Rutherford Addresses Usefulness of Defining Science Literacy
by John L. Roeder
The Seminar on Scientific Literacy has been meeting at Columbia University for ten years. Numerous speakers have addressed what scientific literacy is, how it can be achieved, and whether it can be achieved. As reported in our Fall 1989 issue, the subject has also been addressed by the premier publication of Project 2061, Science for All Americans.
On 26 March 1997, Project 2061's Director, F. James Rutherford, spoke at the Scientific Literacy Seminar. His subject: "Science Literacy is . . . Well, Let's See Now." Although Science for All Americans sought to define science literacy, Rutherford observed that its twelve chapters are too long to fit into the Oxford English Dictionary. Moreover, he added, defining science literacy is encumbered with contrasting viewpoints; yet it is actually useful.
One of the difficulties in defining science literacy is what Rutherford referred to as the "great divide" -- between knowledge and skills (which Project 2061 advocates) and quality of experience (of concern to those who worry that knowledge be regurgitated rather than understood). Another difficulty is the "allness" in Science for All Americans. Because of the way impairments are distributed among the population, it can't mean absolutely everyone. Yet, Rutherford acknowledged, anything "less than all" must specify who is excluded.
Among the contrasting viewpoints of science literacy cited by Rutherford were the reasons for learning science: a better job? better citizenship? for outcomes of knowledge, skill, and attitudes? And, regarding scientific inquiry, a hallmark of the National Science Education Standards, is it something you're supposed to be able to do or something you're able to understand? Project 2061 adopts the latter position, Rutherford pointed out, adding that science literacy did not mean behaving like a scientist.
How has Rutherford found a definition of science literacy useful, even though it occupies a whole book? Here he had quite a lengthy list: It clarifies what is not to be taught and aids in paring down science curricula. It fosters alignment of efforts in science education reform and builds a cumulative experience over the years. And it gives a way to determine what should be expected from teachers (as well as students) and therefore what should be included in teacher education.
Having published Science for All Americans and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (reviewed in our Winter 1994 issue), Project 2061 has now published Resources for Science Literacy (reviewed in this issue). Still to come are Designs for Science Literacy (on fashioning a science curriculum from the standpoint of design), Atlas of Science Literacy ("strand maps" illustrating the "road" whereby students learn as they go from K to 12), and Blueprints for Reform (twelve papers written by "blue ribbon" authors).
All this is part of the continuing evolution of Project 2061, which was recently ejected, Rutherford noted in the question-and-answer period, from its MacFarlane, WI, test site, for a reason cited by National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts as an impediment to implementing science education reform in a companion article in this issue: parents were upset by the thought of their children not being admitted to college for lack of traditional courses on their transcript.
Home Spring 97 Full Screen
The TEACHERS CLEARINGHOUSE FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY EDUCATION