International workshop: Scientific and Technological Literacy

Department of Education
May 13th - 14th 2008

What is scientific and technological literacy in

contemporary society
and how might we educate people for it?

Preparatory position papers

Workshop leaders:
John Dakers, University of Glasgow
Jonathan Osborne, King’s College, London

Organizing committee:
Christina Kärrqvist, Chair
Åke Ingerman
Clas Olander
Anita Wallin

The workshop is sponsored by The Education and Research Board for Teacher Training (UFL)
at University of Gothenburg
Anne Solli 080413

Scientific literacy – science centres; exhibits and scientists

I am about to start my graduate studies in Hasselbladstiftelsens research school. I am
interested in issues at the intersection of science and politics (climate change) I will be sharing
my time between research and working as an exhibition developer at Universeum, the science
discovery centre in Gothenburg. Science educators have strongly supported sources of out of
school learning as important and effective complements to the science curriculum (Rennie,
2007). The freedom of the out-of-school contexts allows people to behave in different ways
and experience different learning outcomes. Science learning is cumulative emerging over
time through a myriad of human experiences, including but not limited to experiences in
school. The science centre seeks to promote scientific literacy to a combination of audiences,
school children attending in special programs in the frame of school curriculum and families
visiting for a combination of fun and learning. To understand how the visit contributes to the
visitors literacy is challenging. The evidence for learning outcomes is not often seen at the
same time as the experience provided by the centre (Johnson). Several studies of field trips
have shown that their educational effectiveness depends on how well they complement the
science curriculum at school (Rennie, 2007).

How is science communicated through the exhibits at the science centre? According to
Bradburne (2000) science centre exhibits have three major problems: they communicate
principles not processes, most fail to communicate scientific thought, focusing only the
conclusion and not the journey, and they mask the complex links between science and
technology. Why are the exhibits not showing a more complex picture of science? In the
process of making an exhibit several people are involved; scientists, pedagogues and
designers. We cooperate to try make the visitor develop skills, knowledge, understanding,
awareness, values, feelings, increase in the capacity to reflect – depending on the target group
of the exhibit. The product is a compromise between educational soundness on one side and
the interests of the science community on another and commercial value on yet another side
(to ensure high visitors numbers the exhibits must be lots of fun, easily accessible and not to
controversial). Aikenhead (2007) describes a similar tension found between educational
soundness and political reality in school. I frequently meet, consult and cooperate with
scientists both in developing exhibits and in public engagement programs (for instance the EU
project Nanodialogue) In my experience scientists often believe that if laypeople had a better
understanding of scientific content they would embrace both science and new technology.
Anne Solli 080413

Many researchers suggest that scientists must focus on ways to make complex topics
personally relevant to engage diverse publics (Nisbeth & Mooney, 2007). I am curious to
learn how the scientists’ ideas on how to portray science influences the making of science
centres exhibit on the theme climate change.

Everyone agrees that students can´t be scientifically literate if they don’t know any science
matter (Roberts 2007). Knowing a lot of science content is not sufficient either if one looks at
Rennie et al (2001) description “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.” A study done by Bell and Lederman
(2003) shows how university scientists made decisions on everyday socio-scientific issues
primarily on values rather than primarily on scientific ideas and evidence. I want to study
climate change literacy (according to the Rennies description) amongst scientists with a
chemistry background, science interested students and people with little science education
background. I am interested to study whether climate friendly behaviour (transport pattern,
meat eating, saving energy), is correlating with the knowledge of the scientific content. I am
also interested to study the tendency to critically judge information among the different
groups.

Aikenhead, G (2007). Humanistic Perspectives in the Science Curriculum in S.K. Abell &
N.G. Lederman (Eds) Handbook of research in science education.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003) Understandings of the nature of science and decision
making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352 – 377.
Bradburne, J.M (2000). Tracing our routes: Museological strategies for the 21 st century. In
B.Sciele & E.H: Koster (Eds.) Science centers for this century (pp. 35 – 85)
Johnson C. Science centers as learning environments. (080315)
http://www.astc.org/resource/education/johnson_scicenters.htm
Nisbeth, M & Mooney, C (2007). Framing science. Science, 316, 56.
Rennie, L. (2007) Learning science outside school in S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds)
Handbook of research in science education.
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.
Anne Solli 080413

Roberts, D. (2007) Scientific Literacy/Science Litteracy in S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman
(Eds) Handbook of research in science education.
Preliminary writing for the Workshop on Scientific and Technological Literacy, May 13th-14th 2008
Antti Laherto, University of Helsinki, Department of Physics

Public understanding about nanoscience and nanotechnology in relation to scientific

literacy

In my PhD study I will carry out an educational reconstruction of nanoscience and nanotechnology (NS&T)
in order to design an informal learning environment, namely a public exhibition, on these subject matters.
The main purpose of the exhibition is to contribute to scientific literacy (SL). Thereby, central to my study is
analysing the features of NS&T that are relevant regarding the wider aims of SL. In the following chapters I
will first specify the notion of SL that is employed in the study, and then discuss some key aspects of NS&T
in this respect.

Interpretation of scientific literacy for this study

Enhancing SL is a major educational objective worldwide, concerning not only formal but informal science
education as well. The concept has developed into an umbrella term covering virtually everything regarding
science education (see e.g. Roberts, 1983; Shamos, 1995; Laugksch, 2000). This ambiguity is due to the
diversity of underlying reasons for promoting SL, including various standpoints and benefits at both societal
and personal levels (Laugksch, 2000; Fensham, 2002; McEneaney, 2003). Since the meanings of SL vary
widely reflecting these rationales, a perspective must be articulated when applying the concept. In this study,
a functional and contextualized interpretation of SL is employed, emphasizing personal relevance for citizens
and an ability to participate in socio-scientific decisions. The chosen conception is in line with the PISA
definition of SL (OECD, 2007), insights of the STS-movement and the Socioscientific Issues (SSI)
framework (Zeidler et al., 2005), recent recommendations for European science education policies (Osborne
& Dillon, 2008), and “Vision II” proposed by Roberts (2007).

Accordingly, the exhibition developed in the study aims to address especially the ethical and societal
implications of NS&T as well as the nature of these enterprises, involving their practices and processes. The
goals are e.g. to help exhibition visitors to feel comfortable and competent with nanoscientific and -
technological matters and artefacts, to follow the media discussion of the topics, and to form opinions on
social and ethical issues related to these fields. The main purpose of the exhibition is not to prepare visitors
to further studies or to educate the future nanoscientists and nanoengineers, but to prepare visitors to deal
with personal and societal issues concerning NS&T.

It may be noted that this orientation distinguishes the learning environment developed here from most of the
current informal educational initiatives on NS&T. Namely, recent demands for educating the public on
nanoscience are chiefly triggered by the significant economic prospects of nanotechnology and the
foreseeable need for new nanoscientists, -engineers and other related professionals (Brune et al., 2006; Roco,
2007). Consequently, most current outreach programmes and educational efforts (see e.g. Goodhew, 2006;
Baraton, Monk & Tomellini, 2007; Gyalog, 2007) state these concerns explicitly and focus on strengthening
the public support for NS&T and inspiring young people to study related disciplines. These goals are
connected with "Vision I" of scientific literacy (Roberts, 2007).

