CHAPTER 25

Scientific Literacy/Science Literacy

Douglas A. Roberts

University of Calgary

The title of this chapter deliberately includes two terms—scientific literacy and science literacy, abbreviated together as SL. The literature on SL has mushroomed in the past two decades. The concept has come to be used more and more extensively, in many countries, to express what should constitute the science education of all students— to the point where one author claims (perhaps overenthusiastically) that SL now enjoys “worldwide cachet” (McEneaney, 2003). At the same time, it is well known in the science education community that no consensus exists about the definition of SL.

In fact, there is a veritable deluge of definitions for SL. The term is used in research studies, in discussions and analyses of science education goals, in assessment programs, and in curriculum embodiments such as policies, programs, and teaching resources. Closely related literature, which cannot be ignored in a review of international scope, uses three other terms as well. In the context of analyzing European science education, Solomon (1998) uses the terms scientific culture and la culture scientifique (the latter term is also used in francophone Canada, for example). Public understanding of science (PUS—such an unfortunate acronym) is a phrase widely used in England (e.g., Durant, 1994; Hunt & Millar, 2000) and increasingly elsewhere (e.g., Miller, 1992). Incidentally, a colleague informs me that the term public understanding of science is becoming less popular because it “assumes a homogeneity of publics and of understandings”; hence the term public engagement with science is being used (J. Osborne, personal communication, July 19, 2004).

I shall argue that all of this diverse literature can be better understood if one comes to grips with a continuing political and intellectual tension that has always been inherent in science education itself. I refer to the role of two legitimate but potentially conflicting curriculum sources: science subject matter itself and situations in which science can legitimately be seen to play a role in other human affairs. These two sources have long been used to generate components of science learning— whether in pre-collegiate formal schooling or informal science education in museums and the like. At issue is the question of balance. What has become increasingly noticeable in the SL literature is a growing polarization between advocacy positions that argue for pressing these two sources to the extremes. That is, there seem to be two visions of SL that recently have come to represent the extremes on a continuum. I shall call them, simply, Vision I and Vision II, where a vision is a much broader analytical category than, say, a definition.

Vision I gives meaning to SL by looking inward at the canon of orthodox natural science, that is, the products and processes of science itself. At the extreme, this approach envisions literacy (or, perhaps, thorough knowledgeability) within science. I shall argue that the approach taken in producing Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993) approximates what I intend by identifying Vision I. Against that, Vision II derives its meaning from the character of situations with a scientific component, situations that students are likely to encounter as citizens. At the extreme, this vision can be called literacy (again, read thorough knowledgeability) about science-related situations in which considerations other than science have an important place at the table. The recent volume Rethinking Scientific Literacy, by Roth and Barton (2004), exemplifies Vision II. Whereas that volume comes from North American experience and scholarship, Vision II has older roots in England. Layton, Davey, and Jenkins (1986) introduced and exemplified the concept of “science for specific social purposes” nearly two decades ago. The same concept was presented later in elaborated form, in a slim and oft-cited volume titled Inarticulate Science? (Layton, Jenkins, Macgill, & Davey, l993), whose title signifies that often the science taught in schools does not mesh, or articulate, with the science needed to come to grips with science-related situations.

Although the two visions have quite different starting points and ends in view, it should be kept in mind that these are, in my construction, idealized extremes developed as a heuristic device. Assessment programs and curriculum embodiments partake of these two visions in a kind of mating dance wherein they complement one another. Vision I, rooted in the products and processes of science, has historically been the starting point for defining SL, which has then been exemplified by reaching out to situations or contexts in which science can be seen to have a role. Recently, however, an increasing number of voices have stressed the importance of starting with Vision II, that is, with situations, then reaching into science to find what is relevant.

The scope of the review is broad. Following the completion of this introduction, three major sections analyze approaches to defining SL, and a further section examines how assessment programs affect, and are affected by, the influence of the two visions. A sixth section, on implications of the review, completes the chapter.

WHAT'S IN A TITLE?

The chapter title is intended to be broadly inclusive. Scientific literacy is the more familiar term for many science educators. The term is predominant in the literature, and it has widespread current use in a number of countries. Science literacy is also familiar—especially to American science educators—as the term used in materials and publications of Project 2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1990 and subsequently). For some authors the distinction seems to be unimportant (e.g., Hurd, 1958, compared with Hurd, 1998; Shen, 1975; Carson, 1998). For others it is significant (e.g., Mayer, 2002; Marshall, Scheppler, & Palmisano, 2003).

It is interesting that Project 2061 used the term scientific literacy at the outset, when Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1989), or SFAA, was first published. Then, when the Oxford University Press edition of SFAA was published (AAAS, 1990), the term was changed to science literacy, and it has remained so in subsequent AAAS publications. I found this puzzling. At the suggestion of Project 2061 staff (J. E. Roseman, personal communication, January 9, 2003), I contacted the project's director emeritus to inquire about the reasons for the change (F. J. Rutherford, personal communications, January 16 and May 12, 2003). Here is his response. “… ‘science literacy’ refers to literacy with regard to science, while ‘scientific literacy’ properly refers to properties of literacy, namely literacy that is scientifically sound no matter what content domain it focuses on… . As far as I know, you are the only one who has raised the question, and most people seem satisfied with either construction.” Actually, Champagne and Kouba (1997) did raise a point about this matter. They comment that AAAS “uses the adjectival form science,” while the equally prominent (in the United States) National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) “uses the adjectival form scientific”—yet “the organizations have not publicly stated that the difference is significant” (p. 89). Strictly speaking, the word science is not an adjective, so the terms are not exactly parallel. Nonetheless, for purposes of this review I shall use the abbreviation SL, except where there is reason to distinguish the terms.

SL ON THE SCIENCE EDUCATION RADAR SCREEN

In devoting a full chapter to research on SL, the present handbook departs from the approach taken in earlier, similar handbooks. Hence the remainder of this introductory section is devoted to surfing previous handbooks and some other milestone collections, to document the noticeable increase in the amount of attention to SL in recent years. This will also serve as an overview of one particular subset of the SL literature—one that reveals the extent to which SL has been on the collective radar screen and research agenda of science educators, whether in a handbook or in a collection that reports on a forum, a symposium, or a research conference.

Seven Handbooks

In the past 10 years, two handbooks were devoted entirely to science education research. In one of them, Bybee and DeBoer (1994) included a brief section on the origins of SL (two pages) in their chapter about goals for the science curriculum. In the other, SL is mentioned at eight spots (12 pages in all), the most significant of which are in chapters by van den Akker (1998) and Bybee and Ben-Zvi (1998)—once again, on aspects of the science curriculum. Science literacy, as an independent term, does not appear in the index of either handbook.

The American Educational Research Association (AERA) has sponsored four versions, or editions, of a handbook of research on teaching and one handbook of research on curriculum, each of which has a chapter devoted to science education. Watson (1963) did not mention SL at all in his review. In the review by Shulman and Tamir (1973), the term is mentioned in passing in two places: one alludes to objectives for science education and the other concerns assessment. The term SL does not appear at all in the review by White and Tisher (1986); the handbook index shows no SL entries.

In the most recent edition of these AERA handbooks, White (2001) took quite a different tack from previous reviewers. He presents a picture of a revolution in research on science teaching by attending to such features of published research as questions, topics, method, etc., and showing how these features have shifted since Watson's review was published in 1963. White analyzed the ERIC science education summaries, in five-year increments spanning 1966 through 1995, according to their topics (the indicator of most interest here), as well as other features. He devised a very clever means for comparing the proportions (not the absolute number) of summaries devoted to different topics. In the case of scientific literacy (p. 459), the trend is as follows: 94 for 1966–70, 58 for 1971–75, 76 for 1976–80, 142 for 1981–85, 252 for 1986–90, and 209 for 1991–95. White did not discuss the substance of these summaries concerning SL, but it is clear that the topic has been active in the literature to varying degrees in the past 40 years—peaking in the 1986–90 period but remaining still quite robust in 1991–95. The index to this most recent AERA handbook does contain a reference to SL, but it refers to a chapter on assessment. No index entries appear for science literacy, as a separate term, in any of these handbooks.

There is almost casual mention of SL in the four AERA handbooks on teaching, and then only as a topic. In the AERA handbook on curriculum, by contrast, Fensham (1992) essentially—without explicitly saying so—used SL as one of the backbone concepts around which his chapter is built. The scope of Fensham's review includes both science education and technology education. For the science curriculum, he presents a major section about influences that have changed its substance internationally during two periods he labels “1950s/1960s” and “1980s and Onward” (p. 790 and p. 792, respectively). Noting the two “distinct targets” of school science, namely “a scientifically based work force” and “a more scientifically literate citizenry,” he points out that “At first sight it can appear that the achievement of either of these two targets … will also be a contribution to the other” (p. 793). He uses the 1960s reform projects to illustrate how “the apparent even-handedness” of statements of intent about serving both groups “gave way in practice to the interests the first target represents… . By giving priority to the curricula for these students [the specialist work force], the projects were explicitly rejecting the interests of the larger target group in scientific literacy” (p. 794). Despite Fensham's substantial discussion of SL, the index for this handbook contains no entries for either scientific literacy or science literacy.

Five Research Volumes from Europe, One Forthcoming

In April 1995, the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) was formed at a European Conference on Research in Science Education held at the University of Leeds (Retrieved April 18, 2005, from http://www.esera.net). In the compilation of selected papers from that conference, there are no index entries for SL, but there is passing mention of the concept in the paper by Ratcliffe (1996, p. 126). ESERA has sponsored four biennial conferences since then. (The fifth is planned for Barcelona in August 2005). From the first conference in Rome, in 1997, there are no index entries for SL in the published volume (Bandiera, Caravita, Torracca, & Vicentini [1999]). The volume based on the second conference, held at Kiel in 1999, contains two substantial papers on SL—one by Harlen (2001a) and one by Gräber, Nentwig, Becker, et al. (2001)—both in an entire section (one of six) devoted to SL, suggesting that SL had a relatively high profile at the conference. The third conference was held in Thessaloniki in 2001. The index to the volume of published papers (Psillos, Kariotoglou, Tselfes, et al., 2003) contains a single reference to SL, which Robin Millar discussed briefly in his Presidential Address. A published volume is forthcoming from Kluwer, based on the fourth ESERA conference at Noordwijkerhout in 2003.

Another volume on science education research in Europe reports an earlier conference in Malente, Germany, in late 1976, under the aegis of IPN (Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften) and the Council of Europe. I could find no mention of SL in this report (Frey, Blänsdorf, Kapune, et al., 1977). It is interesting from a historical viewpoint that the volume contains concrete proposals for establishing a European journal of science education and a European society for research in science education.

Four European Symposium Proceedings

In June 1989, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences organized a symposium, as one event to mark its 250th anniversary, with the title Science Education for the 21st Century. Torsten Husén chaired the symposium, and there were participants from Australia, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Sweden, USSR, and the United States. In his Preface to the proceedings, Husén notes that three questions were mentioned as major problems for science education, and the first is of most interest here. “What do we mean by ‘science literacy,’ the common core of science knowledge that citizens in a highly technological society ought to possess? How have the school systems in various countries been able to achieve this goal as evidenced by the IEA surveys of outcomes of science teaching?” (Husén & Keeves, 1991, p. vii).

In September 1996, an international symposium devoted entirely to the concept of SL was held at IPN. In their summary of the symposium, Gallagher and Harsch (1997) report that 30 participants from Germany, England, and the United States “examined the meaning of scientific literacy as an educational goal for secondary school students, its current status in secondary school science classes, impediments to achievement of scientific literacy, and what can be done to help more secondary school students achieve higher levels of scientific literacy” (pp. 13–14). In total, 25 papers were published in the symposium proceedings. To the best of my knowledge, this symposium was the first in science education research history to be devoted exclusively to SL as a research topic.

In November 1996, a symposium was convened in Oslo on “converging research interests in the issues of ‘public understanding of science and technology’ (PUST) and ‘scientific and technological literacy’ (STL)” (Sjøberg & Kallerud 1997, p. 5). The relationships among SL, PUS, PUST, and STL are of particular interest for this review. The published volume consists of seven papers by participants from Norway, England, and the United States.

“In the autumn of 2000, the 2nd Utrecht/ICASE [International Council of Associations for Science Education] Symposium brought together a variety of European colleagues to discuss about Teaching for Scientific Literacy.” So wrote Eijkelhof (2001) in the Preface to the proceedings. Twelve papers make up the published volume, produced by symposium participants from The Netherlands, England, Northern Ireland, Estonia, and Portugal. Other countries represented by the 40 participants were Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, and Poland.

Three Multi-national Initiatives: UNESCO, ICASE, and OECD

The sixth volume of the series Innovations in Science and Technology Education is introduced by Edgar Jenkins with the comment that the series (Jenkins is the current editor) was launched when the International Network for Information in Science and Technology Education (INISTE) was established by UNESCO in 1984. Volume 6, devoted to STL, is noteworthy for purposes of this review on two counts. First, Jenkins (1997) provides a thorough and most interesting review of “meanings and rationales” for STL in Part I. This serves to set the stage for Parts II and III, which are, respectively, about “theoretical perspectives” for STL and “realizing” STL. The conflation of meanings of scientific literacy (SL) and technological literacy (TL), a relative newcomer to the literacy literature, has a distinct embodiment in the purposes and substance of school programs in a number of countries, as described in the papers in Part III.

The STL theme appears also in the title of an international project—Project 2000+: Scientific and Technological Literacy for All—co-sponsored by UNESCO and ICASE. The first phase of this project included an international forum held in Paris in 1993. “400 participants from more than 80 countries enthusiastically demonstrated their commitment to the task of achieving scientific and technological literacy for the peoples of all nations” (Retrieved April 18, 2005, from http://nerds.unl.edu.icase/I_2000+.htm). In preparation for the forum, Penick (1993) prepared an annotated bibliography on SL containing “more than 250 published and unpublished sources” (p. ii). This item, a book based on “every article we could find that had something to do with scientific literacy,” was produced in limited quantity, but it remains available from the ICASE website (J. E. Penick [personal communication, November 25, 2003]). An augmented and updated version of Penick's bibliography was compiled for the third phase of the project (Layton, Jenkins, & Donnelly, 1994).

An initiative begun in 1989 by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation of OECD concentrated on science, mathematics, and technology education, resulting in the volume titled Changing the Subject (Black & Atkin, 1996). This volume is based on a set of 23 case studies of innovation in 13 OECD countries, and I mention it because of the periodic reference to SL in some of its chapters on science education case studies. Based on the OECD initiative, there is a subsequent three-volume set on the case studies in the United States, called Bold Ventures; this review will draw from Volume 2 (Raizen & Britton, 1997).

Reflections and a Current Indicator

As White's (2001) review indicated, SL has become much more prominent as a concept on the science education landscape in the past 20 years. That the concept has also become more significant within the science education research community is indicated by its inclusion as one of 12 major themes and topics in the SciEd Resource Assistant, initially produced by ERIC. According to the successor to the ERIC web-site (Educational Realms), the list of research strands used for organizing NARST conference programs “was modified slightly for our purposes to reflect what we felt were the topics of most immediate interest to education professionals and the scope of the ERIC collection” (Retrieved April 14, 2005, from http://www.stemworks.org/CD–1/). Actually, SL is not mentioned in the current NARST program strand titles and descriptors. Nevertheless, the CD contains 15 titles of available full-text ERIC documents and a further 15 recent research journal articles, all dealing with SL (Retrieved April 18, 2005, from http://www.stemworks.org/CD–1/CD/topics-sciliteracy.htm).

