Unlocking the Science in English Coursebooks: A Critical Exploration of Scientific Literacy

Abstract

Science is advancing at a rapid pace, and the ability to understand it has become a universal necessity. Countries aim to cultivate individuals who comprehend the nature of science, keep up with scientific advancements, and can generate solutions for local and global challenges. Enhancing scientific literacy is generally perceived as one of the primary goals of science education. However, relying solely on science courses to impart this knowledge is not a rational approach. English courses are among the subjects that can contribute to enhancing students' scientific literacy. This is because English lessons require presenting content to students using contemporary language teaching approaches in a meaningful and specific context. One of the most important tools for providing this content is coursebooks. This research investigated the extent to which English coursebooks contribute to scientific literacy through an interdisciplinary perspective. In this study, coursebooks used in fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth-grade levels at state schools affiliated with the Ministry of National Education were analyzed. As a result of the research, it was revealed that all the examined coursebooks contained activities aimed at increasing scientific literacy. It was concluded that as the learning level increased, components of scientific literacy were more integrated into the coursebooks. In terms of the dimensions of scientific literacy, the scientific process dimension was the most represented in coursebooks with 65 activities. In light of these findings, it was evident that English coursebooks have potential to contribute to the development of scientific literacy.

Keywords

• scientific literacy
• English coursebooks
• interdisciplinary approach

İngilizce Ders Kitaplarında Bilimi Açığa Çıkarmak: Bilimsel Okuryazarlık Üzerine Eleştirel Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Bilim hızlı bir şekilde ilerlemekte ve bilimi anlama yeteneği evrensel bir gereklilik haline gelmektedir. Ülkeler, bilimin doğasını kavrayan, bilimsel gelişmeleri takip eden ve yerel ve küresel sorunlara çözüm üretebilen bireyler yetiştirmeyi hedeflemektedir. Bilimsel okuryazarlığı artırmak, genellikle fen eğitiminin temel hedeflerinden biri olarak kabul edilir. Ancak, bu bilgiyi sadece fen derslerine dayandırmak mantıklı bir yaklaşım değildir. İngilizce dersleri, öğrencilerin bilimsel okuryazarlıklarını artırmaya katkıda bulunabilecek dersler arasındadır. Bu, İngilizce derslerinin öğrencilere anlamlı ve belirli bir bağlamda çağdaş dil öğretimi yaklaşımları kullanarak içerik sunmayı gerektirmesinden kaynaklanmaktadır. İçeriği sunmak için en önemli araçlardan biri ders kitaplarıdır. Bu araştırma, İngilizce ders kitaplarının disiplinler arası bir perspektif ile bilimsel okuryazarlığa ne ölçüde katkı sağladığını incelemiştir. Bu çalışmada, Millî Eğitim Bakanlığına bağlı devlet okullarında beşinci, altıncı, yedinci ve sekizinci sınıf seviyelerinde kullanılan ders kitapları analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonucunda, incelenen tüm ders kitaplarında bilimsel okuryazarlığı artırmaya yönelik etkinliklerin bulunduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Öğretim seviyesi arttıkça, bilimsel okur yazarlık bileşenlerinin ders kitaplarına daha fazla entegre edildiği sonucuna varılmıştır. Bilimsel okuryazarlık boyutları açısından bakıldığında, bilimsel süreç boyutunun 65 etkinlik ile ders kitaplarında en fazla temsil edilen boyut olduğu görülmüştür. Bu bulgular ışığında, İngilizce ders kitaplarının bilimsel okuryazarlığın geliştirilmesine katkıda bulunma potansiyeline sahip olduğu söylenebilir.

Keywords

• bilimsel okur yazarlık
• İngilizce ders kitapları
• disiplinler arası yaklaşım

References

1. Akerson, V. L. (2001). Teaching science when your principal says, “Teach language arts.” Science and Children, 38(7), 42–47.
2. Aksoy, O. (2011). İlköğretim 6. sınıf İngilizce ile Fen ve Teknoloji Programlarına yönelik disiplinlerarası uygulama sonuçları[The investigation results of cross curriculum aspect of sixth grade English program and Science program]. Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi.
3. Aladağ, E., & Sert, C. (2020). Sosyal Bilgiler 5. sınıf ders kitabının disiplinler arası yaklaşım açısından incelenmesi[Analysis of the 5th grade social studies course book in terms of interdisciplinary approach]. Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 285–295.
4. Akpur, U., & Altun, S. (2012). Evaluation of the lecturers’ and students’ views about coursebook classes at Yıldız Technical University, School of Foreign Languages, Basic English Department. Journal of Education, (2), 49-62.
5. Barac, R., Bialystok, E., Castro, D. C., & Sanchez, M. (2014). The cognitive development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 699-714.
6. BouJaoude, S. (2002). Balance of scientific literacy themes in science curricula: The case of Lebanon. International Journal of Science Education, 24(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110066494
7. Bowe, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj0902027
8. Bybee, R. (1997a). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