Relevant features of nanoscience and -technology

The aforementioned goals of SL, related to Roberts' (2007) "Vision II", are quite relevant concerning NS&T.
It is likely that in the near future we have to make more and more decisions concerning NS&T - both at the
personal level, as consumers, but also at the societal level, about the future paths of NS&T that have may
have substantial effects on society. Hence, there is a need to enable citizens to deal with these issues in an
informed and independent way. Many social scientists have argued that the matter of participatory
democracy is especially problematic in the case of NS&T (Baird, Nordmann & Schummer, 2004). This is
due to the fact that nanoscale phenomena can be accessed only with highly sophisticated instruments and lots
of expertise in interpreting the data before it can be presented to the public or for example to politicians or
regulatory officials. And even then, the information is relevant only in the framework of certain theories,
models and methods that are very complex and hard to understand for non-scientists. On this basis, there are
concerns about supervision and public participation in the decision-making processes (Baird, Nordmann &
Schummer, 2004).

These concerns are noteworthy since the prospects of nanotechnology involve both significant benefits and
risks regarding society, environment and health (see e.g. Roco, 2005; Brune et al., 2006). While the public
discussion catalyzed by interest groups is often very target-oriented and polarized (Macoubrie, 2006), there
is a lack of realistic and unbiased information on the ethical and social implications of nanotechnology
(Sweeney, 2006). Scientific literacy regarding NS&T is needed in order to deal with both the benefits and
risks in a balanced and responsible way.

Furthermore, since understanding the nature of science is a key element of the chosen notion of SL, some
especial features in the processes of NS&T should be addressed in order to represent the nature of the fields
in a proper way. These features involve the interdisciplinary character of NS&T, the entwined relationship
between nanoscience and nanotechnology, and the interplay between empirical and theoretical research with
distinctive roles of modeling, simulations and imaging (Baird, Nordmann & Schummer, 2004; Brune et al.,
2006). Perhaps science education in general could use NS&T as subject matters in order to provide more up-
to-date views on the nature of science.

NS&T have gained wide public interest and media attention. Addressing these topics in education may
contribute to SL also due to this, since the decline of interest in studying science is chiefly because of the
disconnection between school science and students’ preoccupations, and also the lack of modern sciences in
curricula (Osborne, 2007).

When developing either formal or informal education on NS&T, several educational challenges regarding
the sophistication of the concepts should be taken into account in order to avoid e.g. causing epistemological
misunderstandings (cf. Baird, Nordmann & Schummer, 2004; Brune et al., 2006). Despite these challenges,
discussing the emerging fields of NS&T appears to be fruitful in the sense of enhancing SL.

References

Baird, D., Nordmann, A. & Schummer, J. (Eds.) (2004). Discovering the Nanoscale. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Baraton, M., Monk, R. & Tomellini, R. (2007). European Activities in Nanoscience Education and Training. In A.E.
Sweeney & S. Seal (Eds.), Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education. American Scientific Publishers.
Brune, H., Ernst, H., Grunwald, A., et al. (2006). Nanotechnology. Assessment and Perspectives. Berlin Heidelberg:
Springer.
Fensham, P.J. (2002). Time to change drivers for scientific literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and
Technology Education, 2, 9-24.
Goodhew, P., (2006). Education moves to a new scale. Nano Today, [Online], 1(2), 40.
Gyalog, T. (2007). Nanoscience education in Europe. Europhysicsnews, 38(1), 13-15.
Laugksch, R.C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.
Macoubrie, J. (2006). Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public understanding of
science, 15(2), 221-241.
McEneaney, E.H. (2003). The Worldwide Cachet of Scientific Literacy. Comparative Education Review, 47(2), 217-
237.
OECD (2007). Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD
Publications.
Osborne, J. (2007). Engaging young people with science: thoughts about future direction of science education. In C.
Linder, L. Östman & P. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in
 Transaction (pp. 105-112). Uppsala, Sweden: Geotryckeriet.
Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. 2008, Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. A Report to the Nuffield Foundation.,
The Nuffield Foundation, London
Roberts, D.A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research
on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roberts, D.A. (1983). Scientific literacy. Towards a balance for setting goals for school science programs. Ottawa, ON,
Canada: Minister of Supply and Services.
Roco, M. (2007). National Nanotechnology Initiative: Past, Present, Future. In W. Goddard, D. Brenner, S. Lyshevski,
et al. (Eds.), Handbook on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology, 2nd ed.
Roco, M., (2005). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Maximizing human benefit. Journal of
nanoparticle research, [Online], 7(1), 1.
Shamos, M.H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Sweeney, A.E. (2006). Teaching & Learning in Nanoscale Science & Engineering: A Focus on Social & Ethical Issues
and K-16 Science Education. Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings Vol. 931Materials Research
Society.
Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L., et al. (2005). Beyond STS: A Research-based Framework for
Socioscientific Issues Education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.
Birgitta Frändberg March 2008

Scientific literacy and models (and metaphors) in science education

One of my research interests is the roles of models in science education. How are they
perceived of by teachers as tools for understanding and explaining science phenomena? And
how do students understand them? Some ways in which this research area connects with
scientific literacy is suggested below.

History of science and the nature of science

One aspect of scientific literacy often mentioned (eg. Roberts, 2007) is the ability to take part
in discussions about scientific issues and to understand in what way science may contribute to
understanding and decision-making on different social and environmental issues. This implies
that one important ability is to know what science can contribute and not contribute with in
these matters. That is, you have to recognize the nature of science.

Models and modelling are proposed by Justi and Gilbert (2000) to provide a basis for
including history and philosophy of science into the science education, which in turn is a way
to become aware of the nature of science. Through learning about and discussing the different
historical models of a concept, students can get an opportunity to understand the processes of
scientific knowledge development. This requires a thorough mapping of why a model became
dissatisfactory and what advantages a new model had over the old one. In this process,
students can become aware of the temporary and simplistic nature of scientific models.

Understanding science
When considering science education it is a question of what parts of science is relevant for
educating able citizens, not if science at all is relevant. So, understanding (certain parts of)
science is a relevant aspect of scientific literacy. This understanding can be facilitated by the
use of models and metaphors.

In a work with a classroom sequence for Grade 5 on evaporation, Tytler, Peterson and Prain
(2006) explored the use of a particle model together with a range of representational modes.
They describe the importance of mastering different representational skills for scientific
literacy:

The generation and refinement of representations (in this case mainly verbal and visual) is a key
element of learning and doing science. These processes and products constitute key literacies of
science, and learning to know and to do science involves their mastery and coordination. This
represents a much more significant sense of the link between literacy and science than simply to
read stories about science or write reports of science activities. (p. 16)

Tytler et al. stress the need for multi-modal teaching, as individual learners prefer different kinds of
representations. They mean that learning science effectively involves understanding different
representations and being able to translate them into one another.