DEFINING SL, PART I: FOR WHOM, TYPES-AND-LEVELS, JUSTIFICATION ARGUMENTS

With very few exceptions, definitions of SL have concentrated on identifying what is of value for students over the long haul of a lifetime, irrespective of their career preferences and aspirations. The term was used initially in the late 1950s and early 1960s to call attention to the need to specify science curriculum appropriate for students not planning to pursue further science studies (see, e.g., Fitzpatrick, 1960; Johnson, 1962). Thus from its beginning SL has signified a curriculum orientation intended to be different from pre-professional preparation for scientifically oriented careers—the distinction to which Fensham (1992, p. 793) alludes. More recently, the familiar term science for all has come to be equated with SL appropriate for all students, whether they intend further science-related studies or not.

Two General Observations

The definitional literature for SL is anything but straightforward and focussed, yet two aspects of this literature became clear as I reviewed it. It is worth summarizing these at the outset, to provide the reader with some signposts for the three sections of the chapter that deal with definitions.

My first observation is this. There is no consensus about the meaning, or even the constituent parts, of SL—with one exception: everyone agrees that students can't be scientifically literate if they don't know any science subject matter. The literature contains many expressions of frustration about implications of the lack of consensus for both research and practice. On the face of it, that is a fair complaint. It is difficult to communicate about research results, such as international student assessments of SL, or to compare programs and teaching approaches that claim to advance SL, in the absence of a common definition. Yet, it is a simple statement of fact, in the practical world of policy formation, that a selected definition of SL is very much a function of the educational context in which the policy is to take effect. Once a definition has been selected, specified, and announced as an anchoring basis, the work of program development can go forward. In the case of SL, one of the best examples of tracing the conceptual flow entailed by this fact is Bybee's comprehensive treatment of “purpose, policy, program, and practice” (1997a, p. 1) as integrated and interdependent components of educational planning. Thus, for reasons of context dependence especially, perhaps consensus about one definition throughout the worldwide science education community is a goal not worth chasing.

DeBoer (2000) expresses that very point thus, at the close of his recent review of SL: “instead of defining scientific literacy in terms of specifically prescribed learning outcomes, scientific literacy should be conceptualized broadly enough for local school districts and individual classroom teachers to pursue the goals that are most suitable for their particular situations” (p. 582). McEneaney (2003, p. 217) allows that there is no consensus on defining the specifics of SL. She describes its “worldwide cachet” in terms of a “scientific literacy approach” that, in her view, enjoys worldwide attention as a science education goal. Her analysis is based on examples from curricular statements, textbooks, and assessment materials in a variety of countries.

My second general observation is that the literature can be grasped more easily by considering the approaches, or conceptual methodologies, that authors have used. Five of these are discernible, and they are used to organize the material that follows. One cluster of literature is historical, embedded in the discourse of professional science educators who have tried to synthesize and make sense of the multitude of definitions between about 1960 and 1980. Another concentrates on “types” and “levels” of SL in terms of justification arguments based on presumed learners’ needs. A third cluster seeks meaning for SL by concentrating on the word literacy, and a fourth seeks its meaning by focussing on science and scientists. Finally, there is the approach that draws on situations or contexts in which aspects of science are presumed and/or demonstrated to be valuable for students’ everyday lives. In the course of presenting the definitional literature according to these five categories, I shall weave in the substance of some quite different critiques of SL— by Shamos (1995); by Sjøberg (1997); by Garrison and Lawwill (1992); by Eisenhart, Finkel, and Marion (1996); and by Roth and Lee (2002, 2004) extended in Roth and Barton (2004).

Historical Development of SL as a Term in Science Education

Some 20 years ago I did an analysis of early historical development of the term SL, based on science education literature published in North America from the late 1950s until the early 1980s, in order to make sense of the diversity of definitions (Roberts, 1983). The starting point of this approach was to examine discussion of the term from the point of view of the logic of educational slogans. SL was introduced in professional science educators’ discourse as a slogan—a way to rally support for reexamining the purposes of school science (see, e.g., Hurd, 1958). At first, the SL discourse was primarily (although not entirely) on behalf of curriculum planning for the “90% of students” who are not “potential scientists” and who should therefore experience a “scientific literacy stream” (Klopfer, 1969).

From Slogan to Multiple Definitions

Slogans don't help professional science educators get on with their research and the practical work of specifying policy, planning programs, organizing teaching, and designing assessment. Definitions are needed instead. Between the late 1950s and the early 1980s, a very large number of writers in North America expressed their views about the definition of SL. In my analysis, I drew attention to a characteristic feature of the logic of educational slogans. Slogans must be interpreted, thus anyone moving (in the logical sense) from slogan to definition provides his or her own interpretation—within reasonable bounds. It is therefore not surprising that definitions appeared in abundance, and in considerable variety.

Striving for Consensus

Several authors have attempted to consolidate the definitions of this era into a synthesis that represented the meaning of SL for the science education community. I have selected three illustrative papers, all based on science education in the United States. (See Bybee [1997a, chapters 3 and 4] for a more extensive review and analysis of the consensus-building character of the American literature of this era, including the statements of professional associations such as NSTA, the [US] National Science Teachers Association.)

In 1966, Milton Pella and his colleagues in the Scientific Literacy Center at the University of Wisconsin in Madison reported a study of the “referents” authors had made to SL. On the basis of a comprehensive literature analysis, they identified 100 papers for further analysis and characterized SL with a composite picture based on six referents: “The scientifically literate individual presently is characterized as one with an understanding of the basic concepts in science, nature of science, ethics that control the scientist in his [sic] work, interrelationships of science and society, interrelationships of science and the humanities, [and] differences between science and technology” (Pella, O'Hearn, & Gale, 1966, p. 206).

Building on Pella's analysis and continuing the theme of consolidation, eight years later Michael Agin expressed the following concern. “Many individuals use the term ‘scientific literacy’ but fail to give it an adequate meaning… . A frame of reference should be established to help consolidate and summarize the many definitions” (Agin, 1974, p. 405). Agin used Pella's six categories to organize his own paper, drawing on even more literature (much of it post–1966) to embellish the categories by adding “selected dimensions” from among “the concerns and opinions of scientists and science educators” (p. 407).

The most exhaustive example of consensus seeking I have found is the doctoral study by Lawrence Gabel (1976). Gabel developed a theoretical model of SL based for the most part on statements of, or suggestions about, science education objectives related to interpretations of SL. His model expanded (refined, actually) Pella's six categories to eight, which constituted one dimension of a matrix. The other dimension included the six major categories of cognitive objectives and three categories of affective objectives from Bloom's taxonomies. Gabel reported that from the literature he was able to find examples for all but 16 of the 72 cells in this matrix (p. 92). He provided examples of the missing ones himself, to complete a consolidated picture of all of the possible objectives associated with SL—which, of course, is why it is a theoretical model, despite its substantial empirical basis for 56 of the cells (the complete matrix is shown in Gabel, 1976, p. 93). Thus did SL become an umbrella concept with a sufficiently broad, composite meaning that it meant both everything, and nothing specific, about science education.

A related but slightly different approach to analyzing the history of SL is to start with significant events in the educational history and culture of science education, especially the changing societal demands on the curriculum. The purpose of this approach is to understand how events have made a difference in science education policy statements over time, with specific reference to SL. DeBoer (1991, chapter 6) provides an excellent example of such analysis in the United States. (See also Bybee & DeBoer, 1994, and Matthews, 1994, chapter 3). Mayer (2002, chapter 2) has taken a similar approach, analyzing the history and place of Earth science education in the United States. He used for his book the inviting title “Global Science Literacy” to emphasize the point that he sees SL about the science of the globe itself as a viable curriculum platform for SL around the world. (See the review by Roberts, 2003.) Along the same conceptual and methodological lines, Jenkins (1990) presents a picture of the evolution of the SL concept in England.

Returning about a decade later to the historical events approach, DeBoer (2000) used as the significant event for his analysis the recent onset of contemporary standards-based reform efforts in the United States. He presents nine summary statements of science education goals that represent “a wide range of meanings of scientific literacy” (p. 591), essentially echoing Gabel's finding of a quarter century earlier to the effect that SL has now come to mean one, all, or some combination of the major goals to which science educators subscribe. DeBoer comments as follows, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of the initial intent of the SL slogan, “The one specific thing we can conclude is that scientific literacy has usually implied a broad and functional understanding of science for general education purposes and not preparation for specific scientific and technical careers” (p. 594).

Reflections on the History-of-Usage Approach

There is something comforting about a historical synthesis of definitions for an educational slogan such as SL. One gets a sense that despite the diversity of its definitions, SL did after all express a unity of purpose and meaning for science education by the beginning of the 1980s. In one sense, that is accurate. The focus of SL in the science education literature shifted from an image of curriculum appropriate solely for non-science-oriented students to aspects of science education appropriate for all students.

Definitional activity did not cease, however. Bybee (1997a) points out that during the 1980s, in the United States, “the term [SL] began to take on a symbolic value distinct from its past conceptual development because individuals used it in a variety of ways” (p. 59). This resulted in a substantial increase in the definitional literature—but that should not surprise us, as proliferation of definitions is to be expected in the case of educational slogans. Particular impetus for proliferation came from a variety of challenges to science education worldwide, during the 1980s. Fensham (1992) offers the example that many countries had begun retaining a higher percentage of young people in school for a longer time. As these students reached senior levels of schooling, it became increasingly imperative to pay attention to a curriculum in science that made provision for a “scientifically literate citizenry” as well as a “scientifically based work force” (pp. 793–795). (The reader can refer to Bybee [1997a] and DeBoer [2000] for accounts of further elaboration of the SL concept into the 1990s.)

The consolidation efforts of such writers as Pella, Agin, and Gabel show the manner in which Vision II of SL originated. For example, of the six categories of Pella's composite definition, science itself is the appropriate source for three of them (basic concepts in science, nature of science, and ethics that control the scientist's work). Those are based on Vision I. The other three (interrelationships of science and society, interrelationships of science and the humanities, and differences between science and technology), are based on Vision II—science-related situations.

Types and Levels of SL Needed by the Learner: Distinctions, Not Consensus

This approach takes a different starting point, concentrating on differences instead of consensus. Its purpose is the invention of categories that specify different types of SL according to what learners will be able to do with their SL. A number of writers cite Shen (1975) as their inspiration for this methodological approach. What did Shen actually say? “We may define science literacy as an acquaintance with science, technology, and medicine, popularized to various degrees, on the part of the general public and special sectors of the public through information in the mass media and education in and out of schools” (pp. 45–46). He defined three types of SL. (1) Practical —”possession of the kind of scientific knowledge that can be used to help solve practical problems … [such as] health and survival” (pp. 46–47). (2) Civic—”to enable the citizen to become more aware of science and science-related issues so that he and his [sic] representatives would [bring] common sense to bear upon such issues and thus participate more fully in the democratic processes of an increasingly technological society” (p. 48). (3) Cultural—”motivated by a desire to know something about science as a major human achievement… . It is to science what art appreciation is to art” (p. 49).

Types and Levels in a Curriculum Sequence

Shen's three categories represent qualitatively different types of SL, but I did not detect any suggestion that he placed them in a hierarchical arrangement. By contrast, the next two authors who take the types-and-levels approach (Shamos and Bybee) are talking about types and levels of SL for learners advancing through a curriculum.

Shamos (1995) proposed that different amounts of science are necessary for achieving Shen's three types of scientific literacy, thus converting them to levels in a hierarchy. His own three levels, a clear example of Vision I, “build upon one another in degree of sophistication as well as in the chronological development of the science-oriented mind” (p. 87).

• “1. Cultural scientific literacy. Clearly the simplest form of literacy is that proposed several years ago by Edward Hirsch, … by which he means a grasp of certain background information that communicators must assume their audiences already have” (p. 87). The reference is to Hirsch (1987). Related works along the same line are those by Hazen and Trefil (1991), and by Brennan (1992).
• “2. Functional scientific literacy. Here we … [require that] the individual not only have command of a science lexicon, but also be able to converse, read, and write coherently, using such science terms in perhaps a non-technical but nevertheless meaningful context” (p. 88).
• “3. ‘True’ scientific literacy. At this level the individual actually knows something about the overall scientific enterprise … the major conceptual schemes … of science, how they were arrived at, and why they are widely accepted, how science achieves order out of a random universe, and the role of experiment in science. This individual also appreciates the elements of scientific investigation, the importance of proper questioning, of analytical and deductive reasoning, of logical thought processes, and of reliance upon objective evidence” (p. 89).

About his third level, Shamos comments that it is a “demanding” definition. “But it only means that the term itself, ‘scientific literacy,’ has been used too loosely in the past and that, when viewed realistically, true scientific literacy, as defined here, is unlikely to be achieved in the foreseeable future” (p. 90). He goes on to estimate the number of individuals in the US and England who are truly scientifically literate to be on the order of 7%, respectively: approximately the number of professional scientists and engineers in each country. (This estimate cites the work of Jon Miller, discussed later in this review.)

It is unfortunate that Shamos used his analysis to attempt to discredit the idea of using SL as a way to express an overall orientation of science education goals. Much of what is otherwise a highly informative and thoughtful piece of work might be lost or neglected if readers react negatively to this apparent desecration of a current science education icon—i.e., dismissing SL as a “myth.” Essentially, Shamos sequesters “true” SL as an appropriate goal for science-oriented students only, but later in the book he drops the other shoe in a section titled “Science Awareness: A New Scientific Literacy.” There, he presents “three guiding principles for presenting science to the general (nonscience) student” (p. 217, emphasis original). Notice that these map directly onto Shen's three categories.

• “1. Teach science mainly to develop appreciation and awareness of the enterprise, that is, as a cultural imperative, and not primarily for content… .
• 2… . focus on technology as a practical imperative for the individual's personal health and safety, and on an awareness of both the natural and man-made environments… .
• 3. For developing social (civic) literacy, emphasize the proper use of scientific experts, an emerging field that has not yet penetrated the science curriculum.”

This last point is presented as an alternative to what Shamos sees as the “impossible task” of “educating all Americans in science to the point where they can reach independent judgments on [socioscientific] issues” (p. 216, emphasis original).

In a similar vein, Bybee (1997a, 1997b) has derived a framework that “presents scientific and technological literacy as a continuum in which an individual develops greater and more sophisticated understanding of science and technology” (Bybee, 1997a, p. 84; see also Bybee & Ben-Zvi, 1998, p. 490). (More is said about the conflation of science and technology later in this review.) This is a four-level framework.

• “In nominal literacy, the individual associates names with a general area of science and technology… . the relationship … [to] acceptable definitions is small and insignificant” (Bybee, 1997a, p. 84). Bybee includes misconceptions, naive theories, and inaccurate concepts as features of this level of SL.
• “Individuals demonstrating a functional level of literacy respond adequately and appropriately to vocabulary, … they can read and write passages with simple scientific vocabulary … [They] may also associate vocabulary with larger conceptual schemes … but have a token understanding of these associations” (pp. 84–85).
• “Conceptual and procedural literacy occurs when individuals demonstrate an understanding of both the parts and the whole of science and technology as disciplines… . At this level, individuals understand the structure of disciplines and the procedures for developing new knowledge and techniques” (p. 85).
• “Multidimensional literacy consists of understanding the essential conceptual structures of science and technology as well as the features that make that understanding more complete, for example, the history and nature of science. In addition, individuals at this level understand the relationship of disciplines to the whole of science and technology and to society” (p. 85). Bybee points out that his multidimensional SL reflects the composite definitions and frameworks for SL as described by Pella et al. (1966) and Agin (1974), among others.

