The meaning of scientific literacy: A model of relevance in science education

Academic Leadership

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2010, Pages

  Nbina, Jacobson Barineka ^a   Obomanu, B J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649871684     PISSN: 15337812     EISSN: 15337812     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics and technology, Washington, DC: AAAS.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3. Baumert, J. (1997). Scientific literacy: A German perspective. In W.Graeber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy. An international symposium (p. 167-180). Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN): Kiel, Germany.
4. Bell, R., & Lederman, N. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.
5. Bybee R.W. (1997). Towards an understanding of scientific literacy. In: W. Gräber & C. Bolte. (Eds.). Scientific literacy. An international symposium (p. 37-68). Institut für die Pädagogikder Naturwissenschaften (IPN): Kiel, Germany.
6. El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
7. Fensham, P. (2008). Science education policy-making. Paris: UNESCO.
8. Gallagher, J., & Harsch, G. (1997). Scientific literacy: Science education and secondary school students. In W.Graeber & C. Bolte. (Eds.). Scientific literacy: An international symposium (p. 13-34). Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN): Kiel, Germany.
9. Gräber, W., Erdmann, T., & Schlieker, V. (2001). ParCIS: Partnership between Chemical Industry and Schools. Accessed November 2008 from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/_chik_symposium/sites/pdf/graeber.pdf
10. Hand, B. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021-1035.
11. Holbrook, J., (2008). Introduction to the Special Issue of Science Education International Devoted to PARSEL, Science Education International, 19(3), 257-266.
12. Holbrook J. (1998). Operationalising scientific and technological literacy: A new approach to science teaching. Science Education International, 9(2), 15-19.
13. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). Nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362.
14. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (Eds.). (1997). Supplementary teaching materials promoting scientific and technological literacy. Tartu, Estonia: ICASE (International Council of Associations for Science Education).
15. Hurd, P.D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16(1), 13-16.
16. ICASE. (2003). The way forward. Document adopted by participants at the World Conference on the Relevance of Science and Technology Education for All. Malaysia, Penang: ICASE (International Council of Associations for Science Education) & RECSAM (Regional Education Centre for Science and Mathematics).
17. Keller, J.M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Instructional design theories: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Klein, P.D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: from the viewpoint of second-generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 143-178.
19. Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383-409.
20. Laugksch R.C. (2000). Scientific Literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71-94.
21. 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, UK: Studies in Education.
22. Levitt, K.E. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers' beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86(1), 1-22.
23. Maienschein, J. (1998). Scientific literacy. Science, 281, 917.
24. Matthews, B. (2004). Promoting emotional literacy, equity and interest in science lessons for 11-14 year olds; the 'Improving Science and Emotional Development' project. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 281-308.
25. Millar, J. (1997). Civic scientific literacy in the United States: A developmental analysis from middle school through adulthood. In: W. Graeber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy: An international symposium (p. 121-142). Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN): Kiel, Germany.
26. National Science Education Standards (1996). National Academy of Sciences. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
27. Norris S.P., & Phillips, L.M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
28. National Science Teachers Association. (1991). Position statement. Washington DC: National Science Teachers Association.
29. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Retrieved November 2008 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/35/37464175.pdf
30. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework. Retrieved November 2008 from: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/14/33694881.pdf
31. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (1998). Instrument design: A framework for assessing scientific literacy. Report of Project Managers Meeting, Arnhem, The Netherlands: Programme for International Student Assessment.
32. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus- group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467.
33. Ramsden, J.M. (1998). Mission impossible? Can anything be done about attitudes to science? International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 125-137.
34. Rannikmäe, A., Rannikmäe, M., & Holbrook, J. (2006). The nature of science as viewed by nonscience undergraduate students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(10), 77-84.
35. Rychen, D.S. & Salganik, L.H. (Eds.). (2003). Key competencies for a successful life and a well functioning society. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber
36. Sadler, T., Chambers, F., & Zeidler, D. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387-409.
37. Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
38. Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N. (2008). What scientists say: Scientist's views of nature of science, and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 6, 727-771.
39. Sjoberg, S. (2002). Science and technology education: Current challenges and possible solutions. In S. Sjoberg (Ed.), Three contributions to science education (pp. 5-36). Acta Didactica, No.2. University of Oslo.
40. Teppo, M., & Rannikmae, M. (2008). Paradigm shift for teachers: More relevant science teaching. In J. Holbrook, M. Rannikame, P. Reiska & P. Isley (Eds.), The need for a paradigm shift in science education for post-Soviet societies (pp. 25-46). Germany: Peter Lang.
41. Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 815-832.
42. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (1993). Final Report: International forum on scientific and technological literacy for all. Paris: UNESCO.
43. Van Aalsvoort, J. (2004). Logical postitivsm as a tool to analyse the problem of chemistry's lack of relevance in secondary school chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(9), 1151-1168.
44. Za'rour, G. I. (2001). Relevant Teaching: Incorproating Curriculuim, Teaching Approaches and Assessment Aspects. In N. Valanides (Ed.), Science and technology Education: Preparing Future
45. Citizens. Proceedings of the IOSTE Symposium in Southern Europe (pp. 3-12). Paralimni, Cyprus: International Organisation of Science and Technology Educators (IOSTE).
46. Zeidler, D., Walker, K., Ackett, W., & Simmons, M. (2002). Tangled up views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367.
47. Zoller, U. (2001). HOCS problem-solving vs. LOCS exercise solving: What do college science students prefer? In: D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, G. Bisdikian, G. Fassoulopoulos, E. Hatzikraniotis & M. Kallery, M. (Eds.), Science Education Research in the Knowledge Based Society. Proceedings of the 3rd ESERA Conference (p. 201-208). Dordrecht: Kluwer