Stories to be told
As Osborne (2007) points out, there is a need for science education to make accessible to the
students “the major stories that science has to tell” (p. 109) about for instance how our bodies
relate to the stars. This could be seen as the cultural aspect of scientific literacy, important for
developing students´ knowledge of history and culture, and their ontological views.
Birgitta Frändberg March 2008

One way of approaching this can be found in a paper by Norris and Philips (2003). They
claim that “the fundamental sense of literacy is central to scientific literacy”. By fundamental
sense of literacy they mean the ability to interpret, comprehend, analyze and citicize a text.
The capacities needed for reading science texts are largely the same as in other subjects, and
has to be learned. Understanding of science texts also has to do with comprehension of certain
science concepts and being familiar with different forms of representation (e.g. models,
graphs, diagrams) used in scientific communication. Science teachers have to a large degree
been neglecting this and focused on the substantive content. By focusing on the fundamental
sense of scientific literacy science education can escape from learning isolated peaces of
information and “capture what is truly exciting about science, namely, how it all fits together
into a remarkable whole” (Norris & Philips, 2003, p. 237). In this, I think the use of models
and learning about the nature of models plays an important part. The role of metaphors in this
context is also worth investigation.

Concluding remarks
The above mentioned aspects of scientific literacy and how they relate to the use of models
and metaphors are of course related to each other in many ways. Understanding processes of
scientific knowledge development includes the understanding of certain science concepts and
is in itself a story to be told. But it could be useful to separate these aspects and to examine
how they are conceived of by teachers and students to learn more about the role of models and
metaphors in scientific literacy and science education.

Technological literacy and models

As for the connection of models to technological literacy I think much of what is already
stated above is valid also in this case. There is however a difference in purpose, as Compton
and France put it:

..the purpose of technology is to intervene in the world, whereas the purpose of science
is to explain the world. (Compton & France, 2007, p 263).

But this does not affect the usefulness of models in technology. In fact, technological
modelling is seen as a key concept in technology, as it is critical for exploring ideas and their
impact on the world as realised technological outcomes (Compton & France, 2007).

References
Compton, Vicki & France, Bev. (2007). Redefining Technological Literacy in New Zealand:
From concepts to curriculum constructs.
Justi, R. & Gilbert, J. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: some challenges in
the case of “the atom”. International Journal of Science Education, 22,(9), 993-1009.
Norris, S. & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy.
Science Education, 87, 224-240.
Osborne, J. (2007). Engaging young people with science: Thoughts about future direction of science
education. In Linder, Östman and Wickman (Eds.). Promoting scientific literacy: Science Education
Research in Transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium held at Uppsala
University, Uppsala, Sweden, May 28-29. 2007. Geotryckeri, Uppsala.
Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In Lederman and Abell, (Eds.),
Handbook of research on Science Education. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tytler, R., Peterson, S. & Prain, V. (2006). Picturing evaporation: Learning science literacy through
a particle representation. Teaching Science, the Journal of the Australian Science Teachers
Association, 52(1),12-17.
 Workshop on scientific and technological literacy, May 13 -14, 2008
Clas Olander, University of Gothenburg

What is scientific and technological literacy in contemporary society

and how could we educate people for it?
- relations between my research/working interest and the theme of the workshop
Scientific literacy is widely used as a label of a science education for all students, but the only
shared meaning is that in order to be scientifically literate you need some science subject matter
knowledge, what type of knowledge and levels is an open discussion (Roberts, 2007). The
workshop theme tempts me to propose two issues to discuss, although I admit they have
connections; one is in relation to teacher education and the other relates more to my research.
In my work as a teacher educator, scientific literacy is introduced in connection to discussions
about the legitimacy of science and technology in a curriculum for everyone. Our discussions
often start with Sjøberg´s (1997) arguments: a) economic arguments: preparation for work; b)
utilitarian arguments: for mastery of daily life; c) science for citizenship and democratic
participation and d) science for cultural literacy a major human product. These arguments have
different strength depending on what level in the school system you think of. Most countries have
school systems that are divided in a compulsory general part followed by a voluntary and more
specialised part. When discussing aims of compulsory schooling my view is that the most viable
stance is an education for citizenship with arguments concerning democracy/culture. With this
aim in mind compulsory school need very few glances on further schooling. In Sweden it is
approximately fifteen percent of the students that choose to continue studying natural science
after compulsory school. For those it would be advisable to define a “scientific literacy for
science specialists”. However, it is hard to see any reason why focus on education for citizenship
up to the age of sixteen should decrease the enrolment in further science careers or result in
poorer future engineers. On the contrary, it might enthusiast new and larger groups and gives
future specialists a possibility of being more scientific-cultural literate.
A curriculum that is inspired by the notion of scientific literacy, with a differentiation between
education for everyone and education for specialists, is proposed by the 21st Century Science.
Their view is an education that shapes active and informed users of science knowledge and what
it takes to be a scientifically literate person is summarised as:
• 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
• take part confidently in discussions with others about issues involving science

Aims like these calls for a broad view of knowledge domains of goals for science education e.g
Kelly (2007) suggests: conceptual, epistemic and social/communicative. When Osborne (2004)
elaborates “how does the public judge what is good science” he adds a cognitive goal which deals
with reasoning in science. In order to enhance students’ critical thinking Osborne suggest that it
is especially the cognitive and epistemic goals that are important i.e. questions like “how do you
know that” should continuously be posed.
The “teacher-education-issue” I want to discuss is how we could enhance prospective teachers
awareness of what education for all implicates. How do we problemize the relevance of e.g.
atoms, energy, genes etc. in terms of conceptual, epistemic and social/communicative goals?
My thesis deals with conditions concerning learning and teaching biological evolution in formal
school settings. One analysing tool is the notion of learning demand; differences between
students’ spontaneous1 reasoning and school science views of the same phenomena. These
differences are discernable in the domains of conceptual understanding, epistemological framing
and ontological views (Leach & Scott, 2002). The research is done in collaboration with
practising teachers through enacted teaching interventions. In an iterative process, data about
learning and teaching biological evolution is generated through continuous cycles of design,
teaching, evaluation and redesign.
The analysis focus on what the students themselves makes important when they talk and argue in
peer group discussions. In these conversations students’ epistemological framing and conceptual
understanding is made accessible both to the learners themselves and others. Analysis of single
utterances as well as longer patterns of argumentation points at possible critical features
concerning students´ conceptual understanding biological evolution. This is good as such but in
relation to becoming a citizen that can reflect critically when making decisions epistemological
issues are equally important. Students talk in peer groups indicates what they value as good
explanations. This is partly visible in connection to cognitive goals i.e. the reasoning patterns
students use. Discussions about evolution of life on earth seems to be a topic that encourage the
use of explanations that draw on teleology i.e. events have a purpose. Reasoning in science draws
on cause-effect explanations and students negotiate between these two modes of explanation;
teleological and casual. Doing so they also oscillate between language patterns or social
languages2, on the one hand an informal and spontaneous language and on the other a more
formal and scientific one. The second epistemological theme is about epistemic goals i.e. how do
students support their claims. When making warrants to their claims different resources are used,
both own experiences of the material world and formalised descriptions or explanations of the
world are used. These latter references are a continuum from unreflected echoes of authoritative
sources like persons and laws to more elaborated argumentation referring to models and theories.
Let us assume that student’s awareness of epistemological issues is an important aspect of their
competence, defined as becoming scientific literate persons. How do we narrow down this
competence? Do we have to define epistemological issues according to every single scientific
topic or are there more general patterns?
References
Kelly, G. (2007). Scientific literacy, Discourse, and knowledge. In Linder, Östman & Wickman (Eds).
Promoting scientific Literacy: Science research in Transaction (pp. 47-55).
Leach, J. & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the
concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38.
Osborne, J. (2004). Inaugural lecture, kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/29/36/joinaugural.pdf retr. 080314
Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific Literacy/Science Literacy. In Abell, S & Lederman, N (Eds)
Handbook of research on Science Education (pp. 729-779). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sjøberg, S. (1997). Scientific literacy and school science – arguments and second thoughts. In
Sjøberg & Kallerud (Eds). Science, technology and citizenship (pp. 9-28). Oslo.
Twenty first century science, www.21stcenturyscience.org/ retrieved 080314