Reflections on Types and Levels of SL

Shamos has made a sharp distinction between science education for science-bound students and non-science-bound students. That is, neither “true” SL nor “science awareness” has been defined as a broad curriculum goal appropriate for all students. This approach is at odds with the majority of the science education community's efforts, yet at the same time it is a stark and forthright acknowledgment that science education has to somehow resolve the problems associated with educating two very different student groups (at least two). It is tempting to think that Vision I (looking inward to science itself) could serve as the sole source or generator of curriculum for science-bound students, while Vision II (looking inward from situations to science) has emerged as the appropriate source of planning for non-science-bound, or general, students. This would be wrong-headed. Even Shamos doesn't think so. He notes the importance of Vision I for all students in the following terms: “Every science curriculum, regardless of its professed goals, should at least make clear to students what science is and how it is practiced” (p. 224). Similarly, he remarks on the importance of Vision II for the science-bound student, when he details the contents of a “curriculum guide for scientific awareness.” He points out that the science-bound student “might well be exposed to such topics early in his or her educational career” (p. 223).

Bybee does not differentiate between SL for science-bound and non-science-bound students. Indeed, his framework and his entire discussion is about making SL possible for all students, but he freely admits that “no one could possibly achieve full scientific and technological literacy” (p. 85), that “some [students] will develop further than others at all levels or within one, depending on their motivation, interests, and experiences” (p. 85). Bybee's framework is very much an idealized, complete and comprehensive universe of meanings from which curriculum developers can choose.

Justification Arguments

Closely associated with the methodology of identifying types and levels of SL is Millar's (1996) review and critique of several arguments (Thomas & Durant, 1987) promoting the public understanding of science, a term closely related to SL and used frequently in England (cf. Durant, 1994, p. 83). Noting that “The science curriculum functions as: first stages of a training in science, for a minority, and access to basic scientific literacy, for the majority” (p. 10), Millar raises two questions: “What would a science curriculum designed to promote scientific literacy for the majority look like?” and “Later, as a separate question, we might wish to ask: would such a curriculum also be a reasonable preparation for further study in science for the minority who so chose?” (p. 10). He clustered the arguments into four groups: economic, utility, democratic, and cultural/social.

Justification According to Situation

Ryder (2001), building on Millar's analysis and critique, identified functional scientific literacy as “science knowledge needed by individuals to enable them to function effectively in specific settings” (p. 3). Among Millar's groups of arguments, this notion of SL emphasizes “the utility, democratic and (to a lesser extent) the social arguments for why people should know something of science” (p. 3). Ryder analyzed 31 “published case studies of individuals not professionally involved with science interacting with scientific knowledge and/or science professionals” (p. 5) in such settings and activities as public inquiries, parental discussions with health care workers, media reporting, and judicial proceedings.

The analysis is developed around six main areas of science understanding featured in the studies: subject matter knowledge, collecting and evaluating data, interpreting data, modelling in science, uncertainty in science, and science communication in the public domain. Ryder reports extensively on the issues concerning individuals’ understanding associated with each area. Granting that “An understanding of subject matter knowledge is necessary for individuals to engage in many science issues,” he goes on to point out that “Overall, much of the science knowledge relevant to individuals in the case studies was knowledge about science, i.e., knowledge about the development and use of scientific knowledge rather than scientific knowledge itself” (p. 35).

Ryder concludes with implications of the notion of functional SL for compulsory science curriculum. It is important to keep in mind that he reported these implications at a time when the English National Curriculum for Science was being reviewed in rather fundamental ways—especially in terms of the possibility of instituting a compulsory course on SL for students at Key Stage 4 (14 to 16 years old). Some of the implications, then, were already being realized in changes underway as a result of the recommendations put forward in Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future (Millar & Osborne, 1998). Ryder reminds the reader that two of Millar's justification arguments are missing from his (Ryder's) functional SL concept: “science for cultural purposes, and science as a preparation for future science professionals,” and he comments also about “the conceptual challenge of communicating about many of the issues … to school age students”—suggesting that for some of his findings the concepts and issues may be “beyond the level of compulsory science education” (p. 38). He cites a new post-compulsory course called “Science for Public Understanding” as having already identified many of these more difficult concepts and issues. (See the student text AS Science for Public Understanding [Hunt & Millar, 2000] for this most interesting development. “AS” is the designation for an “Advanced Subsidiary” GCE qualification.)

Three further implications round out the paper, two of which have to do with the content of a compulsory course that would facilitate “the process of learning to engage with science as an adult.” These deal with important conceptual ideas of science (but not the usual more-than-needed packaging of typical science curricula) and “some coverage of social and epistemological issues.” The final implication has to do with encouraging in all students “a sense that science is a subject that they are capable of interacting with in later life” (pp. 38–39). All of Ryder's implications further buttress the recommendations for a compulsory course in SL for English schools, as presented in Millar and Osborne (1998). The latter document is discussed in more detail later in this review.

Christensen (2001) echoes many of the points in Ryder's paper. Because “science education has a crucial role to play in preparing future citizens to make personal and collective decisions on socio-scientific issues,” her argument goes, “new conceptions and approaches to scientific literacy are needed” (pp. 142–143). She points to “a shift over the past fifty years from a focus on content knowledge towards placing more importance on, and making more specific, the aspects of science by which it is involved with society and with individual lives” (p. 145), yet “this shift is only a beginning towards defining scientific literacy in ways appropriate for future citizens in a ‘knowledge/risk’ society” (p. 146). Citing “consistent findings of recent research into public understanding of science,” she finds a gap: “dimensions of scientific knowledge not usually considered in school science are foregrounded: [including] the uncertainty of much scientific knowledge, the evaluation of evidence, the use of experts and an entirely pragmatic conception of content knowledge” (p. 146). Christensen draws on the way literacy is framed in such disciplines as language education—more in terms of literacy as language practice (reading, writing) and as social practice, embedded in social situations and contexts—as she sketches a view of SL that is appropriate for (adult) PUS, “including proper understanding of the social construction of scientific knowledge and a critical ability to evaluate sources of scientific knowledge” (p. 152).

Justifying Science, or Technology?

Sjøberg (1997) also used a set of four clustered categories similar to Millar's, listing and describing them for the purpose of asking “the impertinent question: Are these sound, well-founded and valid arguments—or do they just constitute a convenient ideology for scientists and science educators?” (p. 17). He does not cite either Millar's article, or the one by Thomas and Durant on which it is based, but the four clusters are readily recognizable from Sjøberg's description. He presents them as follows.

• “The economic argument: science for preparation for work
• The utilitarian or practical argument: science for mastery of daily life
• Science for citizenship and democratic participation
• Science for cultural literacy, science as a major human product” (p. 17).

In a lively and very interesting discussion of counter-arguments for each of the four, Sjøberg draws attention to the significance of technology (more than science) in the first two, and the complexity of the science needed to deal intelligently with socioscientific issues in the third (reminiscent of Shamos). He notes his “sympathy” with the fourth (p. 22), recounting several problems with the idea. In the summary of his critique he returns to the conflation of S and T, thus. “[The] distinction between Science and Technology [is] important … because some of the arguments that are questionable for having science in the curriculum (and for the entire adult population) are indeed very valid arguments for including technology!” (p. 23, emphasis original). Thereafter, he returns to the question “What do we mean by ‘scientific literacy’?” and he, too, opts for specifying functional scientific literacy— although he does so “to draw attention to the culture- and context-dependency” of the term (p. 24).

Broader Justification through STL

The conflation of scientific and technological literacy (STL) is also a theme in the paper by Jenkins (1997), mentioned earlier. He notes that “The arguments for [STL] can be categorized in ways which reflect the different views of stakeholders” (p. 14). His categories for the arguments have much in common with those used by Millar and by Sjøberg. He begins with three, and identifies the stakeholders: “reference to national economic prosperity, raising the quality of decision-making or enriching the life of individuals, arguments which Layton has associated respectively with economic instrumentalists, with the defenders of participatory democracy and with liberal educationists (Layton, 1994, pp. 15–16),” (cited in Jenkins, 1997, pp. 14–15).

To these, Jenkins adds a fourth; no extrinsic justification is needed because S and T “are themselves important cultural activities” (p. 17). That is, “science offers a distinct and powerful way of understanding the natural world which justifies its claim to a seat at the table of those who would profess to be liberally educated” (p. 17). Similarly, “the history and philosophy of technology … offers some support to the claim that technology, as a unique and irreducible form of cognition, also has [an equal] seat at the same table” (p. 18). Finally, a fifth argument is noted. “[STL] offers … a means of redressing some social, economic or other injustices and imbalances … [and] an opportunity for a radical overhaul of scientific and technological education” (p. 18). Jenkins’ paper sets the stage for the rest of the volume, yet he brings it to a close with a cautionary note. “Although much of modern science and technology constitute an integrated system with research socially rather than theory driven, scientific and technological literacy are not the same and there is a need to explore distinctions and establish such common ground as may exist” (p. 33).

Reflections: Justification Arguments and Curricular Arrangements

Arguments justifying SL are used in two different ways. The first has reference to students and/or adults, in terms of the attributes that characterize a scientifically literate person. These we can call student-centered justifications. Invariably, such arguments have to be plausible from a student's point of view. The second has reference to system-wide (national, regional, local) curriculum policies. These we can call policy-centered justifications. Such arguments justify the arrangement of curricular offerings, so that systems can provide SL for students.

Among the most noticeable student-centered justifications is the argument behind the original SL slogan, to the effect that a special kind of program is needed for the large number of students who do not intend to pursue further study in science-related fields (cf. Klopfer, 1969; Fensham, 1992). In a similarly student-centered way, Shamos's “true” SL is reserved for science-bound students, and his “scientific awareness” refers to the non-science-bound. Shamos proposed a different kind of program for each group, as did Klopfer (1969) a quarter century earlier.

More recently, the phrase science for all has come to be equated increasingly with SL for all (regardless of future plans). Implications for curricular arrangements that could advance SL for all are seen in two very different approaches to curricular arrangements.

The first arrangement is the establishment of a separate, compulsory course that concentrates on SL. Hints of this development in England were seen above in the review of Ryder's paper, where reference was made to the report titled Beyond 2000 (Millar & Osborne, 1998). The second of that report's ten recommendations deals specifically with SL for 14- to 16-year-olds (Key Stage 4): half of their science time would be devoted to a mandatory (statutory) course on SL. (Options would be provided in the other half, for diversified interests in future general and applied science study.) The basis for this curricular arrangement is specified in the recommendation itself. “At Key Stage 4, the structure of the science curriculum needs to differentiate more explicitly between those elements designed to enhance ‘scientific literacy’, and those designed as the early stages of a specialist training in science, so that the requirement for the latter does not come to distort the former” (p. 10). In other words, the intent is to “unhook” students’ development of SL from pre-professional science education. The justification argument for SL in this particular case draws on “the cultural and democratic justifications for an understanding of science” (p. 11); the reader will recognize this language from Millar (1996). The definition of SL embodied in this recommendation is found in the description of the experimental project 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 April 14, 2005, from http://www.21stcenturyscience.org).

The project has been developing a Core Science course on SL for all Key Stage 4 students, and Additional Science courses, both Applied and General. (These courses are experimental and developmental at this time.) It is clear that the mandatory course on SL is based on Vision II, in that the overall learning outcomes flow from situations, not from the formal structure of science itself. The science content for the course is presented in “science explanations,” and students develop skills and background to reflect on science itself through a set of “ideas about science,” within which the content is contextualized. Along the same lines, a textbook has been developed for a post-compulsory course on public understanding of science (Hunt & Millar, 2000). So far as I can tell, the only other example of a separate, compulsory course on SL is the one developed in The Netherlands (De Vos & Reiding, 1999) for all grade 10 students. Further discussion of that course is reserved for a later section of this review.

The second curricular arrangement flowing from policy-centered justifications is to use an all-inclusive collection of justification arguments as the basis for the overall goals of a science curriculum. In this way, science curriculum policy can incorporate possibilities that accommodate all students—whatever their abilities, interests, and future plans—but do not necessarily provide every student with the same exposure to SL (as a compulsory course would do). In one sense, then, the intent is that SL permeates the entire science curriculum. The composite definitions that evolved in the North American science education community by the late 1970s are examples of this approach to specifying the basis for an SL curriculum policy. Other sources of a composite definition include the collection of five stakeholder arguments on behalf on STL, as stated by Jenkins, the totality of the argument clusters in Millar's paper, and Bybee's sequence of types of SL, to which I shall return in a moment. All of these composites define the universe that a whole curriculum has to incorporate. In other words, the policy is rich and comprehensive enough to allow for varying degrees of development of SL by students with different abilities, motivation, and future plans.

An example of combining justification arguments, which actually predates the publication of Millar's (1996) paper, is found in a policy advisory document released by the Science Council of Canada (1984). There it was recommended that: “the goal of scientific literacy for all can be achieved through a balanced curriculum in which science is taught with four broad aims in mind:

• To encourage full participation in a technological society;
• To enable further study in science and technology;
• To facilitate entry to the world of work;
• To promote intellectual and moral development of individuals (p. 10).

The document is the final report of a three-year study of science education in Canada (see Orpwood, 1985; Orpwood & Souque, 1985), and it has influenced science curriculum revision in Canada for the past two decades. Notice that the justification arguments do not apply in equal measure to every student. That is what makes such a stipulated definition of SL policy-centered, rather than student-centered.

Bybee's sequence of types of SL is an important conceptual basis for the approach taken to SL in the United States. The Call to Action at the beginning of the US National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996)—hereafter NSES—begins with “This nation has established as a goal that all students should achieve scientific literacy” (p. ix). SL is defined as follows. “Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the [NSES], the content standards define scientific literacy” (p. 22). The elaboration of the definition includes the following points:

• “a person can ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences
• a person has the ability to describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena
• entails being able to read with understanding articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions
• implies that a person can identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed
• [as] a citizen, should be able to evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it
• implies the capacity to pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately” (p. 22).

This definition has a strong Vision II flavor (as in Bybee's multidimensional SL). It is a policy framework that must be flexible enough to accommodate curriculum and course development for all students, so it is to be expected that students with different career goals (“different types of abilities,” noted above) will experience different kinds of courses. Nevertheless, there is no distinction in the SL definition for students who wish to pursue science-related careers and those who do not.

Seven “content standards” define SL, in this document. They are presented in clusters according to grade levels, namely K–4, 5–8, and 9–12, and there is an eighth (K–12) that is superimposed on all of the others, dealing with such overarching ideas as systems, models, change, equilibrium, etc. (pp. 115–119). Within each grade cluster, the seven topics are the same:

• Science as inquiry
• Physical science
• Life science
• Earth and space science
• Science and technology
• Science in personal and social perspectives
• History and nature of science (pp. 121–207).

There is an intended relationship between the three traditional subject matter standards (physical science, life science, Earth and space science) and the four context standards (inquiry, science-technology, personal/social perspectives, and history/nature of science). The intent is that subject matter is to blended with contexts. However, having elevated the context standards to the status of content, NSES is open to implementation problems, in my view. That is, one reading of the standards suggests that, in each year of a student's experience, a seventh of the time will be spent on the content and skills of each of the seven standards—meaning 3/7 on traditional science subject matter and 4/7 on the contexts. Elsewhere I have commented on this potential problem (Roberts, 2000), but it is clear to me that the approach to be taken in accomplishing all seven standards is to blend the traditional subject matter with the context standards. In fact, that point is stated clearly in the document (NSES, p. 113).

DEFINING SL, PART II: FOCUS ON LITERACY, FOCUS ON SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS

The Focus-on-Types-of-Literacy Approach

In what has been presented so far, there have been some brief forays into exploring adult SL. By and large, however, the preceding approaches to sorting out the definitional deluge reflect the preoccupations of science educators and science education policy makers, typically for primary and secondary school systems. Laugksch's (2000) review includes three other groups that have an interest in defining SL. A second group, “social scientists and public opinion researchers concerned with science and technology policy issues,” has an interest in such matters as public support for science and technology, and the public's attention to science and technology policy. A third, “sociologists of science and science educators employing a sociological approach to scientific literacy,” concentrates on individuals’ everyday interpretation and negotiation of scientific knowledge. The fourth group is “the informal and nonformal … science education community, and those involved in general science communication” (through science museums, science centers, botanical gardens, and zoos, e.g.), including “science journalists and writers, and relevant personnel involved in science radio programs and television shows” (p. 75).