9. Bybee, R. (1997b). Towards an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Gräber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific Literacy: An International Symposium (pp. 37–68). Kiel, Germany.
10. Bybee, R., & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from Pisa 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518644
11. Çakici, Y. (2012). Exploring Turkish upper primary level science textbooks’ coverage of scientific literacy themes. Egitim Arastirmalari - Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, (49), 81–102.
12. Cansiz, M., & Cansiz, N. (2019). Reconceptualizing and field testing the scientific literacy framework by exploring the aspect of scientific literacy in Turkish science curriculum. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(5), 681–691. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.681
13. Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 713–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280808
14. Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. (2002). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.
15. Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1993). Do middle school life science textbooks provide a balance of scientific literacy themes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 787–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300714
16. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. Routledge.
17. Ding, C. (2022). Examining the context of better science literacy outcomes among U.S. schools using visual analytics: A machine learning approach. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100191
18. Dickinson, V. L., & Young, T. A. (1998). Elementary science and language arts: Should we blur the boundaries? School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 334–339.
19. Erdogan, M. N., & Koseoglu, F. (2012). Analysis of High School Physics, Chemistry and Biology Curriculums in terms of Scientific Literacy Themes. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(4), 2899–2904.
20. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hil.
21. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.
22. Jia, G., Kohnert, K., Collado, J., & Aquino-Garcia, F. (2006). Action Naming in Spanish and English by Sequential Bilingual Children and Adolescents. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 49(3), 588. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/042)
23. Kırkgöz, Y., Çelik, S., & Arıkan, A. (2016). Laying the theoretical and practical foundations for a new elementary English curriculum in Turkey: A procedural analysis. Kastamonu Education Journal, 24(3), 1199–1212.
24. Karimi, K., & Biria, R. (2016). A multidimensional critical evaluation of English coursebook used for Iranian high school first graders. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 6(6), 214- 232
25. Kayapinar, U. (2009). Coursebook evaluation by English teachers. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 69-78
26. Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328(5977), 456–459. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182593
27. Krontiris-Litowitz, J. (2013). Using primary literature to teach science literacy to introductory biology students. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 14(1), 66-77.
28. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical Kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33(2), 363. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786
29. Leaver, B. Lou, & Stryker, S. B. (1989). Content-based instruction for foreign language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 22(3), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1989.tb02746.x
30. Lelliott, A., & Rollnick, M. (2010). Big Ideas: A review of astronomy education research 1974–2008. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1771–1799. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903214546
31. Mc Eneaney, E. H. (2003). The worldwide cachet of scientific literacy. Comparative Education Review, 47(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1086/376539
32. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE.
33. OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264026407-en
34. OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 Assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving (Revised Edition). In OECD Publishing.
35. Özdem, Y., Demirdöğen, B., Yeşiloğlu, S. N., & Kurt, M. (2010). Farklı branşlardaki alan öğretmenlerinin sosyal yapılandırmacı yaklaşımla bilim anlayışlarının geliştirilmesi[Development of science views held by teachers in different disciplines through social constructivist approach]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 11(4), 263–292.
36. Parkinson, J. (2000). Acquiring scientific literacy through content and genre: a theme-based language course for science students. English for Specific Purposes, 19(4), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(99)00012-5
37. Ramnarain, U. D., & Chanetsa, T. (2016). An analysis of South African Grade 9 natural sciences textbooks for their representation of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(6), 922–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1167985
38. Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203463918
39. Salmi, H., Thuneberg, H., & Vainikainen, M. (2017). Learning with dinosaurs: A study on motivation, cognitive reasoning, and making observations.
40. Shaffer, J. F., Ferguson, J., & Denaro, K. (2019). Use of the test of scientific literacy skills reveals that fundamental literacy is an important contributor to scientific literacy. CBE life sciences education, 18(3), ar31. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-12-0238
41. Tekir, S., & Arıkan, A. (2007). An analysis of English language teaching coursebooks by Turkish writers:" Let’s Speak English 7" example. International Journal of Human Sciences, 4(2), 1–18.
42. Turgut, H., & Fer, S. (2006). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel okuryazarlık yeterliklerinin geliştirilmesinde sosyal yapılandırmacı öğretim tasarımı uygulamasının etkisi[The effect of social constructivist instructional design application to prospective science teachers' scientific literacy proficiencies]. M.Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 24, 205–229.
43. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (1993). Final Report: International forum on scientific and technological literacy for all. Paris.
44. Üstün, U., Özdemir, E., Cansiz, M., & Cansiz, N. (2020). What are the factors affecting Turkish students’ science literacy? A hierarchical linear modeling study using Pisa 2015 data. Hacettepe Egitim Dergisi, 35(3), 720–732. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2019050786
45. Waldrip, B., & Oakes, S. (2001). Primary teachers’ views about integrating science and literacy. Investigating: Australian Primary & Junior Science Journal, 17(1), 38–41.
46. Wen-Cheng, W., Chien-Hung, L., & Chung-Chieh, L. (2011). Thinking of the textbook in the ESL/EFL classroom. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 91. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n2p91
47. Xuan, X., Jin, Q., Jo, I., Duan, Y., & Kim, M. (2019). The potential contribution of Geography curriculum to scientific literacy. Journal of Geography, 118(5), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2019.1611906