1 Spontaneous is Vygotsky´s (1986) expression which along with Lemke´s (1990) colloquial clarifies my interpretation of the
more general expression every day language.
2
A social language is here understood as the characteristic discourse within a specific part of society, e.g. professionals (Bakhtin,
1981, p.430).
 E-Quality in Developing Countries

Davoud Masoumi

Explosive growth of the ICT in the world has made it a popular platform for providing a wide
rang of electronic services (e-service) from business to education (Chiu, Hsu, Sun, Lin, & Sun,
2005). However there is a widening gap "digital divide" in adoption and usage ICT based
initiatives of between the developed and developing worlds in this area (Goldfarb & Prince,
2008). This rapid evolution and widespread penetration of e-learning represents both significant
challenges as well as significant opportunities to the higher education systems of the “developing
world”. Countries which mostly lack a sound higher education infrastructure can thereby tap the
resources of the more developed countries. In other words, developing countries like Iran are
undergoing rapid transition in a period of accelerated globalization; these countries’ economic
and educational reforms are taking place in the context of the processes associated with and the
consequences of globalization (Carnoy, 1999).

Large expectations have emerged for e-learning advances to meet societies’ demands in new
ways in developing countries. E-learning affords new opportunities to meet these rising
demands. Accordingly, developing countries utilizing expanding higher education through ICTs
and e-learning (Uvaliæ-Trumbiæ & Varoglu, 2003) as a way to meet growing demands and
young population boom (60 % under 30) (http://www.col.org/virtualu_invite.htm). IN the same
vein, a host of universities and initiations in developing countries like Iran are investing
significant capital for developing virtual universities or virtual sections in the conventional
campus.

Obviously these virtual universities or e-learning environments offer tremendous possibilities to

the developing countries to raise their educational levels. However there is no doubt that quality
is the most decisive factor in determining the future of e-learning settings (Ehlers & Pawlowski,
2006). In other words, one of the main barriers to successful deployment of technology-based
learning is the lack of high quality systems tailored to the needs of individual users and groups
(Masoumi, 2006). Thus, designing and developing a context based e-quality framework for
enhancing and assuring quality in e-learning environments is very crucial. Numerous model and
1
framework for qualifying and enhancing quality in e-learning environments have been
developed. However, none of developed models and frameworks for qualifying and promoting
quality in e-learning environments are not applicable and appropriate for the developing
countries socio-cultural settings. Due to these frameworks are rooted and developed in western
socio-cultural settings.

“Quality in e-learning” is a multifaceted construct that can be assessed along different number of
factors (Ehlers, 2004; Moore, 2005; Zhao, 2003). Users’1 e-literacy is one of the initial factors in
qualifying and improving quality e-learning environments and there are strong emphasis on this
factor in various studies and guidelines (Khan, 2005; The Institution for Higher Education
Policy, 2000; Zhao, 2003). This factor prescribes the content knowledge and abilities that
students should acquire to be technologically literate (ITEA, 2000).

The definition of e-literacy as the converging of IT literacy and information literacy is

incomplete. However, e-literacy in this manuscript is primarily a concept about the forms of
technology used including LMS, hypertext literacy; multimedia presentation skills; issues
relating to time/self management and concentration and other requested competences. It suggests
in very broad terms the overall characters and competents of what users should be all about.
Accordingly, in order to fully apprehend the complexities of e-literacy, it is essential to recognize
the full range of unique skills students require to use technology in an academic context, and to
use it effectively for learning.
In other words, ICT based initiatives may have important educational advantages, but without
main users e-literacy and ongoing training for staff and students they could prove an expensive
disaster (Greenhalgh, 2001). Accordingly, providing appropriate professional development
opportunities for lecturers and e-facilitators to continual upgrade in technical skills (upcoming
technologies) and learning principles due essentially to the reliance and continual changes
inherent in technologies (Barker & Wendel, 2001).

On the other hand, Quality development should not rely solely on structural models and
strategies but take into account the professionalization of quality development — especially in

1
All of the stakeholders particularly Students and Lecturers

2
light of its technological deficit. The main assumption of this manuscript is that there are certain
competencies for professional-quality development, and that these apply to both the
learner/client side and the teacher/provider side. (Ehlers, 2007).

REFERNCES:
Barker, K., & Wendel, T. (2001). e-Learning: studying Canada’s virtual secondary schools
(Publication. Retrieved 20 Sep. 2005, from Society for the Advancement of Excellence in
Education: http://www.saee.bc.ca/ELearning.pdf
Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalization and educational reform: what planners need to know. Paris
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., Sun, S.-Y., Lin, T.-C., & Sun, P.-C. (2005). Usability, quality, value
and e-learning continuance decisions. Computers & Education, 45(4), 399-416.
Ehlers, U.-D. (2004). Quality in e-learning from a learner's perspective [Electronic Version].
European Journal of Open Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved 29 June,2007.
Ehlers, U.-D. (2007). Quality Literacy - Competencies for Quality Development in Education
and e-Learning. . Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 96-108.
Ehlers, U.-D., & Pawlowski, J. (2006). Quality in European e-learning: An introduction. In U.-D.
Ehlers & J. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on Quality and Standardisation in E-Learning
(pp. 1-13). Berlin: Springer.
Goldfarb, A., & Prince, J. (2008). Internet adoption and usage patterns are different:Implications
for the digital divide Information Economics and Policy 20, 2-15.
Khan, B. H. (2005). E-learning quick checklist. Hershey, Pa.: Information Science Pub.
Masoumi, D. (2006, 21- 22 September). Crucial conditions for effective e-learning Paper
presented at the The e-Quality final seminar, Szczecin, Poland.
Moore, J. C. (2005). The Sloan Consortium Quality Framework and the Five Pillars. from
http://www.sloan-c.org/index.asp
The Institution for Higher Education Policy. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success
in internet-based distance education (Publication., from
http://www.ihep.com/Pubs/PDF/Quality.pdf: http://www.ihep.com/Pubs/PDF/Quality.pdf
Zhao, F. (2003). Enhancing the quality of online higher education through measurement. Quality
Assurance in Education, 11(4), 214-221.

3
 STL Workshop in Göteborg, May 13-14, 2008
Elisabet M Nilsson, elisabet.nilsson@mah.se, PhD Candidate
Malmö University Center for Game Studies, School of Teacher Education, Malmö University

Playing computer games in science education

About the relationship(s) between my research interest and the workshop theme: Scientific and Technological Literacy –
What is scientific and technological literacy in contemporary society and how might we educate people for it?