Laugksch reminds us that the four interest groups direct their attention at different populations. The science education group (the first named) focuses largely on the SL of children and adolescents, while the social science approach of the second and third groups targets the SL of out-of-school individuals (i.e., adults). The “general science communication” (fourth) interest group, however, concentrates on promoting the SL of a combination of the three audiences—”that is, children, adolescents, as well as adults” (p. 76). According to Laugksch, it is important to specify the different audiences because a different conception of literacy is being used by each of the interest groups. “Three different interpretations and uses of ‘literate’ are considered here: literate as learned; literate as competent; and literate as able to function minimally in society” (p. 82, my emphasis).

Laugksch comments on the three conceptions as follows. Regarding the learned category, “interpretations appeared to be proposed only for the intellectual value of being scientifically literate” (p. 83). Shen's cultural SL and Shamos's true SL qualify. This is the only conception that is clearly Vision I. The competent category is described thus: “when a context was suggested in which a scientifically literate individual needed to operate …, or if a particular activity was required to be performed … . Competent relates … to the extent of the ability to carry out such tasks” (p. 83). Laugksch included the Project 2061 concept of SL and Shamos's cultural and functional SL in this category. The able to function category “was used if the suggested definition required the scientifically literate individual to play a particular role in society, such as, for example, that of a consumer … or citizen” (p. 83). In this category are Shen's practical and civic SL, as well as Jon Miller's SL (discussed below); the Project 2061 concept of SL is included here also. The significance of Laugksch's work, in my view, is its link to general conceptions of literacy.

Bailey (1998) has reported an analysis based also on conceptions of literacy in a more general sense. She used Scribner's (1986) three metaphors of literacy as a basis: Literacy as Adaptation, Literacy as Power, and Literacy as a State of Grace. Literacy as Adaptation refers to “the pragmatic value of literacy skills. Scribner links this metaphor to discussions of functional literacy or the level of literacy skills required to function effectively in a range of everyday situations in our society … a degree of acceptance of the status quo” (Bailey, 1998, p. 53). By contrast, “the Literacy as Power metaphor has an emancipatory interest… . the possession of literacy skills has been a powerful tool of elite groups within some societies, employed to maintain their relative position of advantage. Conversely, development of literacy skills is viewed as a means for poor or politically disempowered individuals to claim their place in society” (p. 53). Finally, “State of Grace is a very old [concept]. Scribner links this metaphor to the tendency of many societies to attribute special virtues to the literate person… . to be literate is considered synonymous with being cultured… . the literate person derives meaning for his or her life from participation in humankind's accumulated knowledge, available through reading and writing” (p. 53). Bailey used these three conceptions of literacy as the basis for an analytical framework to review a Canadian curriculum document (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada [CMEC], 1997). She concluded that it portrays Literacy as Adaptation, on the basis that “the document reflects a concern for preparing students to work in science- and technology-related jobs [and links] this effort to the improvement of Canada's relative place in the global economy” (p. 58).

The kind of SL conception Bailey developed for Scribner's Literacy as Adaptation metaphor had earlier attracted quite a drubbing in a critique by Garrison and Lawwill (1992), in light of their interpretation of reform efforts at that time in the US. After examining a variety of influential documents about educational reform, they conclude: “With notable exceptions much of the current call to reform science education and achieve something called ‘scientific literacy’ seems directed toward [the] end [of ‘economic competitiveness’]” (p. 338, emphasis original). Their critique calls special attention to morality. “Frequently educational reform, especially in mathematics and science education, is intended to improve human capital. There is something very chilling about describing human beings … in such an exclusively quantitative and reductionistic way… . Chaining science and science education to the goal of maximizing the economic production function … is immoral … because it treats students as means to the pecuniary ends of others” (p. 343).

Reflections on the Types-of-Literacy Approach

Until recently it has been unusual to find constructs and insights from the study of literacy in the literature on SL. The literature has tended to concentrate on specifying the details of two components of science curriculum that are closer to home, so to speak. Typically, learning outcomes or goals have been specified within science (scientific knowledge) and about science (“companion meanings”—i.e., meanings derived from such focus areas as the nature of science and STS [Roberts, 1998]). The following brief comments are about literacy's links to SL—first to Vision I, then to Vision II.

In their case study of AAAS Project 2061, Atkin, Bianchini, and Holthuis (1997) point out that “Use of the word ‘literacy’ … is noteworthy,” as the term “was not generally employed during the 1960s round of science curriculum reform.” They offer an explanation to the effect that the 1970s emphasized the “basics,” stressing “core skills, traditionally associated with subjects like reading, computation, and communication.” They suggest that “Many of those interested in promoting and improving science education began to … talk about scientific literacy,” implying that to know about science is as necessary “as to know how to read, compute, and communicate” (p. 191).

That explanation comes, obviously, from the perspective of curriculum politics, yet the meaning of literacy in the SL concept itself is left as something of a black box. Opening that black box from the point of view of Vision I has been the agenda of a significant strand of more recent research and writing. For example, Norris and Phillips (2003) begin by distinguishing between a fundamental sense of SL—”reading and writing when the content is science”—and a derived sense of the term— “being knowledgeable, learned, and educated in science” (p. 224). They argue that conceptions of SL “typically attend to the derived sense of literacy and not to the fundamental sense” and contrast the fundamental sense (which they link closely to understanding text) against “a simple, word-recognition-and-information-location view of reading that remains prominent in literacy instruction” (pp. 224–225). One of the most significant implications of their distinction has to do with the distortion of meaning that can come from assessment programs, and they comment specifically about Jon Miller's work (discussed in a later section of this review). They point out that “his vocabulary dimension risks equating successful reading with knowing the meaning of the individual terms” and that it “appears to assume that only scientific constructs need to be known to understand scientific text” (p. 227). As well, “focussing upon the derived sense of literacy as knowledgeability in science has … created a truncated and anemic view of scientific knowledge as facts, laws, and theories in isolation from their interconnections” (p. 233).

A more elaborate framework for literacy in Vision I SL—particularly the educational implications—is found in a recent editorial description (Hand, Alvermann, Gee, et al., 2003) of an international conference held in September, 2002, on Vancouver Island, Canada. (The participants, including Norris and Phillips, refer to themselves as the “Island Group.”) They maintain that research and practice in all of the recognized language arts (including reading, writing, speaking, listening, and representing) are highly significant for understanding and realizing SL in the fundamental sense just described. Researchers in cognitive science, linguistics, language education, and science education informed one another and addressed “key issues not normally emphasized by the science education research community” (p. 609). They present the structure of their discussions according to four perspectives: students’ formal and informal literacies, vernacular language, reading in science, and writing in science.

In this review, it is Laugksch's work that sets the stage for recognizing literacy in a Vision II sense. His learned category acknowledges Vision I. The competent and able to function senses of literacy reflect the broader picture of situations (Vision II) in which SL is being promoted as important for purposes other than those of the academic science culture.

The Focus-on-Science-and-Scientists Approach

Mining the Scientific Canon

The Project 2061 term science literacy is now common parlance among science educators in the United States. I have identified this term as Vision I on the basis of two considerations: the substance of the definition itself, and the source of its legitimation in the orthodox scientific canon.

The Project 2061 conception of SL was established initially on the basis of five reports developed in the period 1985–1989 (Phase I) under the aegis of “the National Council on Science and Technology Education—a distinguished group of scientists and educators appointed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science—on what understandings and habits of mind are essential for all citizens in a scientifically literate society” (AAAS, 1989, p. 3). “Five independent scientific panels” developed the reports, and the council solicited broad consultation and review. All told, the process involved “hundreds of individuals” and culminated in the sixth report of the collection, the familiar Science for All Americans (SFAA), which was unanimously approved by the AAAS Board of Directors (p. 3). The definition of SL is presented thus, in SFAA:

the scientifically 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. (p. 4, my bullets; not changed in OUP edition)

(The details of this definition were not changed in the OUP edition of SFAA although, as noted earlier, the term scientific literacy was changed to science literacy.)

Two aspects of this process and its resulting definition of SL are significant for the present review. The first is the impressive sense of authority that results from a process of consulting so many scientific experts, and subsequently obtaining the endorsement and continuing support of one of the world's premiere scientific organizations. The second is the unusual breadth of the subject matter considered to be science. The scope of Phase I included technology, information sciences, engineering, social sciences, health sciences, and mathematics, in addition to the attention typically paid in such ventures to the more familiar cluster of natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry, biology, and geology. To be sure, the panels were not given free rein to include every single concept from their disciplines, or even their favorite ones. On the contrary, the “national council” was under a tight rein. The curriculum had been characterized for them as already “overstuffed and undernourished” as a result of growing over the years “with little restraint” (p. 15). These aspects of Project 2061, and many others, are examined in great and very interesting detail in the case study mentioned previously (Atkin, Bianchini, & Holthuis [1997]). My comments about each will therefore be brief, rather than comprehensive.

(1) Asking scientists to define, or at least suggest, the essential subject matter content for school science has often been a part of science education, to varying degrees. Nevertheless, the sheer investment of time and resources in Phase I of Project 2061 is staggering to contemplate, until one reflects on what is involved in a thoroughgoing delineation of Vision I. The impetus for the project is total, systematic reform of science education K–12, over decades, which requires enormous commitment from a society. An expressed and repeatedly confirmed endorsement by such an organization as AAAS can be seen, then, as a way of garnering lasting support for the effort as well as reaching a clear understanding of what constitutes SL—at least, in the eyes of the scientific community. The cornerstone of Phase I is the belief that we can have enough confidence in science itself to make it worthwhile to see the reform through to its distant conclusion. Such confidence is expressed in this way: “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).

(2) It was certainly unusual to include such a broad array of disciplines in the early stages of defining SL. That is, the five panel reports developed as the basis for SFAA are Physical and Information Sciences and Engineering, Biological and Health Sciences, Mathematics, Technology, and Social and Behavioral Sciences. Other definitions of SL have incorporated understandings from some of these “outlying” disciplines, such as engineering and social sciences, but have done so as components of the contexts or “companion meanings” (Roberts, 1998) within which natural science subject matter itself is to be studied. In the case of AAAS, such understand-ings—as well as understandings from such disciplines as history and philosophy of science—appear to be part of the subject matter base of science education, all under the umbrella of scientific knowledge and “habits of mind.” As a consequence, the subsequent documents Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and Atlas of Science Literacy (AAAS, 2001) provide quite specific academic content requirements for understanding such aspects of SL as the nature of science, human society (including decision-making), and nature of technology (including its interdependence with science and society).

Thus, for example, the “map” for Social Decisions in Atlas (AAAS, 2001) shows the following understanding in the group of 9–12 benchmarks: “In deciding among alternatives, a major question is who will receive the benefits and who (not necessarily the same people) will bear the costs” (p. 103). The implication is that understanding the statement (among others) makes one an informed decision-maker. This is decidedly a Vision I approach to SL. By contrast, other definitions (e.g., Ryder's [2001] functional SL) take socioscientific situations as a starting point (Vision II) and inquire about what understandings people actually use when they make a decision, not what they understand about scientists’ understanding of the decision-making process. To be sure, Project 2061 has separated issues of defining SL from curriculum and implementation issues, as elaborated in Designs for Science Literacy (AAAS, 2000). Nevertheless, this feature of their definition of SL is noteworthy for its focus on scientists’ academic understanding of such endeavors as societal decision-making, to the exclusion of such considerations as morality and values. (By contrast, a recent volume [Zeidler, 2003] is devoted entirely to examining the role of moral reasoning about socioscientific issues in science education discourse.)

The Scientists Communicate

Another view of what scientists have to say about SL displays the sense of science as a cultural product—a thing of beauty and elegance in its own right. In this genre of writing about SL, one example is the recent volume titled Science Literacy for the Twenty-First Century (Marshall, Scheppler, & Palmisano, 2003). This collection of essays includes contributions by prominent, articulate scientists who describe— often eloquently—their experience in science (frequently, as well, the joy they find in teaching it). Scientists who prepare essays and books of this sort do not so much try to define SL as try to express their sense of it. This genre is probably the oldest writing about SL we have—it is no doubt the kind of thing C.P. Snow was writing about in his famous “two cultures” essay. It may also be reflective of the true SL Shamos described, and the sense of SL as a State of Grace noted by Bailey/Scribner. The best of this writing is highly cultured and inspiring through its elegance.

Similarly, an emerging field of studies called science communication rests on a multi-faceted message about SL and PUS—multi-faceted because it appears to be motivated both intellectually and politically. Professionals in this field concentrate on analysis of what and how scientists, journalists, and others should and do communicate about science to the general public. In a recent collection of essays about science communication, the editors begin their introduction and overview with the assertion that “It is widely accepted that the importance of the communication of science to the public can be summarised under five headings … economic, utilitarian, democratic, cultural, and social” (Stocklmayer, Gore, & Bryant, 2001, p. ix). Although the source of those categories—Millar (1996) and Thomas & Durant (1987)—is not explicitly acknowledged at this point, the categories themselves are by now familiar to the reader. The editors review and critique the five arguments, but their vantage point is not the same as Millar's—nor do they reach the same conclusions. Their interest is in the consequences of having an impact on the public's understanding of science, rather than in justifying the arguments for shaping school science.

The collection itself is wide-ranging. SL, as a concept, is mentioned seldom in its 18 chapters. Overall, the discourse has an aura of proselytizing, of transmitting the scientist's message to the public, from the scientist's point of view.

Those of us who find scientists’ reflective writings eloquent and informative are already educated in science. The discourse belongs to the academic science culture, to borrow a term from Joan Solomon (1998). If the intention of such writing is to increase public understanding of science, surely it is important to recognize a distinction Solomon makes between two kinds of scientific cultures. “One, ‘popular’ scientific culture, refers to the concerns of the public, so important within their own local culture and often having a scientific and technological basis. Against that, a culture of academic science is much more restrictive” (p. 170). The distinction has its counterpart in different kinds of school science offerings. Noting that STS courses “have popular scientific culture as one of their objectives,” she points out that classroom discussions based on moral positions and value judgments take place and create “an element of full-blooded popular communication with all its moral and political elements of argumentation” (p. 170). (Solomon's [1992] account of the Discussion of Issues in School Science [DISS] Project provides informative examples of, and insights about, 16- to 18-year old students’ deliberations on socioscientific issues.)

Solomon (1998) continues, “Academic science itself bids to be … common across the invisible college that unites professional scientists from around the world.” This comparison leads her to raise two questions. “Can science be taught so that it connects with attitudes, personal values, and political issues? This would indeed make science a part of popular culture. But would it still be science?” (pp. 170–171). Such questions express the crux of the tensions between Vision I and Vision II.

In further discussion of the culture concept as it applies to European science education, Solomon distinguishes the French term la culture scientifique from both Public Understanding of Science in the United Kingdom and Scientific Literacy in North America. “The European nations pride themselves on their long history of prestigious knowledge. It includes such venerable subjects as philosophy and the arts, without which a person in previous ages might not have been considered fit to take an honorable place in educated discourse. Culture, in this sense, holds a more elitist place in general estimation than does literacy” (pp. 171–172). Granting that the concept of culture itself applies in many contexts and does not represent only some elitist self-contained reality, Solomon concludes her paper by distinguishing three purposes for school science education (p. 176).

