A Reflection on Distorted Views of Science and Technology in Science Textbooks as Obstacles to the Improvement of Students’ Scientific Literacy

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2, 51 - 68, 15.04.2013

Florbela M. Calado Franz X. Bogner

https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.2.2.51

Öz

Scientific literacy has been increasingly considered a major goal of science education. While text- books remain the most widespread tools for pursuing this goal within classrooms, they have been slow to adapt to the most recent epistemological paradigms, often still conveying distorted views of science and technology. Accordingly, we present herein a theoretical framework specifically in- tended to highlight the potential of textbooks to promote students’ scientific literacy. It is addi- tionally argued that, often, the misconceptions conveyed by textbooks represent obstacles to the acquisition of a fair image of science and, therefore, to the acquisition of scientific literacy. Finally, a textbook analysis is suggested.

Anahtar Kelimeler

scientific literacy, knowing about science, science, inquiry, technology, society, environment, textbooks, conceptions

Kaynakça

• AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. Washington.
• AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Abd-El-Khalick, F. Waters, M. Le, A. (2008). Representations of Nature of Science in High School Chemistry Textbooks over the Past Four Decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835-855.
• Aikenhead, G.S. (1980). Science in social issues: Implications for teaching. Science Council of Canada. Ottawa.
• Aikenhead, G. (1994).What is STS science teaching? In J. Solomon and G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform, pp. 47-59. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Aikenhead, G. (2000). Renegotiating the culture of school science. In Millar, R., Leach, J., and Osborne, J. (eds) Improving Science Education: The Contribution of Research, pp. 245-264. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
• Aufdermauer, A. & Hesse, M. (2006). Eine Analyse von Biologie-Schulbüchern – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Experimentierens mit Pflanzen. IBD Münster: Bericht des Institutes für Didaktik der Biologie, 15, 1-32.
• Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students’ “ideas-about-science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655-682.
• Bates, B. (2005). Public culture and public understanding of genetics: a focus group study. Public Understanding of Science, 14(1), 47-65.
• Bell, R.L. & Lederman, N.G. (2003). “Understanding of the NOS and Decision Making on Science and Technology-Based Issues”. Science Education, 87(3), 352–77.
• Brossard, D., Shanahan, J. (2006). Do they know what they read? Science Communication, 28(1), 47-63.
• Bybee, R. (1985). The Sysyphean question in science education: What should the scientifically and technologically literate person know, value and do – as a citizen? In R.W. Bybee (Ed.), Science-technology-society. 1985 NSTA Yearbook, pp. 79-93. Washington: National Science Teachers Association.
• Bybee, R. (2000). Achieving technological literacy: A national imperative. The Technology Teacher, 60, 23-28.
• Cachapuz, A., Praia, J., Jorge, M. (2004). From Science Education to Science Teaching: an epsitemological rethinking. Ciência & Educação, 10(3), 363-381.
• Chiappetta, E., Fillman & Sethna, G. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 713-725.
• Chiang-Soong, B., & Yager, R.E. (1993). The inclusion of STS material in the most frequently used secondary science textbooks in the U.S. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 339-349.
• DeBoer, G. (2000). Scientifc Literacy: Another Look at Its Historical and Contemporary Meanings and Its Relationship to Science Education Reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
• Dimopoulos, K. & Kouladis V. (2003). Science and Technology Education for Citizenship: The Potential Role of the Press. Science Education, 87(2), 241-256.
• Donnelly, J. (2005). Reforming Science in the School Curriculum: A Critical Analysis. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2), 293–309.
• Durant, J. R. (1993). What is scientific literacy? In J. R. Durant & J. Gregory (Eds.), Science and culture in Europe, pp. 129–137. Science Museum. London.
• Fensham, P. (1988).
• The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbersDevelopment and Dilemmas in Science Education. Bristol: Taylor & Francis.
• Fensham, P.J. (2002). “Time to Change Drivers for Scientific Literacy,” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(1), 9–24.
• Fernández, I. (2000). Análisis de las concepciones docentes sobre la actividad científica: una propuesta de transformación. PHd tesis. Departamento de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales y Sociales. València: Universitat de València.
• Fernández, I., Gil, D., Carrascosa, J., Cachapuz, A. & Praia, J. (2003). “Visiones Deformadas de la Ciencia Transmitidas por la Enseñanza”. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 20(3), 477–488.
• Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of knowledge. London: NLB.
• Finley, F. (1994). Por qué los estudiantes tienen dificultades para aprender de los textos de ciencias. In C. Santa & D. Alvermann. (comp.). Una Didáctica de las Ciencias. Argentina: AIQUE Didáctica.
• Gaskell, P.J. (1992). Authentic Science and School Science. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 265–72.
• Gil-Pérez, D., Vilches, A., Fernández, I., Cachapuz, A., Praia, J., Valdéz, P. & Salinas, J. (2005). Technology as “Applied Science”: A Serious Misconception that Reinforces Distorted and Impoverished Views of Science. Science & Education, 14, 309-320.
• Hodson, D. (1992). “Redefining and Reorienting Practical Work in School Science”. School Science Review, 73(264), 65-78.
• Hodson, D. (1996). ’New Thinking on the Role of Practical Work in Science Teaching’. In D. Stow & G. McCall (Eds), Geoscience Education and Training in schoolsand Universities, for Industry and Public Awareness, pp. 215–232. AGID, A. A. Balkema.
• Jenkins, E. W. (1994). Scientific literacy. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopaedia of education, 9(2) 5345–5350. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
• Kalman, C. (2011). Enhancing Students' Conceptual Understanding by Engaging Science Text with Reflective Writing as a Hermeneutical Circle. Science & Education. 20(2), 59-172.
• Knain, E. (2001). Ideologies in School Science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 319-329.
• Koelsche, C. L. (1965). Scientific literacy as related to the media of mass communication. School Science and Mathematics, 65(8), 719-725.
• Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual Overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.
• Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S. & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Driffield: Studies in Education.
• Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J. & Séré, M-G. (2000) Epistemological understanding in science learning: the consistency of representations across contexts. Learning and Instruction, 10(6), 497-527.
• Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: Ahistorical perspective. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies, pp. 331–350. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
• Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
• Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2005). The nature of science and scientific inquiry. In G.Venville & V. Dawson (Eds.), The Art of Teaching Science, pp. 2-17. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
• Lee, O. (1997). Scientific Literacy for All: What Is It, and How Can We Achieve It? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(3), 219-222.
• Leite, L. (2002). History of Science in Science Education: Development and Validation of a Checklist for Analysing the Historical Content of Science textbooks. Science Education, 11, 333-359.
• Lewenstein, B. V. (2001). Who produces science information for the public? In J. H. Falk (Ed.), Free-choice science education: How we learn science outside of school, pp. 21-43. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Mathews, M. (1998). “The Nature of Science and Science Teaching”, in B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds), International Handbok of Science Education, pp. 981-999. Dordrecht: Kluver Academic Publishers.
• McComas, W., Clough, P. & Almazroa, H. (2000). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In McComas W. (2002) The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3-39). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• McComas, W. & Olson, J. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies, pp. 41-52. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future. The Report of a Seminar Series Funded by the Nuffield Foundation. London: King’s College London, School of Education.
• Millar, R. (2002). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. In S. Amos & R. Boohan (Eds.). Teaching science in secondary schools, pp. 113-128. London: Routlege/Falmer and The Open University.
• Miller, J. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203.
• Miller, J. & Pardo, R. (2000). Civic scientific literacy and attitude to science and technology: A comparative analysis of the European Union; THE United States and Canada. In Dierkes, M. & Grote, C. (Eds.), Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology. Oxon: Routledge.
• National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington: National Academic Press.
• National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington: National Academic Press.
• National Science Teachers Association (1971). NSTA position statement on school science education for the 70's. The Science Teacher, 38, 46 - 51.
• OECD (2007). PISA 2006. Science competencies for tomorrow’s world – analysis. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf
• Orpwood, G. W. (1984). Science education in Canadian Schools, 1. Quebec: Canadian Government Publishing Centre.
• Osborne, J. (2000). Science for citizenship. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching, pp. 225-240). Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R. & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” Should Be Taught in School Science? A Delphi Study of the Expert Community. Journal of research in science teaching, 40(7) 692-720.
• Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
• Osborne, J., Duschl, R., Fairbrother, R. (2002). Breaking the mould: Teaching science for public understanding. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
• Pingel, F. (1999). UNESCO guidebook on textbook research and textbook revision. Hannover: Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung.
• Quessada, M. & Clément P. (2007). An Epistemological Approach to French Syllabi on Human Origins during the 19th and 20th Centuries. Science and Education, 16, 991-1006.
• Ratcliffe, M. (2001). “Science, Technology and Society in School Science Education”. School Science Review, 82, 83–92.
• Reis, P. R. (2008). A Escola e as Controvérsias sociocientíficas: Perspectivas de Alunos e Professores. Lisboa: Escolar Editora.
• Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Dieter Lenzen, Walberg-Henriksson, H. and Hemmo V. (2007). Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Brussels: Directorate General for Research, Science, Economy and Society.
• Rosenthal, D. B. (1984). Social issues in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(8), 819–831.
• Rudolph, J. L. (2003). Portraying Epistemology: School Science in Historical Context. Science Education, 87, 64-79.
• Ryan, A. & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Sience Education, 76(6), 559-580.
• Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D.L. (2004) “The Morality of Socioscientific Issues: Construal and Resolution of Genetic Engineering Dilemmas”. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27.
• Scharfenberg, F-J & Bogner, FX (2010). Instructional efficiency of changing cognitive load in an out-of-school laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 829-844.
• Schwartz, R. S. & Lederman, N. G. (2008). What Scientists Say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727-771.
• SCCC, Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum (1996). Science education in Scottish schools: Looking to the future. Broughty Ferry.
• Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
• Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F. & Clough, M. P. (1997). How Great is the Disagreement about the Nature of Science: A Response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101-1103.
• Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83, 493-509.
• Solbes, J. & Vilches, A. (1997). ‘STS Interactions and the Teaching of Physics and Chemistry. Science Education, 81(4), 377–386.
• Solomon, J. (1993). Teaching science, technology and society. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Solomon, J. & Aikenhead, G. (1994) STS Education: International Perspectives on Reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Stanley. W. B. & Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Teaching sciences: The multicultural question revised. Science Education, 85, 35-49.
• Stocklmayer, S. & Treagust, D. (1994). A Historical Analysis of Electric Currents in Textbooks: A Century of Influence on Physics Education. Science and Education, 3, 131-154.
• Thomas, G. & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? Scientific Literacy Papers, 1, 1-14.
• Tamir, P. (1985). Content analysis focusing on inquiry. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17 (1), 87-94.
• Turner, S. (2008). School Science and its controversies; or, whatever happened to scientific literacy? Public Understanding of Science, 17, 55-72.
• UNESCO (1983). Bangkok: Science for all.
• UNESCO (2005). Paris: Unesco science report.
• Wellington, J. (1991). Newspaper science, school science: friends or enemies?. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 363-372.
• Wilkinson, J. (1999). A Quantitative Analysis of Physics Textbooks for Scientific Literacy Themes. Research in Science Education, 29(3), 385-399.
• Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L. & Howes, E.V. (2005). Beyond STS: A Research-Based Framework for Socioscientific Issues Education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–77.
• Ziman, J. (1994) The Rationale of STS Education is in the Approach. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds) STS Education: International Perspectives on Reform, 21–31. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Zimmerman, C., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., Klein, J. S. & Klein, P. (2001). Science at the supermarket: A comparison of what appears in the popular press, experts' advice to readers, and what students want to know. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 37-58.