The scope of my research is highlighted in the overlapped area created by the four points of departure
pictured below. The overall aim is to empirically explore computer games and gaming activities as science
learning contexts. The project originates from the paradox that at the same time as science and technology
are becoming more integrated into people’s everyday lives, their appeal as school and university subjects is
decreasing. These subjects along with mathematics are the least popular among students in many countries
(Jidesjö & Oskarsson 2006; Osborne, Simon & Collins 2003; Osborne 2007; Sjøberg et al. 2005). Some
students turn their back against these subjects because they find them too demanding, but also very
capable students seem to do the same thing (Jidesjö & Oskarsson 2006). Furthermore, the emergence of
new tools, e.g. computers, digital networks and computer games have resulted in a new media and
communication landscape that changes conditions for learning and teaching (cf. Fromme 2001; Gee 2003;
Schaffer 2007; Säljö 2005). These tools have become central carriers and providers of information,
knowledge, values and many children spend the same amount of time playing computer games, watching
TV, listening to music, and surfing on the Internet as they do in school (Säljö 2005). In Sweden almost 60
% of the boys and a fourth of the girls in the age of 12-15 years use the computer for gaming every day or
three to four times a week (Swedish Media Council 2006). More than half of them use Internet every day
for instant messaging, gaming, school work etc, while 5 % never access the Internet (ibid.). These
experiences have changed the learning and teaching situation for schools. The new generation of learners
who are used to adapted levels of difficulty, positive feedback, stimulating demands, and other positive
features of complex computer games, will be a challenge to traditional school teaching (Gee 2003;
Schaffer 2007). If we want this group of learners to experience science as an interesting and relevant
school subject and as an attractive alternative when choosing directions in higher education, the teaching
of science ought to be transformed (Jidesjö & Oskarsson 2006). The question is into what, and how
science could be taught in order to attract today’s school youth?

Picture I. The four points of departure.

1
To develop science teaching in order to meet the demands of current and forthcoming generations of
learners, the first step must be to discuss what core conceptions the field embrace, and what competences
students are expected to evolve. In my research I adopt Bartholomew’s et al. (2004) thoughts on “ideas-
about-science” which elaborate on these matters. The term “ideas-about-science” is used to “denote not
only aspects of the nature of science, but also the social influences on science and technology, the nature
of casual links, risks and risk assessment, and the impact of science and technology in society” (ibid., p. 2).
In addition to the more traditional conceptual goals associated with science teaching Bartholomew et al.
(2004) also point out the importance of cognitive, epistemic and social goals. A lot of the ideas embedded
in understanding the nature of science are difficult to formulate into teachable propositions therefore
students should be allowed to experience “the essential processes so that they can construct a knowledge
and understanding on their own” (ibid., p. 24).

Also, research presented in previous literature (c.f. Barab & Dede 2007; Gee 2003; Egenfeldt-Nielsen 2006
2007; Kirriemuir & McFarlan 2004; Malone 1981; Schaffer 2007; Squire 2005) bring forth the learning
potentials of computer games and other digital media with interactive and visually driven learning
environments. These types of learning environments are claimed to be challenging the more traditional
modes of communication as they are better suited to the school generation in a contemporary society.
From a sociocultural point of view a computer game can be described as a carrier of culture with certain
affordances and restraints that enables the gamers to do, experience and learn things that they cannot
achieve without the tool (Gee 2003). To learn how to master a computer game and consequently, to learn
how to communicate and act on a higher level, is assumed to carry great motivational potential for
learning. Previous literature (c.f. De Freitas 2007; Egenfeldt-Nielsen 2006 2007; Linderoth, Lantz-
Andersson & Lindström 2002; Mitchell & Savill-Smith 2004; Rutter & Bryce 2006) also state that there is
a lack of empirical evidence supporting the idea that computer games are advantageous to use in
educational settings, as well as lack of understanding of how computer games could be used in practice,
and that most of the research results presented are based upon theoretical assumptions. If the links
between computer games and educational objectives are to be considered there is a need for more
empirically based studies.

Empirical study
As already mentioned, the overall aim of my doctoral studies is to empirically explore computer games and
gaming activities as science learning contexts. The particular aim of the empirical study that we (Anders
Jakobsson, Gunilla Svingby and myself) are currently running (Mars-May 2008) is to explore a science
learning context supported by the city-building simulation computer game SimCity 4 (Maxis, 2003).

The case studied is Future City which is a national competition for Swedish students in grade 6-9 (12-15
years old). More than 40 schools and a thousand students participate in the competition where the
students take on the role as urban planners with the mission to create a sustainable city. When creating the
city the students handle matters such as the infrastructure, building constructions, transport system, how
energy should be obtained and clean water distributed. SimCity 4 is one of the tools used when designing
the city, but the students also build physical models of a section of their cities, and write essays which
describe their creations.

Briefly about methods

Data gathering methods: focus group interviews, documentation of cities created in SimCity 4,
documentation of the physical city models, questionnaire.
Empirical data sets: video, transcripts, screen images, photographs, quantitative data from the
questionnaire.
Data analysis: the analytical stance towards the empirical data gathered assumes a qualitative, inductive
approach. Methods used within the fields of interaction analysis (Jordan & Henderson 1995) and
conversation analysis (Hutchby & Wooffitt 1998) are applied.

2
References

Barab, Sasha & Dede, Chris (2007). Games and Immersive Participatory Simulations for Science
Education: An Emerging Type of Curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1) 1-3.
Bartholomew, Hannah; Osborne, Jonathan & Ratcliffe, Mary (2004). Teaching students “ideas-about-
science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5) 655-682.
De Freitas, Sara (2007). The Learning in Immersive Worlds: a review of game based learning report. UK: JISC e-
Learning Programme, Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Simon (2007). “Att skapa ljuv musik: Det pedagogiska användandet av datorspel”.
Datorspelandet dynamik. Lek och roller i digitala kulturer. Ed. Jonas Linderoth. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
185-199.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Simon (2006). Overview of research on the educational use of video games. Digital
Kompetanse, 1(3) 184-213.
Fromme, Johannes (2001). Computer Games as a Part of Children’s Culture. Game Studies, 3(1).
Gee, James Paul (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hutchby, Ian & Wooffitt, Robin (1998). Conversation analysis: principles, practices and applications. Oxford:
Polity.
Jidesjö, Anders & Oskarsson, Magnus (2006). Students attitudes to science and technology – First results
from The ROSE-project in Sweden. In Janiuk, I. R. M. & Samonek-Miciuk, E. (Eds.) Science and
Technology Education for a Diverse World. Dilemmas, needs and partnerships. Lublin, Poland: Marie Curie-
Sklodowska University Press.
Jordan, Brigitte & Henderson, Austin (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 4(1) 39-103.
Linderoth, Jonas; Lantz-Andersson, Annika & Lindström, Berner (2002). Electronic exaggerations and
virtual worries: Mapping research of computer games relevant to the understanding of children’s game
play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(2) 226-250.
Kirriemuir, John & McFarlan, Angela (2004). Literature review in games and learning. Bristol: FutureLab series.
Malone, Thomas (1981). What makes things fun to learn? A study of instrinsically motivating computer games. Palo
Alto, CA: Xerox.
Maxis (2003). SimCity 4 Deluxe Edition. Redwood City, CA: Electronic Arts.
Mitchell, Alice & Carol Savill-Smith (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A review of the
literature. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Osborne, Jonathan (2007). Engaging young people with science: thoughts about future direction of science education..
Proceedings of Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium, Uppsala, Sweden.
Osborne, Jonathan; Simon, Shirley & Collins, Sue (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the
literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9) 1049-1079.
Rutter, Jason & Bryce, Jo (2006). Understanding digital games. London: Sage.
Schaffer, David W. (2007). How computer games help children learn. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sjøberg, Svein; Strömdahl, Helge; Claesdotter, Annika & Andersson, Sten (2005). Naturvetenskap som
allmänbildning : en kritisk ämnesdidaktik. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Squire, Kurt (2005). Replaying history: Learning world history through Playing Civilization III. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University.
Swedish Media Council (2006). Ungar & medier 2006. Stockholm: Ministry of Education, Research and
Culture, Swedish Government.
Säljö, Roger (2005). Lärande och kulturella redskap: Om lärprocesser och det kollektiva minnet.
Stockholm: Norstedts akademiska förlag.