• “‘Academic’ scientific culture … must be cultivated [for] those who may become the next generation of science scholars.”
• “vocational preparation in science-related fields … for example, engineering, medicine, and computer technology. It is harder to identify these with any particular ‘kind’ of school science program.”
• “‘Popular’ scientific culture is just as significant: the promotion of a wide scientific and technical culture … in order that everyone can appreciate new developments and can evaluate them for their own and others’ styles of living.“

Reflections on the Focus-on-Science-and-Scientists Approach

The AAAS definition of “science literacy” focuses on the way science views all aspects of the natural world and of human behavior, excluding from consideration such societal concerns as morality, values, and politics. The science communication enterprise is strikingly similar in its effort to put across the message that science, and a scientific perspective, is the preferred way to think about the objects and events of experience, and by extension about decision making with regard to socioscientific issues. Both of these are distinctly Vision I. By contrast, Solomon's description of popular science culture, and its counterpart in STS courses, embodies much more than scientific understanding and a scientific perspective on situations. Her phrase “full-blooded popular communication with all its moral and political elements of argumentation” captures the essence of Vision II.

DEFINING SL, PART III: FOCUS ON SITUATIONS

Questioning Vision I

Eisenhart, Finkel, and Marion (1996) have questioned in some detail whether the Project 2061 definition of SL—Vision I—is appropriate. They also question the results, in their view, of implementation of the US National Science Education Standards. Even acknowledging that the vision of SL in NSES is “democratic, socially responsible uses of science,” they characterize current implementation in the US as concentrating “narrowly on key content: specifying what facts, concepts, and forms of inquiry should be learned and how they should be taught and evaluated” (p. 266). The authors point out that, in the implementation efforts, there seems to be an assumption “that producing citizens who can use science responsibly and including more people in science will naturally follow from teaching a clearly defined set of scientific principles and giving students opportunities to experience ‘real’ science” (p. 268, emphasis original). Their paper includes interesting examples of teaching approaches and materials designed to foster what they call “socially responsible science use” (p. 283)—a concept that entails learning science in situations where it will actually be used (Vision II of SL).

The focus-on-situations approach to SL has a familiar ring, for anyone acquainted with the work of David Layton and his colleagues on Science for Specific Social Purposes (discussed below). In two recent articles, Roth and Lee (2002, 2004) follow up on the line of thinking expressed by Eisenhart et al., and take it further on theoretical grounds. They assert that “reformers [an unidentified group] have consistently used a limited view of what scientific literacy might be; that is, they always maintained the scientists’ version of science while disregarding the version of others. Consequently, … [science] in high school and university textbooks [is] said to be the prerequisite for appropriately coping in a modern world.” This view of SL amounts, then, to requiring “a certain amount of scientific knowledge on the part of the individual” (Roth & Lee, 2002, p. 34, emphasis original). Against that, the authors “conceive of scientific literacy as a property of collective activity rather than individual minds” (p. 33).

The two articles report on a number of aspects of a three-year study centered on an environmental problem in a community in the Pacific Northwest (“Oceanside,” a pseudonym). Middle school children participate with other community members to develop the knowledge base appropriate for taking action about a local creek, in which water quality has been seriously compromised over time. “Parents, activists, aboriginal elders, scientists, graduate students, and other Oceanside residents … constituted the relevant community in the context of which our seventh-graders learned” (Roth & Lee, 2004, p. 273). From these two richly detailed accounts, the authors describe an alternative perspective on SL that emphasizes its collective (rather than individual) quality, the idea that in a democratic society “all forms of knowledge that contribute to a controversial or urgent issue are to be valued” (science being but one of many), and the point that experiencing an everyday situation as a learning context can mean that the students “could continue this participation along their entire life spans” (p. 284).

Roth and Barton (2004) continue exemplifying and promoting consideration of Vision II SL, in their presentation of case studies of project-based successes of marginalized persons—poor, female, minorities, homeless, aboriginal, and “coded” (e.g., ADHD). Roth's chapters in the book draw on further analysis of the Ocean-side study. Barton's chapters concentrate on two different settings: working with children and teenagers in after-school programs at homeless shelters in New York City, and narrative accounts of the working lives of three female science educators in an urban area of Pakistan. The authors argue for a broad definition of SL in these situations, sometimes straining the reader's credulity to accept that the several kinds of knowledge exemplified can actually be said to fall under the SL umbrella. It is the real-ness of the situations and the participants’ experience (a familiar feature of project-based work) that prompts the authors to raise questions about science curriculum policy and planning. School science activities are said to be artificial, disconnected from the real purpose of participation in (genuine) community affairs. Even “school-based mock activities … designed to empower students to deal with science and scientific experts on emerging socio-scientific issues” are deemed to be inadequate, because “students have to play the roles of scientists, environmental activists, or local residents in a pretend activity” (p. 176, emphasis original).

Science for Specific Social Purposes (SSSP)

Pre-dating Roth and Barton by roughly two decades, Layton, Davey, and Jenkins (1986) presented a picture of situated knowledge—motivated especially by their concerns about the inadequacy of assessment programs. Basic to their argument is the point that PUS and civic (public, adult) SL are manifest in specific situations, hence the scientific knowledge people employ in those situations is contextualized according to what the situation requires. This is, of course, Vision II. Nevertheless, they point out, many testing programs for adult SL (and student SL also, I would add) incorporate a set of decontextualized knowledge items selected on some arbitrary basis. Thus there is something of a strained connection between a correct response to such items as “Which travels faster, sound or light?” and the extent to which an individual can be said to understand and/or engage intelligently in debate about a socioscientific issue. In a word, as noted earlier, the scientific knowledge being tested does not articulate or mesh well with the contexts in which one might expect learners to use it. Layton et al. (1986) introduced the term science for specific social purposes (SSSP) to capture the point that the context or situation of a socioscientific issue (or even an explanation) has a strong influence on the knowledge people bring to bear on it.

To clarify and exemplify the SSSP concept, the authors present a most engaging overview of adult SL in England during the nineteenth century, which suggests that “different social groups saw in science an instrumentality for the fulfillment of their specific intents” (Layton et al., 1986, p. 32). For example, “Chemistry for precious metal prospectors … was different from chemistry for agriculturalists and again from chemistry for public health officials” (p. 30). In commenting on the importance of SSSP to the assessment of public SL, Jenkins (1997) notes that “any estimation is likely to be most useful when it relates to a particular group of citizens addressing a specific issue of common concern to that group, for instance, … a community exploring how best to provide and maintain a supply of clean drinking water” (p. 23, and cf. Roth & Lee [2002, 2004]). Obviously, to use that issue and situation in an assessment program, one would have to contextualize reasonable and pertinent items about water chemistry, water biology, ecology, etc, in the situation.

The impact of re-framing the vision of adult SL and civic SL in this way is to get away from the idea that a generalized test of “cognitive deficit” in scientific knowledge is a meaningful way to make a connection to SL at all. Jenkins continues, “Fundamental to the notion of science for specific social purposes is a rejection of the so-called ‘cognitive deficit’ understanding of scientific literacy in favour of a more interactive model (Layton et al., 1993)” (Jenkins, 1997, p. 23). The differences, laid out in tabular form by Jenkins (p. 24), are described in terms of adult SL, or PUS. I want to single out two of those differences just to provide a flavor of the two models.

The cognitive deficit model sees PUS as highly dependent on science itself (Vision I of SL)—i.e., “central to decisions about practical action in everyday life”— whereas in the interactive model science “is often marginalized or ‘off-centred’ when integrated with other kinds of knowledge relevant to such decisions.” (That's Vision II.) Also, “Scientific thought is the proper yardstick with which to measure the validity of everyday thinking” in the cognitive deficit model, while the interactive model holds that “everyday thinking and ‘knowledge in action’ are more complex and less well understood than is scientific thinking.” This is not to say that scientific knowledge is unimportant. It is, however, to point out the significance of taking the situation as a starting point, rather than the scientific canon itself, when planning assessment. One is, after all, assessing a reasoning pattern that resembles Aristotelian praxis in these situations, and knowledge premises are a significant part of the logic and coherence of the practical syllogisms that characterize the praxis thinking pattern. The knowledge has to be carefully selected, however, and integrated with other features of the situations such as value premises. Layton (1991) explores these matters further.

A Third Curricular Arrangement: Recognizing the Significance of Vision II

Science curriculum revision that recognizes and mandates embedding science subject matter in situational contexts has been underway in Canada for the past decade. This curricular arrangement obviously differs from the approach taken by 21st Century Science. It also differs from the arrangement of the NSES framework, where the contexts are identified, but inclusion of them in local curriculum development would have to be mandated at the state level.

Canada does not have a national curriculum. Jurisdiction over educational matters resides with the governments of the ten provinces and three territories. The most recent science curriculum revision has been based on a nation-wide “framework” (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada [CMEC], 1997) to which provincial ministers of education subscribed in hopes of providing common ground and more consistency in learning outcomes for science across the country. The framework “is guided by the vision that all Canadian students, regardless of gender or cultural background, will have an opportunity to develop scientific literacy.” SL is defined as “an evolving combination of the science-related attitudes, skills, and knowledge students need to develop inquiry, problem-solving, and decision-making abilities, to become lifelong learners, and to maintain a sense of wonder about the world around them” (p. 4).

The definition is made operational by specifying four “foundation statements,” one each for skills, knowledge, and attitudes, and a fourth for “science, technology, society, and the environment (STSE)” (p. 6). Acquisition of science-related skills, knowledge, and attitudes, according to the document, “is best done through the study and analysis of the interrelationships among science, technology, society, and the environment (STSE)” (p. iii). Implicit in that statement, and more explicit in several provincially mandated curricula based on it, are two important features of the meaning of SL. First, the “science-related skills, knowledge, and attitudes” specified in the respective foundation statements for those three areas are to be developed through the STSE situations and challenges comprising the fourth. That is, the expectation is that curricula and textbooks will provide opportunities for students to learn about STSE interrelationships at the same time they are learning science subject matter, skills, and attitudes. This simultaneous learning is envisioned as happening through contextual communication, in which units of science subject matter are organized to stress three (one at a time, essentially) “broad areas of emphasis:

• a science inquiry emphasis, in which students address questions about the nature of things, involving broad exploration as well as focussed investigations [this is an emphasis on the nature of science];
• a problem-solving emphasis, in which students seek answers to practical problems requiring the application of their science knowledge in new ways [this is an emphasis on science and technology];
• a decision-making emphasis, in which students identify questions or issues and pursue scientific knowledge that will inform the question or issue [this is an emphasis on socioscientific issues]” (p. 8).

Second, although this is not stated explicitly in the document, these three areas of emphasis correspond to the Aristotelian trilogy (theoria, techne, praxis) that classifies three different human purposes, namely seeking warranted knowledge, making beautiful and useful things, and arriving at defensible decisions, respectively. A different pattern of reasoning is used in each, and the skill set associated with each emphasis is identified accordingly. Hence SL is operationally defined as the student's grasp of the way science itself permeates human affairs across this broad trilogy of purposes. (Predating the Pan-Canadian framework, this organization of a science curriculum policy was implemented in the province of Alberta, as described by Roberts, 1995.)

Reflections on the Focus-on-Situations Approach

Writers who advocate Vision II SL raise three serious challenges for science education, in my view. I shall comment very briefly on these, according to the topics of assessment, curriculum planning, and the character of science classroom discourse.

Assessment programs—especially if cross-national—are made much more complex, if Vision II SL is taken into account. This matter is pursued in the section immediately following. Two points are important here. First, students’ experience of situations, especially as described in Roth and Barton (2004), is local and virtually one-of-a-kind. This feature of Vision II creates significant problems for cross-national, or even national, comparisons. Second, a related concern is the daunting challenge of getting away from the “cognitive deficit model” of assessment in science, as discussed by Jenkins (1997).

Curriculum planning and implementation are complicated by the fact that Vision II takes as its starting point a context, rather than a formal knowledge structure. In the case of Canada's framework (CMEC, 1997) and provincial curricula based on it, the most likely chance of success has been to mandate that certain units of study (e.g., Heat) be taught in a selected context or emphasis (e.g., science and technology). Instructional resources that are approved follow suit. Supporting materials often recommend (in some cases, mandate) that teachers use the familiar learning cycle approach to planning, in order to ensure that situations receive attention and that subject matter is integrated as required for understanding the situation.

The increasing attention to inclusiveness in science education is part of what animates discussion about Vision II. It is imperative, in Vision II SL, that situations be an important focus of science classroom discourse, yet such discussions require teachers to embrace “discourse universes” that are unfamiliar—such as the aboriginal oral history that was an important part of the Oceanside case study (Roth & Lee, 2002, 2004). A number of writers cite Jean Lave's work on situated cognition as an important source for understanding (e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991). Others concentrate on the character and quality of argumentation in classroom discussions about socioscientific issues (e.g., Zeidler, Osborne, Erduran, et al., 2003). Wynne (1995) describes one research approach based on “the reconstruction of the ‘mental models’ that laypeople appear to have of the processes that are the object of scientific knowledge” (p. 364). He cites, for example, lay models of home heating to illustrate how knowledge based on such mental models differs from “theoretical knowledge, handed down from science as the ‘correct’ knowledge against which to measure public understanding” (p. 372). All such matters as these are challenges to science educators, if Vision II is taken seriously.

WHAT IS BEING ASSESSED, IN THE NAME OF SL?

This section concentrates on the meaning of SL used as a basis for measurement in four prominent assessment programs. Two of these are independent of professional science education: the work of Jon Miller in the US and increasingly in other countries, and that of John Durant in England. The other two are used in international testing programs and have involved science educators worldwide: the mathematics and science literacy (MSL) component of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the OECD-sponsored Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In each case, the conceptualization of SL is described first, and a commentary follows.

Jon Miller's Assessments of Scientific Literacy

There is good reason to go into a bit of detail about Miller's estimates of SL, whether or not one agrees with them. Miller maintains a high profile as a commentator on SL especially in the US but increasingly around the world, since his methodology has now been used for replication studies in more than 20 countries. He is Director of the International Center for the Advancement of Scientific Literacy, founded by the Chicago Academy of Sciences in 1991, now located at Northwestern University (Retrieved April 13, 2005, from http://www.cmb.northwestern.edu./faculty/jon_miller.htm). For more than two decades, he has designed and conducted the periodic national studies Science and Engineering Indicators, polled regularly by the (US) National Science Board. The results of these assessments play a role in his estimates of SL among both adults and students in schools and colleges. In the US, such results are potentially a direct reflection on the school system—especially now that his Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY) results have generated equations that “predict” SL on the basis of a large number of curriculum-related (as well as home-related) factors (see Miller, 2000).

The Definition Shifts

Miller's work is based on Vision I, but initially it was planned to embrace Vision II as well. The paper most frequently cited in the literature (Miller, 1983) appeared in an issue of the journal Daedalus that was devoted entirely to SL (American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 1983). In that paper, SL is presented as a construct with three components. The first two are defined in terms of the history of assessment in science education, as two separate strands: “definition and measurement of the scientific attitude” by science educators in the US starting in the 1930s, and assessment of “the level of cognitive scientific knowledge” among various groups in the school population as part of the postwar (WWII) growth of standardized testing, also in the US. These two strands were combined in the (US) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) studies beginning in the mid–1960s—”the first to measure systematically both the understanding of the norms, or processes, of science and the cognitive content of the major disciplines.” To these Miller added a third component—one that essentially reaches out to embrace Vision II: “awareness of the impact of science and technology on society and the policy choices that must inevitably emerge” (p. 31).

The assessment procedure specified that an individual must achieve minimal competence on all three dimensions, or components, in order to be declared scientifically literate. Here are examples of the results. In a 1979 survey, the instrument “included all of the items necessary to measure each of the three dimensions of scientific literacy” (Miller, 1983, p. 36). “On the basis of this measure, only 7 percent of the respondents [N 1635]—primarily males, individuals over thirty-five, and college graduates—qualified… . But even among holders of graduate degrees, only a quarter could be called scientifically literate” (Miller, 1983, p. 41; cf. Shamos, 1995, p. 90). Later, he reported “approximately 7 percent of American adults qualified as scientifically literate in the 1992 study… . [This] estimate … shows no significant change from the results of previous studies in 1979, 1985, 1988, and 1990” (Miller, 1996, pp. 193–194).

