.'s trained for technical jobs," Maienschein continues. But she advocates "integrating the short-term goals of knowing science (facts and skills) and the long-term goals of scientific literacy," noting that "We must have a society rich in both critical creative scientific thinkers and enough knowledgeable experts to do today's work." She characterizes informed decision-making as "a social process," which "requires a society of scientifically literate thinkers to make wise choices . . . . by allowing us to distinguish reliable scientific information from unsubstantiated claims and pseudoscience." "We seek scientific literacy, in this sense, for everyone," she concludes.
In distinguishing between the definitions of scientific literacy held by the elementary principals and human resource directors in the Bayer study, Maienschein is at least consistent with Paul DeHart Hurd, coiner of the term "scientific literacy," in assigning the term "scientific" to the literacy concept of the human resource directors, as we saw in the "Clearinghouse Update" in our Winter 1998 issue. It is curious, though, that the publications of Project 2061 refer to "science" literacy -- and one wonders how that Project feels about the designation of "science" literacy to refer to specific knowledge rather than general abilities.
It is also interesting to note other results of the Bayer studies. While they show strong "agreement among students, parents, teachers, principals, and business leaders about the value and effectiveness of hands-on, inquiry-based science education compared with text and lecture modes of instruction," they also show that we still have a long way to go to implement this transition in our classrooms. Moreover, "while teachers strongly support the use of hands-on over traditional approaches, in 1995 fully half of them were either totally unfamiliar with or only a little aware of existing national recommendations, benchmarks or proposed standards for elementary science education reform." However, according to The Bayer Facts of Science Education IV: Scientists On Science For The 21st Century, a survey of 1435 scientists showed that they were no more aware than teachers: "Scientists report little awareness of national recommendations for science education reform as exemplified by the National Research Council's National Science Education Standards, or by Benchmarks For Science Literacy and Science For All Americans, both developed by the AAAS, of which these scientists are members." (See Resources #3, #4, this issue.)
Home Fall 98 Full Screen
The TEACHERS CLEARINGHOUSE FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY EDUCATION