3
 Eva West (PhD-student), Department of Education, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

LEARNING OF SOUND, HEARING AND HEALTH - A QUESTION OF

EVERYDAY LIFE AND LEARNING SCIENCE

My research interest is growing from practice

My interest in design research of teaching and learning emanates from being a teacher
in natural science in compulsory school for many years. Several times I have
experienced that students’ interest and motivation in studying science increase when the
content concerns the students’ own lives. Thus the challenge for me as a science teacher
was to create lessons for the students’ learning of a scientific content as well as learning
for everyday life and citizenship. To my pleasure this is also in line with the current
discussion within science education concerning science literacy and scientific literacy
aggregated to the term SL (Roberts, 2007). This includes what Roberts calls Vision I,
i.e. literacy within science, and Vision II, i.e. literacy about science related situations.
Roberts focuses the problem with only using one of these. This is what Aikenhead
(2006) brings into focus by discussing the humanistic and canonical perspective in
school science. Baram-Tsabari and Yarden (2005) report that many children are
interested in the human dimensions of science and technology; teaching in school
science should be built on interest and experiences of the student. In the worldwide
Science And Scientists (SAS) study of 13-year-old children (Sjøberg, 2000), the results
show that girls’ interests are promoted in scientific questions concerning health. Jenkins
(2006) concurs with this by concluding that biological, personal and health related
issues are more popular with girls. According to Turner, Öberg and Unnerstad (1999)
biology have an important role to play in helping young people to develop greater
understanding of health-related issues. They also emphasise the increasing awareness of
the importance of areas, such as health education, that are cross-curricular. In a time
with decreasing science interest among students in the well developed countries,
especially girls (Schreiner & Sjøberg, 2007), these results contribute to ideas about
design of teaching learning sequences (TLS) in science. Fensham (2001) points out the
lack of more studies of students learning of concepts in connection to environmental,
technological and socio-scientific content. One of his examples are noise pollution.
Dealing with such a content integration of knowledge from different school subjects are
needed in creating a holistic picture. A crucial task in this is preserving the learning of
the scientific content and to run this parallel with the holistic view (Venville, Wallace,
Rennie & Malone, 2000).

A question of everyday life

High sound levels are more and more frequent in young people’s lives and at the same
time more and more people have impaired hearing conditions such as tinnitus. A report
from The National Swedish Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen, 2005)
informs that every fifth twelve-year-old Swedish student have suffered or suffers from
some form of tinnitus after having listened to loud music or loud sounds. In recent years
the use of Mp3-players is shown to be a crucial problem and researchers ask for
information to young people on the potential dangers of exposure to loud music and on
how to protect themselves against it (Vogel, Brug, Hosli, van der Ploeg & Raat, 2007,
2008). In 2003 as part of the Swedish national evaluation of compulsory school a
project investigated students' skills in problem solving (Kärrqvist & West, 2005). One
problem given to 900 twelve year olds was called 'The disco dilemma'. It was about a
disagreement about sound levels. Some students at a class disco wanted a very loud

1
 Eva West (PhD-student), Department of Education, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

sound, others a more moderate one. How to solve the dilemma? Their problem-solving
was not based on actual knowledge of the matter at issue, although part of the problem
was a proposal to find out for themselves from various sources about risk of damaging
their hearing. In short, students did not use scientific knowledge when they had to make
decisions about sound levels. Of course science knowledge alone is not sufficient but is
one important part of the promotion of health. The issue is multifactor including social
and psychological factors (Widén, 2006), whereas the question of accepting one’s own
vulnerability is especially important (Vogel et al. 2007, 2008).

My study
From the above discussion I have chosen to focus the area sound, hearing and health for
designing and validating a research based TLS for the compulsory school. Due to the
goals in the Swedish curricula different school subjects are integrated into the TLS.
They are biology, chemistry, music, physics and technology. Apart from dealing with
the scientific goals (Vision I) in the TLS there are a number of different exercises that
have been designed to offer the students the opportunity to make use of their scientific
knowledge and to stimulate them to acquire skills that promote their development into
responsible people and members of society (Vision II). In doing this talking and using
language are important (Carlsen, 2007; Leach & Scott, 2002; Lemke, 1990; Mercer et
al., 2004; Mortimer & Scott, 2003; Scott, Asoko & Leach, 2007) as well as
argumentation in science classrooms (Driver, Newton & Osborne, 2000; Osborne,
Erduran & Simon, 2004). In the TLS there are exercises based both on scientific
knowledge and everyday conceptions found among students, adolescents and the
general public. Solid knowledge and understanding of the science content are a product
of knowing why certain ideas are in line with the ideas of the scientific community and
of being able to judge why certain ideas are not. The students are given the opportunity
to refine their stand-points in, for example, issues from everyday life where they can
decide how to react in situations with high sound levels. The goals for the pupils are to
get an insight into how to build up the argumentation in a common everyday
environmental and health issue concerning sound with the help of personal experience/s
and scientific knowledge; practise formulating his/her own opinions on the basis of
both knowledge, rational thinking and ethical considerations; be able to discuss the
importance of a good sound environment and train him/herself to be aware of his/her
own standpoints.

In one of the exercises the pupils are given a bundle of cards displaying statements of
various kinds. Some of the statements are based on the scientific knowledge we have
today, and others are based on standpoints (“thoughts”). The pupils work in groups and
start by laying out the two cards ”Scientific knowledge” and ”Thoughts” well apart.
Then they take out one card at a time from the bundle and discuss whether the statement
is based on scientific knowledge or “thoughts”. If they think that the statement does not
belong to either category, they put it on one side for the moment, with the intention of
discussing the content later or when the teacher follows up the exercise with them.
There is no absolutely correct choice for all the statements; it depends on how the text is
interpreted. The primary intention is not that the pupils should discover the “correct”
answer, but that their discussion of different statements should help them to develop
their competence to judge what is scientific knowledge or not in important health
related questions of everyday life.