In three later, related publications, Miller (1997, 1998, 2000) took a different tack in two ways. First, the studies described are more elaborate and include longitudinal student data based on a more comprehensive methodology. Two of the articles (Miller 1997 and 2000) tell essentially the same story, but the later one is more complete, has a larger database, and represents a refinement of the earlier one, so it is the basis for the following discussion. Second, the original third dimension of SL (awareness of the impact of science and technology on individuals and society) is called into question on the following basis. “In more recent cross-national studies of civic scientific literacy, Miller found the third dimension—the impact of science and technology on individuals and society—to vary substantially in content among different nations and adopted a two-dimensional construct for use in cross-national analyses” (Miller, 1998, p. 206; he cites Miller, Pardo, & Niwa [1997] as the basis for this point.) In other words, no significant factor loaded for the third dimension, when the factor analysis was performed. Miller (1997) pointed out that it is “difficult to construct accurate cross-national measures of this dimension because science and technology may be experienced differently, depending on the emergence of public policy issues in a given country” (p. 124). He also expressed the view that an understanding of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry items is sufficient for declaring that a respondent comprehends the impact dimension (Miller, 2000, pp. 27–29).

Commentary on Miller's Contribution

From a measurement standpoint, Miller had no choice about dropping the third dimension from his original construct of SL. Quite simply, no third factor emerged from the factor analysis. However, the impact on defining SL is more significant: the definition has been squeezed and distorted. In the process, any gestures in the direction of Vision II have been lost. Miller claims “There is general agreement among scholars engaged in national surveys … that a reliable two-dimensional measure of civic scientific literacy would be useful in a wide range of national and cross-national research (Miller, 2000, p. 26). As well, he equates “scientifically literate” with “well informed,” in that same paper (p. 29). From a conceptual standpoint, it appears that he is downplaying the significance of educational experience related to an understanding of the impact of science and technology on individuals and society. One interpretation would be that Miller truly believes that understanding science and science inquiry somehow prepares individuals for understanding the impact of science and technology. He would not be alone; that seems to be the cornerstone of Vision I.

There are two further implications of Miller's marginalization of Vision II. First, there is the point that cross-national comparisons, and even cross-national discourse about SL, run the risk of talking at cross-purposes if the “impact” dimension is included in a testing program. Science educators involved in PISA and the MSL component of TIMSS are well aware of this point. Second, Miller asserts in two publications intended for science educators that “issue-oriented” courses are not conducive to developing SL (Miller 1996, p. 201, and 2000, p. 44). That claim surely merits further empirical investigation. It would be difficult for many in the science education community to swallow, since analysis of controversial issues is held to be an important instructional context in which students learn the science needed to understand an issue, and simultaneously develop their grasp of decision-making processes about socio-scientific issues in a democracy.

A final point is in order. The decontextualized nature of the probes used in Miller's assessment items (e.g., the Earth goes around the Sun once a year—True or False?) raises issues about validity of the measurements. In turn, questionable validity about claims of SL makes assessments such as his questionable as a component of curriculum policy deliberation (cf. Norris & Phillips [2003]). Nevertheless, in the US but increasingly in other countries as well, Miller's contribution is one to be reckoned with politically.

Assessing Public Understanding of Science as SL: John Durant and Colleagues

As noted earlier, the term public understanding of science is used more frequently in England than the term SL. In some of John Durant's work the two terms are nevertheless linked explicitly. Durant is no stranger to informal science education. His academic credentials include a Visiting Professorship in the History and Public Understanding of Science at Imperial College of the University of London. He has also held posts as Assistant Director of the Science Museum in London and, currently, as Chief Executive of At-Bristol, a science and discovery center bringing to the general public an increased access to science, technology, natural history, and the environment. I wish to explore three papers for which he was either sole author or co-author.

Wavering on the Vision

Thomas and Durant (1987) examined the relationship between PUS and SL in the first issue of a publication by the Scientific Literacy Group in the University of Oxford Department of External Studies. At the conclusion of the paper, they point out that their “preliminary account of the nature of the public understanding of science in terms of the concept of scientific literacy” rests on the relationship between science and the rest of society, “promoting the public understanding of science which is concerned with decision-making about science-related issues in a democratic society” (p. 13). The vision of SL expressed here is Vision II.

In 1988, the year after that paper was published, an empirical study was launched to test a hypothesis about the relationship between PUS and levels of support for science (Evans & Durant, 1995). Despite professing Vision II in the paper just discussed, Durant and his colleague used Vision I almost exclusively to define PUS for this study. Two of the independent variables are generated directly from Vision I: familiarity with products and processes of science. There is a vague nod in the direction of Vision II. The third independent variable is called “interest in science,” measured on the basis of TV and magazine consumption and a self-reported estimate of how likely respondents were to read headlines with scientific content (p. 58). The authors use the phrase “attitudes towards science” to signify a conceptually related group of dependent variables that are taken to indicate “more or less support for, or a more or less positive evaluation of, science, scientists, and scientific activities” (p. 59).

Following discussion of the results of their regression analysis, Evans and Durant conclude that (1) “measures of general attitudes [toward science] are inadequate as a guide to what the public may think of specific areas of scientific research,” (2) “there is some evidence that higher levels of knowledge are associated with more supportive attitudes for science in general and for ‘useful science’ [probably thought to be socially relevant],” (3) “the well informed are more strongly opposed to morally contentious and non-useful areas of research than are the less well informed,” and (4) “interest in science may predict attitudes better than scientific understanding will” (p. 70). They bring the paper to a close with the caution that for anyone promoting greater PUS in order to mobilize public support for science, “the results presented in this paper suggest that such attempts cannot always be relied upon to be straightforwardly beneficial” (p. 71).

Durant (1994) returned to defining SL in the following way: “what is it reasonable to hope and expect that ordinary citizens will know about science in order to equip them for life in a scientifically and technologically complex culture?” (p. 83). He structures the argument around three possibilities for defining SL: “knowing a lot of science, knowing how science works, knowing how science really works” (p. 84). The contrast between the second and third is deliberate, of course. The definition is Vision I. In concluding his paper, Durant contrasts the SL of scientists and the SL of the general public. He points out that scientists have first-hand experience of the checks and balances of knowledge production, while most members of the general public do not have any experience of scientific research at all. Allowing that formal science education about the nature of science ameliorates this situation somewhat, he notes that “informal science education has attempted to convey something of the spirit of scientific inquiry through, for example, hands-on exhibits that foster curiosity and the sense of discovery among children” (p. 89).

Commentary on Durant and Visions of SL

The vision of SL inherent in these three papers is not uniform. In the defining article of 1987, it is Vision II, yet Vision I predominates in the 1995 study and in the 1994 article (which is Durant's alone), but the latter is an elaborated form to include some institutional characteristics of science. Regarding this elaborated form of Vision I, Miller, Pardo, and Niwa (1997) comment in the following way. “In recent work [the 1994 article], Durant discusses a three-dimensional model (a comprehension of basic scientific concepts, an understanding of scientific methodology, and an understanding of the institutional dimension of science) but has used for analysis [in another study, namely Bauer, Durant, & Evans (1994)] only a single summated scale that merges the vocabulary and process dimensions” (p. 39).

The shifts between Vision I and Vision II are a significant matter for anyone concerned about the validity of SL and PUS assessments such as Miller's and Durant's. The concern of these two researchers is more for reliability in cross-national measures than in validity of the definition of SL or in the character of science education.

SL in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

At about the same time Miller (1997 ff.) was withdrawing from the use of the impact dimension in his assessments of SL, TIMSS was developing and incorporating items from just such a dimension in a mathematics and science literacy (MSL) component. (Readers will be aware that the “T” in TIMSS has recently begun to stand for “Trends in …” rather than its original “Third.” This discussion relates to the original meaning.)

Unlike other components of TIMSS, MSL testing was not curriculum-bound. For this component, students were tested in their final year of secondary school. “These students may have studied mathematics and science in their final years of school or they may not have; they may regard themselves as specialists in mathematics and science, in other subjects, or in none; they may be entering occupations or further education related to mathematics and science, or they may have no intention of doing so… . The role of the literacy study within TIMSS … is to ask whether school leavers can remember the mathematics and science they have been taught and can therefore apply this knowledge to the challenges of life beyond school” (Orpwood & Garden, 1998, pp. 10–11).

In addition to Vision I dimensions in the MSL test (mathematics and science content, and “Reasoning in Mathematics, Science, and Technology“), the distinctively Vision II dimension is called “Social Impacts of Mathematics, Science, and Technology.” For testing purposes, the third and fourth dimensions were combined into one grouping known as “RSU”—“reasoning and social utility in mathematics, science, and technology” (pp. 30–31). This became the working framework for developing test items. In the end, the item pool contained 12 RSU items—five multiple choice, three short answer, and four extended response, for a total testing time of 31 minutes out of 121 (Orpwood, 2000, p. 55).

In reflecting on the development of the items, Orpwood commented, “many draft items that went beyond strict knowledge of science or mathematics content were either eliminated on psychometric grounds or on the grounds of unacceptability to participating countries” (p. 56). These two reasons will not surprise the reader at this point, since these problems reflect some of the same concerns that Miller claims to be his reasons for retreating from the inclusion of an impact dimension in his assessments. Orpwood's account provides many more pertinent details for science education than we find in Miller's work. Indeed, in a later paper Orpwood (2001) presents a convincing case for paying serious attention to the lag between major curriculum changes in science education, which he terms “curriculum revolutions” (p. 137), and the development of assessment techniques that are appropriate for evaluating the impact of the changes. Commenting on the 1960s curriculum revolution to incorporate goals related to the nature of science and the acquisition of science inquiry skills, he notes that “teachers and national/international assessment projects continued to use traditional assessment measures—measures that, in the main, called for recall of memorised scientific knowledge” (p. 143). About the delay in shifting assessment techniques to those that match the change, he noted “It was the 1980s before performance assessment even made its first significant appearance and the 1990s before it became at all widespread” (pp. 143–144).

“The second period of revolutionary change,” as Orpwood described it, “began slowly in the early 1980s and has now (in the late 1990s) gathered significant momentum … outward [from science itself] towards society and the complex relationships among science, technology, society, and the environment” (p. 139). Yet, at this time, “assessment of the curriculum goals … for the STS revolution in science curriculum has barely surfaced at all beyond the research level” (p. 144). He describes RSU items from the MSL component of TIMSS, presenting sample items and commenting on both their structure and some of the issues associated with their acceptance or rejection by the project committee and/or participating countries. He also describes items from his experience with another assessment program, in the Canadian province of Ontario, related to goals for a science-technology curriculum. The overall thrust of the article is to express concern that lack of appropriate assessment procedures can distort and stifle curriculum innovation, and the examples give point and substance to Orpwood's argument.

SL in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

This assessment is planned to test 15-year-old students in participating countries, on a three-yearly basis, in three domains: reading literacy, mathematical literacy, and scientific literacy. This review is concerned only with the conceptualization of SL inherent in the science assessment. The conceptualization initially adopted for PISA states the following: “Scientific literacy is the capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify questions and to draw evidence-based conclusions in order to understand and help make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human activity” (OECD, 1999, p. 60). The meaning of, and the purpose for including, particular phrases in the definition, such as “scientific knowledge” and “evidence-based conclusions,” are elaborated in the OECD document and, as well, in two very informative papers by Harlen (2001a, 2001b).

The following points about the conceptualization paraphrase Harlen (2001b).

• This conceptualization of SL is about what learners should achieve in terms of their needs as citizens—”understanding that will improve their future lives” (p. 87). This suggests a view that future scientists also need such understanding.
• The roots of SL are in school experience, even though it can be “developed throughout life” (p. 87), which is a recognition of the significance of informal science education.
• SL is not equated with vocabulary, but connotes “general competence or being ‘at ease’ with scientific ways of understanding” (p. 87). This also suggests a broader, different kind of understanding than suggested by knowing how to “do science.”
• A key feature of a student's SL is skilfulness at relating evidence to claims: how evidence is used and collected in science, “what makes some evidence more dependable than other, what are its shortcomings and where it can and should be applied” (p. 87).
• This SL conceptualization contextualizes scientific knowledge and scientific thinking in relation to problems, issues, and situations “in the real world” (p. 91)—thus students can apply what they learn in laboratory settings to non-school settings.

Assessments were conducted in 2000 and 2003, and a third is planned for 2006. All three domains of literacy are tested in each assessment, but one is a major feature and the other two are minor: reading literacy was the major domain in 2000, mathematical literacy was major in 2003, and science is the major domain for the 2006 assessment. The conceptualization of SL used in the 2003 assessment is the same as stated above for 2000 (OECD, 2003, p. 133. Retrieved April 13, 2005, from http://www.pisa/oecd.org).

The PISA Governing Board has approved the framework for the 2006 assessment (R.W. Bybee [personal communication April 19, 2005]). The Science Forum, responsible for advising, and the Science Expert Group, responsible for developing specific aspects of the framework, have revised the 2000/2003 framework. The 2006 conceptualization of SL is as follows. (This is taken from a document prepared for the Science Forum and Science Expert Group Meetings held in Warsaw, July 12–15, 2004, and is reproduced here by permission of R.W. Bybee [personal communication April 19, 2005.)

Scientific literacy refers to an individual's:

• Scientific knowledge and use of that knowledge to identify questions, to acquire new knowledge, to explain scientific phenomena, and to draw evidence-based conclusions about science-related issues;
• Understanding of the characteristic features of science as a form of human knowledge and enquiry;
• Awareness of how science and technology shape our material, intellectual, and cultural environments; and
• Willingness to engage in science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen.

This conceptualization is clearly specifying Vision II as the basis for PISA in 2006. From the beginning, this project has concentrated on assessment within situations. The 2006 framework emphasizes and strengthens that intention.

The story of SL in PISA is an amazing tale of deliberation and consensus seeking in an area of science education policy formation, namely student assessment, which is not known for wasting time on deciding about what goals of science education to test. Harlen (2001b) notes that “What PISA assesses is what participating countries have agreed are desirable outcomes, whether or not they reflect the current curriculum of a particular country” (p. 85). The implications of that statement are astonishing, and some of the sample test items presented in Harlen's paper, as well as on the OECD/PISA website, are most interesting. Although any more specifics about the assessment program itself are beyond the scope of this review (and are more appropriate elsewhere in this handbook), this is a venture well worth watching from the standpoint of the thoughtfulness that has gone into conceptualizing and measuring SL—especially the challenges of taking Vision II seriously in an assessment framework.

IMPLICATIONS

The most challenging aspect of this literature is trying to get clear on what is actually being claimed, in the name of SL. To be sure, a definition of SL is always provided when a research article, an assessment program, or a curriculum policy is described, discussed, or advocated. The variety among the many definitions pales in significance, though, in comparison to the fundamental differences we can see between Vision I and Vision II. Conclusions and implications of this review are clustered according to four areas. Special attention is paid to implications for further research.

• We can, logically speaking, expect differences in outcomes for students from SL programs and teaching based on Vision I, compared to Vision II.
• We can identify three types of curricular arrangements to make provision for SL and PUS to develop. Is any one arrangement better than the other(s)?
• Vision I and Vision II give rise to different assessment frameworks for making claims about students’ and adults’ SL and PUS. What are the implications for our discourse with each other, as science educators?
• Different combinations of “discourse universes” are appropriate for inclusion in Vision I and Vision II embodiments. What are the consequences of taking that statement seriously, for teachers, students, and teacher education?