2
 Eva West (PhD-student), Department of Education, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

References

Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science Education for Everyday Life. New York, Teachers College Press.
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Characterizing children’s spontaneous interest in science and
technology. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 803-826.
Carlsen, W. S. (2007). Language and Science Learning. In S. Abell, & N. Lederman (Eds.). Handbook of
Research on Science Education, (pp. 57-74). London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,
Publishers.
Driver, R. Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in
Classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312
Fensham, P. (2001). Science content as problematic – Issues for research. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R.
Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross & P. Reiska, Eds., Research in science education – Past,
present, and future (pp. 27 – 41). Dordrecht, The Netherland, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jenkins, E. W. (2006) The Student Voice and School Science Education, Studies in Science Education,
42, 49-88.
Kärrqvist, C., & West, E. (2005). Nationella utvärderingen av grundskolan 2003. Grundskoleelevers
färdigheter i problemlösning. Stockholm, Skolverket.
Leach, J. & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing
upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in
Science Education, 38, 115–142.
Lemke, J. L. (1994). Talking science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
Mercer, N., Daws, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children
to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359-377.
Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Maidenhead, Open
University Press.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific Literacy/Science Literacy. In S. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.). Handbook
of Research on Science Education, (pp. 729-780). London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,
Publishers.
Scott, P., Asoko, H. & Leach, J. (2007). Students Conceptions and Conceptual Learning in Science. In S.
Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education, (pp. 31-56).
London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth's identity construction - two
incompatible projects? In D. Corrigan, Dillon, J. & Gunstone, R. (Eds.), The Re-emergence of
Values in the Science Curriculum. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Sjøberg, S. (2000). Interesting all children in the ‘science for all’. In Millar, R., Leach, J. & Osborne, J.
(Eds), Improving Science Education. The contribution of research (pp.165–186). Buckingham:
Open University press.
Socialstyrelsen (2005). Miljöhälsorapport 2005. Socialstyrelsen. Stockholm.
Turner, S., Öberg, K., & Unnerstad, G. 1999. Biology and Health Education. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 22(1), 89-100.
Venville, G.J., Wallace, J., Rennie, L.J., & Malone, J.A. (2001, December). Curriculum Integration:
Eroding the High Ground of Science as School Subject? Paper presented at the Annual Conference
of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle. Retrieved 2008-15-01 from
www.aare.edu.au./01pap/ven01542.htm
Vogel, I., J. Brug, Hosli, E. J., van der Ploeg, C., & Raat, H. (2007). Young People’s Exposure to Loud
Music: A Summary of the Literature. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 33(2), 124-133.
Vogel, I., Brug, J., Hosli, E. J., van der Ploeg, C., & Raat, H. (2008). MP3 Players and Hearing Loss:
Adolescents’ Perceptions of Loud Music and Hearing Conservation. The Journal of Pediatrics
152(3), 400-404.
Widén, S. (2006). Noise and Music-A matter of risk perception? Doctoral dissertation, Göteborg
University, Göteborg.

3
Helena Sagar

Technological Literacy and Teaching Technology in

Collaboration with the Surrounding World.
My research interest
My research interest takes its point of departure in out-of-school initiatives and activities
for a learning purpose and as a natural part of technology teaching. These initiatives and
activities make use of the resources of the surrounding world in teaching and include
different ways of collaborating with the surrounding world, such as:
• the students visiting the surrounding world..
• the students making contact with the surrounding world by telephone, letter or e-mail.
• representatives from the surrounding world coming to talk to and/or work with the students
in the school.
• using information from the surrounding world, including magazines and news papers as an
alternative to the school text books.
• the students working with assignments which are designed such that they require the
students to find help from and/or report their results and actions to the surrounding world.

The ‘surrounding world’ can be represented by companies, organisations, politicians, county-

offices, institutes, other schools at different levels and the people in the community.

Background to my research question

Technology can be described as more multi-disciplinary in its character than most other
school subjects. Hence, technology education allows and it well suited for wide subject
integration. Since the school subjects are a human construct and do not really exist
outside of school and the pure academic world, it can be argued that subject integration
offers the pupils a better overall picture and understanding of everyday life i.e. the world
outside of school. With this in mind, it can further be argued that technology is a subject
where learning necessarily takes place in contexts of using the resources of and
collaborating with the world outside of school.

Several actors interested in school education argue for an increased collaboration

between the school and the surrounding world to increase student motivation in
technology (as well as science). This is additionally argued to better allow for the
students to reach the curricular goals and get a more valuable preparation for their
future lives in a rapidly changing world (Brown & Campione, 1994; CERI, 1993; Dewey,
1915/1987; Layton, 1993; Linddahl, 2003; McCombs, 1996; Madsén, 2000; NRC, 2000;
Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Schwartz, Lin, Brophy & Bransford, 1999; Säljö, 2000; Wallin,
Sjöbeck & Wernersson, 2000).

In agreeing with Liljequist (1994) that the teacher is the single most influential actor of
school education, I would argue that it is of importance to study what the requirements
are for teachers to actually teach in collaboration with the surrounding world; to do it at
all or to a higher degree than what is currently the case.
Helena Sagar

Technological literacy in relation to collaborations with the surrounding

world in teaching
In the current discussion on scientific literacy and science literacy, SL, partly also on
technological literacy, Roberts (2007) argues that there are ‘two legitimate but
potentially conflicting curriculum scores: science subject matter itself, and situations in
which science can legitimately be seen as play a role in other human affairs’ (p. 729). It
is his interpretation of the articles on SL that there are two visions of SL, namely Vision I
and Vision II. Vision II would correspond well with the curricular goals of technology (and
science) education in the Swedish Elementary School (Swedish National Agency for
Education, 2001).

Roberts (2007) further refers to Sjøberg (1997), who has defined four categories of
arguments for science education:
ƒ The economic argument: science for preparation for work (author’s bold)
ƒ The utilitarian or practical argument: science for mastery of daily life (author’s bold)
ƒ Science for citizenship and democratic participation
ƒ Science for cultural literacy, science as a major human product (p. 17)

Roberts (2007) points out the fact that ‘Sjøberg draws attention to the significance of
technology (more than science) in the first two’. Having emphasized as per above, I
would argue, in coherence with the background to my research question, that these are
the categories which would greatly benefit from collaborations with the surrounding
world. Hence, one might dare say that teaching including collaborations with the
surrounding world is more motivated and possibly even required for the students to
reach the curricular goals technology education in the Swedish Elementary school.

Although it is not the focus of my research, I find it important to add, in somewhat of an

argument to Sjøberg’s attention, that the third and fourth category would be included in
technological literacy and not only in SL.

Technological literacy and my research

My research takes its point of departure from two different perspectives. One is from the
perspective that collaborations with the surrounding world in technology teaching are
beneficial for the students to gain technological literacy as defined by Roberts’ (2007)
Vision II. The other is that the teachers are the single most influential actor in
technology teaching.
The purpose of my study is to identify the requirements for technology teachers to
collaborate with the surrounding world as a natural part of their teaching. Consecutively,
the developing process for technology teachers who would like to start collaborating with
the surrounding world and who also get help with some of the categories of requirements
identified will be studied.
Helena Sagar

Literature
CERI (1986). Lifelong Learning for All. Paris: OECD.