The General Character of Vision I and Vision II Program Outcomes

The identification of Vision I and Vision II of SL/PUS has been presented as a heuristic device intended to highlight the most significant conceptual divide in the literature reviewed here. What are the implications of adopting one vision or the other for program development?

The most serious problem with adopting Vision I is narrowing the student's experience with the breadth of science as a human endeavor. Between Vision I and Vision II, the most obvious distinction has to do with a student's way of conceptualizing and experiencing the character of controversial socioscientific issues and problems. As indicated in my earlier example based on the Atlas of Scientific Literacy (AAAS, 2001), Vision I would have students understand an issue as a scientist would. That is well and good, for one perspective on the issue. In several Canadian provinces, science curriculum policy requires that several other perspectives (e.g., economic, aesthetic, political, ethical, social) also be taken into consideration and used in deliberation about socioscientific issues. Roth and Barton are particularly scathing in their comments about the inadequacy of a single perspective. “Just imagine, every individual taking the same (‘scientific’) perspective on GMO's, genetic manipulation of the human genome, or use of drugs (such as those used to dope certain kinds of children, labelled with [ADHD], to make them compliant)” (p. 3). Eisenhart et al. (1996) seem to be making a similar point. “We disagree with the implicit assumption … that teaching students key concepts and scientific methods of inquiry will necessarily lead to socially responsible use [of science] or to a larger and more diverse citizenry who participate in discussion and debate of scientific issues … no clear conceptual connections, strategies to achieve, or empirical support are offered …” (pp. 268–269).

There are actually two points here. One is an empirical claim that implementation efforts in the US are over-emphasizing Vision I—or, at least, the portion of it contained in the “Science as Inquiry” standard of NSES (the other portion is contained in the “History and Nature of Science” standard). I'm not sure sufficient evidence is presented for that claim. The second point probably is more accurate. The assertion that students don't automatically develop a Vision II grasp of SL if they are exposed only to Vision I is based on a logical point. It has to do with the variety of discourses included in each vision. A curriculum based on Vision II discourses potentially encompasses all four of the NSES context standards. Similarly, the “ideas about science” in the Vision II project 21st Century Science include “the practices that have produced it; the kinds of reasoning that are used in developing a scientific argument; and on the issues that arise when scientific knowledge is put to practical use.” These are grouped into six broad categories: “data and its limitations; correlation and cause; theories; the scientific community; risk; and making decisions about science and technology” (Retrieved April 19, 2005 from http://www.21stcenturyscience.org).

A Vision I curriculum, though, can be developed in the absence of some of the Vision II discourses, namely the substance of the NSES standard on “Science in Personal and Social Perspectives” and, perhaps as well, the standard on “Science and Technology” (NRC, 1996, p. 113). In brief, Vision II subsumes Vision I, but the converse is not necessarily so.

How Visions of SL Materialize

Visions of SL materialize from the contexts in which science subject matter is taught. No science curriculum, textbook, or lesson is “context-free.” The contexts for science education are (1) expressions of the reasons students are expected to learn the subject matter and, therefore, in a classroom or textbook, (2) sets of coherent messages (discourse universes, essentially) about the purpose for learning it. I have dubbed these contexts curriculum emphases (Roberts, 1982, 1988). Curriculum emphases can be communicated either explicitly, by what is said in the classroom, or implicitly, by what is implied or excluded.

Seven distinct curriculum emphases can be discerned in science curriculum history during the past century. Even a syllabus of subject matter topics has a curriculum emphasis, which I have dubbed “Solid Foundation.” This is a default emphasis—meaning it is communicated implicitly. The contextual message it communicates to students is “The reason for learning this material is to get ready for next year, and the year after that.” In other words, it is a purpose based on the orderliness of a recognizable sequence. A closely related default emphasis I called “Correct Explanations.” This one communicates that the purpose of learning science is to get your world-view right. Although examples of these two can be found in science education curriculum history, they are not of much interest to the present discussion.

Vision I incorporates two of the emphases I identified. One is called “Scientific Skill Development” and the other “Structure of Science.” Together, I would say these two make up two US NSES context standards—Science as Inquiry, and History and Nature of Science. Vision II partakes of those, and also the remaining three: “Personal Explanation,” “Science, Technology, Decisions,” and “Everyday Coping/ Applications.” The first two of these are found in the NSES standards as Personal and Social Perspectives on Science, and the third is found in Science and Technology.

The Potential Effects of Over-emphasizing One Curriculum Emphasis

Science curriculum history is littered with examples of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Major changes in science curriculum have been due to changes in curriculum emphasis, although of course there have been changes to subject matter as well. When a curriculum emphasis changes, for whatever reason, the rhetoric usually cries out “Stop doing any of that, and start doing all of this!” Neither Vision I nor Vision II is immune from this possibility.

Vision I programs run the risk of including situation-oriented material (Science and Technology and/or Personal and Social Perspectives on Science) in a token fashion, only as a source for motivating students in lessons. By the same token (pardon the pun), Vision II programs run the risk of paying insufficient attention to science. Aikenhead (1994) presents an analysis of materials development, research, and teaching approaches in STS according to eight categories that show different blends of science content and attention to situations, or “STS content” (pp. 55–56). At one extreme is “Motivation by STS Content,” described as “Traditional school science, plus a mention of STS content in order to make a lesson more interesting. Not normally taken seriously as STS instruction… . Students are not assessed on the STS content.” At the other extreme is “STS Contents,” described thus: “A major technology or social issue is studied. Science content is mentioned but only to indicate an existing link to science… . Students are not assessed on pure science content to any appreciable degree.” There is a message here, as well as an analytical scheme, about what can happen in implementation efforts involving both Vision II and Vision I.

Roth and Lee (2002, 2004) and Roth and Barton (2004) have pushed Vision II to the extreme by redefining SL as “collective praxis”—as if there is no such thing as “individual” SL. All of their case studies, so far as I can determine, are based on teaching science through the same single context: Personal and Social Perspectives on Science. There is a comment in a “Coda” (Roth & Lee 2004, p. 288) that “Much research remains to be done to study the forms distributed and situated cognition take in the approach we propose.” Indeed. More research is also needed on whether, and how well, students can shift from one context to another as appropriate in different situations. For example, suppose students learn about water chemistry in the context of a Personal and Social Perspectives on Science. Would that inhibit, contribute to, or have no effect on their understanding of appropriate features of the Scientific Inquiry and/or History and Nature of Science context, such as the system-theory character of ecological inquiry? I would submit we don't have enough research to answer questions of this sort. To be sure, we have substantial research on the impacts of teaching science within a single context, or curriculum emphasis (e.g., the research on learning about the nature of science, about STS, etc.). The point here is about multiple contexts and how those affect learners, therefore feeding back implications for the way SL is defined in curriculum policies and implemented in instructional materials. There are risks in over-emphasizing either Vision II or Vision I.

Curricular Arrangements to Deliver SL and PUS

This review identified three approaches to organizing curriculum in order to achieve SL and/or PUS. I shall summarize them first. The most direct approach—a special course on SL or PUS mandated for all students—is, so far as I can tell, also the most rare. The two examples I have found are the course in England known as 21st Century Science, which is clearly based on Vision II, and a grade 10 course in the Netherlands that began with the intention to embody Vision II.

The second approach, by far the most common, is to work from an overall curriculum framework that is permeated by SL and, generally speaking, identifies SL as its potential outcome for all students. I would say that the approach taken by NSES in the US reflects this approach. Another example is a recent report from Australia. According to Rennie, Goodrum, and Hackling (2001), the current curriculum framework emerged from a recent large-scale research project examining the quality of science teaching and learning in Australian schools. Their paper draws from the full report of the study (Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2000). Most significant for purposes of this review is the conception of SL expressed as the “ideal” approach to science curriculum in the several states (the eight states and territories of Australia do not have a single mandatory or official national curriculum). All of the recommendations of the study are based on five premises, including one that specifies the purpose of science education as developing SL. “Scientifically literate persons are interested in and understand the world around them, are sceptical and questioning of claims made by others about scientific matters. They participate in the discourses of and about science, identify questions, investigate and draw evidence-based conclusions, and make informed decisions about the environment and their own health and well-being” (Rennie, Goodrum, & Hackling, 2001, p. 494).

Such frameworks as NSES and the Australian example typically reflect elements of both Vision I and Vision II, just because they are broad, idealized, multi-purpose, and intended to be enabling and facilitating. That is, as Bybee expressed about his types-and-levels definition of SL, not everyone is expected to develop the same degree, or the same kind, of SL. Curriculum frameworks of this sort must accommodate some students who want and/or need pre-professional training in science, as well as preparing students for citizenship.

The third arrangement, used by a number of Canadian provinces, is to ensure that objectives related to Vision II are mandated through the requirement to teach certain units of study according to curriculum emphases (typically called program emphases, in Canadian provinces) that take Vision II situations (technological problem solving and societal decision making) as their starting point.

The Potential for Retreating from Vision II to Vision I

Vision I and Vision II express broadly different views of what it means to be scientifically literate, or to have developed knowledge, skills, and attitudes consistent with public understanding of science. What is important to recognize is that advocates of Vision II stress that all students in democratic societies—regardless of their career plans—need to develop SL that is appropriate to situations other than conducting scientific inquiry. Thus, for example, an understanding of scientific inquiry is not only important for potential scientists, in Vision II thinking. It is a vital component of a citizen's ability to keep a scientific perspective in balance with others. Thus, students need classroom experience with situations in which different perspectives are deliberately brought to bear on socio-scientific issues. Indeed, Roth and Barton (2004) argue that even classroom simulations are not adequate for such learning, but in any event, to paraphrase Eisenhart et al., an approach to SL based on Vision I does not, clearly does not, provide the opportunity to learn what is involved in Vision II. As noted earlier, Jon Miller believes the reverse is also true.

I think this is an area where empirical evidence is needed on two matters. One is the claim by Roth and Barton, to the effect that vicarious, in-class experience with issue analysis is phoney—that students do not learn from simulations, but instead need the real thing, immersion in real socioscientific problems in the community. The second is the claim advanced by Jon Miller that STS courses are not the way to develop an understanding of science. Both of these are sweeping claims, each one sure to create a stir among some science educators (not necessarily the same ones). At very least, such claims should be qualified. Do some students learn better from simulations? Do no students learn science in STS courses? What kinds of STS courses (cf. Aikenhead, 1994)? Shouldn't such claims be qualified at least in terms of specific instances of opportunity to learn?

There is a more insidious problem, whenever curriculum arrangements do not mandate Vision II outcomes. Fensham (1998) has discussed three Australian cases in which proposals to mount courses with a Vision II thrust have been defeated in curriculum committees by academic scientists. Blades (1997) has analyzed a similar phenomenon in the Canadian province of Alberta. In these two examples, the retreat from Vision II to Vision I occurred as a result of power politics within curriculum committees. In the case of the mandatory course on public understanding of science in The Netherlands, there was evidence of a retreat during the implementation. De Vos and Reiding (1999) describe the teaching materials developed for the course as turning out to have “a ‘science-plus,’ or science-oriented approach” consisting of “fragments of a science curriculum with added information on history, philosophy, society or economics” (p. 717). The nature of the teaching materials is presented as one factor that interfered with establishing a separate identity for the course. “The experience in The Netherlands shows that once a science-oriented approach is adopted, it becomes extremely difficult to escape from the shadows of the science teaching tradition” (p. 718).

Talking to Each Other About the Meaning of SL Assessments

Both Jon Miller and John Durant retreated from Vision II to Vision I, as the basis for their assessments of SL and PUS, respectively. Yet, in the other two assessment programs discussed in this review—namely, the TIMSS MSL assessment and PISA— there is a continuing effort to define SL in a manner that respects the importance of context and situation in Vision II. It seems to me the jury is out, on the matter of whether Vision II can be assessed satisfactorily in international comparisons. I don't mean to be facile about this. It won't be easy. (See papers by Bybee and others on 2003 results in the US context [BSCS, 2005], and the insightful volume Learning from Others: International Comparisons in Education [Shorrocks-Taylor & Jenkins, 2000].) However, I think this matter is sufficiently significant that it is worth following the development of PISA 2006 and waiting for the results and some further research on the process.

At issue for cross-national studies is the concern that assessment items might be situated in contexts that are more familiar to students in some nations than in others. This is a valid concern, if an assessment item requires that the situation itself either be understood, or viewed in the same way culturally, in order for students across nations to have a “fair” chance when they respond. Orpwood (2001) provides a detailed account of the measurement problems encountered with TIMSS MSL items that were designed to incorporate situations, and concludes his paper with some serious concerns about the relationship between assessment procedures and curriculum change. “Leadership is therefore required from all quarters to ensure that innovations such as performance assessment and STS assessment are not allowed to be regarded as ‘second-class’ or entirely ‘optional’ ways of assessing achievement in science education” (p. 149). My point is that this state of affairs— namely the potential for a retreat from Vision II—is hauntingly familiar. It is just what Miller did, and for the same reason, namely measurement issues.

Expanding Our View of Legitimate Discourse Universes for SL/PUS

One of the most striking differences between Vision I and Vision II is the nature and content of the discourse appropriate and legitimate for each. Curriculum policy statements, assessment items, and instructional resources and activities acknowledge and privilege some discourses and ignore or marginalize others. The discourse of orthodox science and scientific inquiry is the most familiar, of course. Others that have been identified in this review include discourse about moral reasoning (cf. Zeidler, 2003); the oral history provided by the aboriginal elders, as part of the community-based stream study in the Oceanside case study (Roth & Lee, 2002, 2004; Roth & Barton, 2004); the discourse about technological reasoning and problem solving, which is a vital part of STL; and the discourse with which members of different occupations think and talk about the tasks they perform, as displayed in the SSSP work by Layton, Davey, and Jenkins (1986).

Which Discourse Universes are to be Legitimate?

A discourse universe always has situated legitimacy in its own right. Sometimes legitimacy comes from recognized status as a discipline. Technological reasoning and problem solving, for example, are the bread and butter discourses of engineering. Again, the discourse of moral reasoning and ethics is recognized and accepted in philosophy. There is nothing inherently better or worse about such discourses. The decision to include or exclude them from science education is a matter of deliberation and choice.

For illustrative purposes, here is an example of a curriculum policy document that explicitly acknowledges the significance of a discourse universe other than that of orthodox science. A recent version of South Africa's national curriculum policy for natural sciences states that “The Natural Sciences Learning Area deals with the promotion of scientific literacy. It does this by:

• the development and use of science process skills in a variety of settings;
• the development and application of scientific knowledge and understanding; and
• appreciation of the relationships and responsibilities between science, society and the environment” (Department of Education, Pretoria, 2002, p. 4).

The document elaborates on each of these three aspects of SL, synthesizes their intended meaning in three broad learning outcomes, and provides an extended discussion of how the three components can be assessed. The third outcome, described as “challenging, with potential to broaden the curriculum and make it distinctively South African” (p. 10), is of special interest because it includes attention to relationships between science, on one hand, and traditional practices and technologies as these relate to traditional wisdom and knowledge systems, on the other. “One can assume that learners in the Natural Sciences Learning Area think in terms of more than one world-view. Several times a week they cross from the culture of home, over the border into the culture of science, and then back again. How does this fact influence their understanding of science and their progress in the Learning Area? Is it a hindrance to teaching or is it an opportunity for more meaningful learning and a curriculum which tries to understand both the culture of science and the cultures of home?” (p. 12). This curriculum document, as well as others related to South African science education, is in a state of flux. In the corresponding version of the document for Physical Science 10–12, “scientific literacy is a clearly stated purpose” and, while it is not an explicitly stated aim in the Life Science 10–12 document, “it is clear that the attainment of scientific literacy is most definitely a tacit goal” (R.C. Laugksch [personal communication, June 6, 2003]).

Discourse: How Visions of SL Materialize (Or Do Not) in Classrooms

Discourse is the basis for creating meaning in classrooms. A curriculum policy decision to embrace one or the other vision of SL entails making it both necessary and possible for appropriate discourses to come to life in classrooms. For example, arguing on behalf of the importance of moral reasoning as a component of SL, Zeidler and Lewis (2003) put it this way. “Arming our students with improved understandings of nature of science and scientific inquiry does not provide a complete picture of the scientifically literate individual. Moral development and ethical reasoning play an important role as students consider what is best for the common good of society or whether the ‘common good’ is relevant to the issue at hand” (p. 290). Put another way, the extent to which students can create a meaningful grasp of moral and ethical reasoning depends on whether or not the appropriate discourse is even present in the classroom at all. Some discourses, such as the ones to which Zeidler and Lewis allude, are simply not present in the education of science teachers. As well, such discourses may not be part of a science teacher's image of what is appropriate for a science classroom, and/or the teacher may not feel competent or comfortable teaching such material. The implications for research on implementing curriculum focussed on Vision I, compared to Vision II, of SL are as interesting to contemplate as they are daunting.

An acquaintance of mine once commented to the effect that a substantial change of the dominant curriculum emphasis for science education makes everyone a novice teacher again. There is some truth in that assertion, in the sense that teachers (and teacher educators) have to learn and come to accept new types of discourse— not only to understand the discourse and grasp its significance, but also to comprehend and experience how to teach it. Even some aspects of the nature of science within Vision II (e.g., uncertainty, risk)—which one would consider closer to home for science teachers—present serious challenges in understanding, planning, and actually conducting classroom activities. These matters, and others, are illuminated in detail in a recent study about teaching the “ideas-about-science” domain within the 21st Century Science project. The authors “explore the factors that afforded or inhibited the [11] teachers’ pedagogic performance in this domain” (Bartholomew, Osborne, & Ratcliffe 2004, p. 655). Of special interest here is the way the authors link their findings to discussion and implications associated with the characteristics of summative assessment used in science education, and the characteristics of the school science culture (pp. 678–679).

Research of the kind just presented must follow development, rather than lead it, in the sense that a classroom practice has to be instituted before there are any phenomena to study. In a more theoretical vein, one other area of research about discourse is presented, namely on the topic of how discourse produces meaning and, inevitably, learning. Using teaching vignettes and excerpts from Swedish science textbooks, Östman (1998) analyzed the way discourse provides “companion meanings” (including curriculum emphases) in science education. All such analyses are, of course, based on theoretical frameworks (e.g., the use of Toulmin's argument-pattern in the study of discourse about socioscientific issues by Zeidler, Osborne, Erduran, et al. [2003]). In Östman's work, the framework is “grounded in poststructural theory, and it depends on having available some alternative possibilities (about what could have been said and how)” (p. 55). One important outcome of the analysis is the documentation, in specific terms, of differences in discourse about several different companion meanings. An extension of the framework was used in a later, related study by Wickman and Östman (2002). There, the discourse of two students is analyzed, in a laboratory situation in which students had pinned insects in front of them, instructions to reflect on the relationship between structure and function, and the expectation that they “should find out the morphology of insects by observation” (pp. 606–607). The analysis is a fascinating fine-grained (“high-resolution,” in the authors’ words) documentation of a point that cuts to the heart of discourse about one view of the nature of science: “laboratory work in school is often based on inductive epistemology, as if theory would become evident from the observations students make during laboratory work” (p. 621).

These examples show that discourse is what makes visions of SL come to life in science classrooms. The same can be said for written discourse—in textbooks, in curriculum policy statements, and in assessment programs. Clearly, more research is warranted about the development of SL and PUS through an examination of how discourse is understood, enacted by teachers and students, taken up in student learning, measured, and discussed in the science education community and beyond.

AFTERWORD

The literature on SL cries out for clarity of expression and meaning, as we discuss issues in our professional capacity. In working my way through this literature, I was repeatedly reminded of Humpty Dumpty's scornful admonition to Alice, in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass. “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” I found it helpful to identify Vision I and Vision II, in an effort to reduce the Humpty Dumpty effect surrounding definitions of, and proposals about, SL and PUS. I trust the reader will find that heuristic device helpful as well.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Rodger Bybee and Jonathan Osborne, who reviewed this chapter. Additional thanks to Edgar Jenkins, Rudi Laugksch, Graham Orpwood, Senta Raizen, and Léonie Rennie, for their advice on earlier drafts.

REFERENCES

Agin, M. L. (1974). Education for scientific literacy: A conceptual frame of reference and some applications. Science Education, 58, 403–415.

Aikenhead, G. (1994). What is STS science teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 47–59). New York: Teachers College Press.

American Academy of Arts and Sciences. (1983). Scientific literacy. Daedalus, 112(2).

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

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.

Atkin, J. M., Bianchini, J. A., & Holthuis, N. I. (1997). The different worlds of Project 2061. In S. A. Raizen & E. D. Britton (Eds.), Bold ventures volume 2: Case studies of U.S. innovations in science education (pp. 131–246). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Bailey, P. (1998). Conceptions of scientific literacy: Making sense of a proposed national science curriculum framework. Alberta Science Education Journal, 30(2), 52–59.

Bandiera, M., Caravita, S., Torracca, E., & Vicentini, M. (Eds.). (1999). Research in science education in Europe. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “ideas-about-science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655–682.

Black, P., & Atkin, J. M. (1996). Changing the subject: Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. London: Routledge.

Blades, D. (1997). Procedures of power and curriculum change: Foucault and the quest for possibilities in science education. New York: Peter Lang.

Bauer, M., Durant, J., & Evans, G. (1994). European public perception of science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6, 163–186.

Brennan, R. P. (1992). Dictionary of scientific literacy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

BSCS. (2005). The Natural Selection: The Journal of BSCS, Winter. Colorado Springs, CO: Author.

Bybee, R. W. (1997a). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bybee, R. W. (1997b). Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Gräber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy (pp. 37–68). Kiel: IPN.

Bybee, R. W., & Ben-Zvi, N. (1998). Science curriculum: Transforming goals to practices. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin, International handbook of science education (pp. 487–498). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, G. E. (1994). Research on goals for the science curriculum. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 357–387). New York: Macmillan.

Carson, R. N. (1998). Science and the ideals of liberal education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1001–1014). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Champagne, A. B., & Kouba, V. L. (1997). Communication and reasoning in science literacy. In S. Sjøberg & E. Kallerud (Eds.), Science, technology and citizenship (pp. 75–92). Oslo: NIFU Rapport 7/97.

Christensen, C. (2001). Scientific literacy for a risky society. In P. Singh & E. McWilliam (Eds.), Designing educational research: Theories, methods and practices (pp. 141–154). Flaxton, Queensland, Australia: Post Pressed.

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum for use by curriculum developers. Toronto: Author.

DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

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.

Department of Education, Pretoria. (2002). Revised national curriculum statement for grades R–9 (schools): Natural sciences. Pretoria: Author.

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.

Durant, J. (1994). What is scientific literacy? European Review, 2, 83–89.

Eijkelhof, H. (2001). Preface. In O. de Jong, E. R. Savelsbergh, and A. Alblas (Eds.), Teaching for scientific literacy: Context, competency, and curriculum (p. I). CD-β Series Vol. 38. Utrecht: CD-β Press, Utrecht University.

Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. F. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 261–295.

Evans, G., & Durant, J. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 57–74.

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. (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. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fitzpatrick, F. L. (Ed.). (1960). Policies for science education. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Frey, K., Blänsdorf, K., Kapune, T., Schaefer, G., & Archenhold, F. (Eds.). (1977). Research in science education in Europe: Perspectives, structural problems and documentation 1976. Strasbourg: The Council of Europe; Kiel: IPN; Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Gabel, L. L. (1976). The development of a model to determine perceptions of scientific literacy. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Gallagher, J. J., & Harsch, G. (1997). Scientific literacy: Science education and secondary school students: A report of an international symposium. In W. Gräber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy (pp. 13–34). Kiel: IPN.

Garrison, J. W. & Lawwill, K. S. (1992). Scientific literacy: For whose benefit? In S. Hills (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international conference on the history and philosophy of science and science education (Vol. I, pp. 337–349). Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Queen's University.

Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2000). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: A research report. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Gräber, W., Nentwig, P., Becker, H., Sumfleth, E., Pitton, A., Wollweber, K., et al. (2001). Scientific literacy: From theory to practice. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, & A. Kross (Eds.), Research in science education—Past, present, and future (pp. 61–70). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Hand, B. M., Alvermann, D. E., Gee, J., Guzzetti, B. J., Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., et al. (2003). Guest editorial: Message from the “Island Group”: What is literacy in science literacy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 607–615.

Harlen, W. (2001a). The assessment of scientific literacy in the OECD/PISA project. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, & A. Kross (Eds.), Research in science education—past, present, and future (pp. 49–60). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Harlen, W. (2001b). The assessment of scientific literacy in the OECD/PISA project. Studies in Science Education, 36, 79–104.

Hazen, R. M., & Trefil, J. (1991). Science matters: Achieving scientific literacy. New York: Doubleday.

Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hunt, A., & Millar, R. (Eds.). (2000). AS Science for public understanding. Oxford: Heinemann Educational.

Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13–16.

Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407–416.

Husén, T., & Keeves, J. (1991). Issues in science education: Science competence in a social and ecological context. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Jenkins, E. W. (1990). Scientific literacy and school science education. School Science Review, 71(256), 43–51.

Jenkins, E. W. (1997). Scientific and technological literacy: Meanings and rationales. In E. W. Jenkins (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (Vol. VI, pp. 11–42). Paris: UNESCO.

Johnson, P. G. (1962). The goals of science education. Theory into Practice, 1, 239–244.

Klopfer, L. E. (1969). Science education in 1991. The School Review, 77, 199–217.

Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Layton, D. (1991). Science education and praxis: The relationship of school science to practical action. Studies in Science Education, 19, 43–79.

Layton, D. (1994). A school subject in the making? The search for fundamentals. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (Vol. V, 11–28). Paris: UNESCO.

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.

Layton, D., Jenkins, E., & Donnelly, J. (1994). Scientific and technological literacy: Meanings and rationales, an annotated bibliography. Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds; and Paris: UNESCO.

Layton, D., Jenkins, E. W., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Nafferton, Driffield, East Yorkshire YO25 0JL, England: Studies in Education Ltd.

Marshall, S. P., Scheppler, J. A., & Palmisano, M. J. (Eds.). (2003). Science literacy for the twenty-first century. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

Mayer, V. J. (Ed.). (2002). Global science literacy. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

McEneaney, E. H. (2003). The worldwide cachet of scientific literacy. Comparative Education Review, 47(2), 217–237.

Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77(280), 7–18.

Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. King's College London, School of Education. www.kcl.ac.uk/education

Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.

Miller, J. D. (1992). Toward a scientific understanding of the public understanding of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 23–26.

Miller, J. D. (1996). Scientific literacy for effective citizenship. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/ society as reform in science education (pp. 185–204). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Miller, J. D. (1997). Civic scientific literacy in the United States: A developmental analysis from middle school through adulthood. In W. Gräber and C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy (pp. 121– 142). Kiel: IPN.

Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 1–21.

Miller, J. D. (2000). The development of civic scientific literacy in the United States. In D. D. Kumar and D. E. Chubin (Eds.), Science, technology, and society: A sourcebook for research and practice (pp. 21–47). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Miller, J. D., Pardo, R., and Niwa, F. (1997). Public perceptions of science and technology: A comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Madrid: BBV Foundation.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. Paris: Author.

Orpwood, G. W. F. (1985). Toward the renewal of Canadian science education. I. Deliberative inquiry model. Science Education, 69, 477–489.

Orpwood, G. (2000). Diversity of purpose in international assessments: Issues arising from the TIMSS tests of mathematics and science literacy. In D. Shorrocks-Taylor and E. W. Jenkins (Eds.), Learning from others: International comparisons in education (pp. 49–62). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Orpwood, G. (2001). The role of assessment in science curriculum reform. Assessment in Education, 8, 135–151.

Orpwood, G., & Garden, R. A. (1998). Assessing mathematics and science literacy. TIMSS Monograph No. 4. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.

Orpwood, G. W. F., & Souque, J.-P. (1985). Toward the renewal of Canadian science education. II. Findings and recommendations. Science Education, 69, 626–636.

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.

Pella, M. O., O'Hearn, G. T., & Gale, C. W. (1966). Referents to scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 199–208.

Penick, J. E. (1993). Scientific literacy: An annotated bibliography. Paris: UNESCO.

Psillos, D., Kariotoglou, P., Tselfes, V., Hatzikraniotis, E., Fassoulopoulos, G., & Kallery, M., (Eds.). (2003). Science education research in the knowledge-based society. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Raizen, S. A., & Britton, E. D. (Eds.). (1997). Bold ventures, Volume 2: Case studies in U.S. innovations in science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Ratcliffe, M. (1996). Adolescent decision-making, by individuals and groups, about science-related societal issues. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 126–140). London: Falmer Press.

Rennie, L., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31, 455–498.

Roberts, D. A. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases” in science education. Science Education, 66, 243–260.

Roberts, D. A. (1983). Science in the schools: Seven alternatives: Vol. 2. Scientific literacy: Towards balance in setting goals for school science programs. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Guidance Centre, University of Toronto (originally published as a discussion paper for the Science Council of Canada, ERIC # ED231673).

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. (1995). Junior high school science transformed: Analysing a science curriculum policy change. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 493–504.

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. (2000). Review of Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Science Education, 84, 123–127.

Roberts, D. A. (2003). Scientific literacy: Around and about the globe. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3, 287–292.

Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A. C. (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 the community. Science Education, 88, 263–291.

Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44.

Science Council of Canada. (1984). Science for every student. Hull, Quebec: Supply and Services Canada.

Scribner, S. (1986). Literacy in three metaphors. In N. Stein (Ed.), Literacy in American schools: Learning to read and write (pp. 7–22). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Shen, B. S. P. (1975). Science literacy and the public understanding of science. In S. B. Day (Ed.), Communication of scientific information (pp. 44–52). Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG.

Shorrocks-Taylor, D., & Jenkins, E. W. (Eds.). (2000). Learning from others: International comparisons in education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Shulman, L. S., & Tamir, P. (1973). Research on teaching in the natural sciences. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1098–1148). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Sjøberg, S. (1997). Scientific literacy and school science—Arguments and second thoughts. In S. Sjøberg & E. Kallerud (Eds.), Science, technology and citizenship (pp. 9–28). Oslo: NIFU Rapport 10/97.

Sjøberg, S., & Kallerud, E. (Eds.). (1997). Science, technology and citizenship. Oslo: NIFU Rapport 10/97.

Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of STS issues: Public understanding of science in the making. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), The status of science-technology-society reform efforts around the world: ICASE Yearbook 1992 (pp. 67–80). International Council of Associations for Science Education.

Solomon, J. (1998). The science curricula of Europe and the notion of scientific culture. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 166–177). New York: Teachers College Press.

Stocklmayer, S. M., Gore, M. M., & Bryant, C. (Eds.). (2001). Science communication in theory and practice. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? Scientific literacy papers 1, 1–14 (University of Oxford, Department of External Studies).

van den Akker, J. (1998). The science curriculum: Between ideals and outcomes. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 421–447). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Watson, F. G. (1963). Research on teaching science. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1031–1059). Chicago: Rand McNally.

White, R. (2001). The revolution in research on science teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 457–471). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

White, R. T., & Tisher, R. P. (1986). Research on natural sciences. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 874–905). New York: Macmillan.

Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86, 601–623.

Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361–388). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zeidler, D. L. (Ed.). (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Zeidler, D. L., & Lewis, J. (2003). Unifying themes in moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 289–306). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.