CERI (1993): Active and Authentic Pedagogy – Description of a CERI Study on New Ways of
Teaching and Learning (Paris: OECD/CERI)

Dewey, J. (1997). Demokrati och utbildning (Rev. ed.). Uddevalla: MediaPrint. (Original
work published 1916)

Layton, D. (1993). Technology’s Challenge to Science Education. Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk:

St Edmundsbury Press.

Liljequist, K. (1994). Skola och samhällsutveckling. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Lindahl, B. (2000). Lust att lära naturvetenskap och teknik? En longitudinell studie om vägen
till gymnasiet. Göteborg: ACTA Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Madsén, T. (2000): Metakognition, metateorier och studiestrategier – nya

forskningsperspektiv på gymnasieelevers lärande. (Kristianstad: Kristianstad Högskola,
Centrum för kompetensutveckling)

Ministry of Education and Science in Sweden & National Agency for Education. (2002).
Curriculum for the Compulsory School System, the Pre-school Class and Leisure-time Centre
(Lpo 94). Västerås: Skolverket.

National Agency for Education (2001). Compulsory School – Syllabuses 2000. Västerås:
Skolverket.

National Research Council (2000). How People Learn – Brain, Mind, Experience and School
(Expanded ed.). Washington DC, National Academy Press.

Pintrich, P. R. & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research and

Application. Columbus, OH: Merill Prentice-Hall.

Roberts, D.A. (2007). Scientific Literacy/Science Literacy. In Abell, S.K & Lederman N.G
(Ed.), Handbook of Research in Science Education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.

Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, S. & Branford, J. D. (1999). A different approach. In
Reigelut, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models, Volume ll. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Säljö, R. (2000): Lärande i praktiken – ett sociokulturellt perspektiv (Stockholm: Prisma)

Wallin, A., Sjöbeck, M-L. & Wernersson, I. (2000). Motivation och mening i
naturorienterande undervisning. En intervjustudie med elever i grundskolans årskurs 8 och
delvis 9. (IPD-rapporter, Nr 2000:06). Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet, Institutionen för
pedagogik och didaktik.
Ingela Bursjöö

Relationships between collaborative competitions and technological literacy

Learning by competing?
Competitions in technology are sometimes used as a tool for education for sustainable
development. Research in technology and design education has studied how students learn but
competitions and their effects have not yet received much attention. Many schools use
competitions as a pedagogical method and several thousands of students participate every
year in technology competitions. The Swedish organization Vetenskap och Allmänhet (2007)
observed that there had been very little evaluation of the effects of all these projects and
competitions that had been going on within the scientific/technological subjects at school.
During recent years a lot of technology competitions have had ecological, economical and
social sustainable development high on the agenda. The competitions can be a support for the
teacher in the development of teaching methods which would not only be more effective but
also more attractive to a wider range of students which is perceived to be one, although not
the only, important factor in raising both interest and achievement in science and technology.
An overall question in my work is
• How and why are technological competitions used in schools?
This engenders a number of more specific research questions:
• What impact does a technological competition have among students?
• How do teachers view technological competitions?
• What kind of factors influence how the schools participate in competitions?
• Could competitions be a useful method in education for sustainable development?
• What motives do the competition organizers have for arranging the competitions?

The technology competition for the 6th graders has been going on since 1993 and
approximately 35 000 students have been participating so far. The theme of this year for
Tekniktävlingen för sjätteklassare is transport at sea in the future with emphasis on
sustainable development. For the competition Future City the theme of this year is “Traveling
in the future” with focus on sustainable development.
These competitions involve team work; building models and group presentations to be
assessed by a jury, writing visions and describing consequences. The assessment involves co-
operation abilities within the group, innovative capacity, creativity, design, knowledge about
materials and knowledge about technological systems. These two competitions start in
September and the finals are in February- March, so they stretch over 6 months every year
which implies that participating classes use a lot of lessons for technological issues.
If we define technological literacy as a literacy that will enable us to reflect upon our new
technological lifeworld (Dakers, 2006) there is a strong relationship with these kinds of
collaborative competitions and technological literacy. May it even be so that these
collaborative competitions help to change the technological focus from the artifacts to the
technologically mediated world? Dakers also suggests that learning is a combination of
constructing meaning through interaction with more able humans and experiencing the world
we inhabit. Competitions could be a kind of motivation that promotes learning (Fülöp, 2002)
and it is also possible to see differences between constructive and destructive competition
(Sheridan and Williams , 2007).Constructive competition is defined by Fülöp(2002) as a
social and cultural phenomenon that upgrades people, develops their ambitions, make them
stretch beyond their own expected abilities and motivates their learning, but it can defined as
destructive if it makes them compete against each other in order to hinder each other´s
performance.
Ingela Bursjöö

Osborn and Dillon (2008) give recommendations which should play an important role in the
debate about scientific and technological literacy. A major issue is how the teaching is
organized. The emphasis should be on collaborative work, extended investigative work and
formative assessment. These recommendations are important to the teaching society and
cover pedagogical, economical, political as well as philosophical issues.
Competitions in technology are sometimes used as a tool for education for sustainable
development. Elshof (2006) discovered that Canadian technology teachers have a strong
preference for activities which involve working with business and industry practitioners and
concerning the relationship between technology and sustainable development.

In my forthcoming study preliminary findings indicate that the competitions are popular,
meaningful and contribute to the curriculum but they do not engage schools from all
socioeconomic cultures and that competitions should not be used too much, variation is
important. The participating teachers express satisfaction about the fact that their students
work better as a team and talk more about the future and connect that with the competition.
The preliminary findings from the students are that they, boys as well as girls, are enjoying
the playful part and the thrill in the competitions, they find it stimulating and they remember
the competition a long time after they have finished school. The students also talk about how
different- in a positive way- technology seems after the competition compared with what they
thought before, for example
“I didn’t know that an engineer could do so many different things and work together with
others” (Girl, 14 years)
The students also talk about sustainable development and how the competition makes a
difficult and abstract concept more understandable. The teachers that participate several times
seem to make the competition a back-bone to their technology and design teaching, one of
them say
“Most of the goals in the technology and design subject are fulfilled within the competition and
my students find it meaningful and fun” (Teacher C)

Not all students talks positively about the competitions, some seem to get tired of too much
competition;
“We have been participating several times so this time I chose not to participate” (girl, 15 years)

Interesting answers from the teachers circle around the extra time needed when you
participate in a competition. They say that they have to collaborate more, which is time
consuming and they have to take extra responsibility when their class is traveling. They have
to get extra time on evenings and week-ends to prepare without getting positive feed-back
from their principals. Having said all that, they still sign up every year for the next
competition.
This knowledge is useful since teachers often are asked if their practice at school is evidence-
based which makes this discussion meaningful today (Aikenhead, 2007).

In a larger perspective it is a question of research about school or research in school. In

educational sciences it is not a long tradition in that perspective, more research has been done
about school than in school. As having a double role as a researcher/teacher it is a golden
opportunity to be able to be familiar with two regional life-worlds; academy as well as praxis.

Aikenhead, G. (2007). Science education for everyday life- evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Dakers,JR.(Ed.) (2006) Defining technological literacy, towards an epistemological framework. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Ingela Bursjöö

Elshof, L. (2005). Teacher’s Interpretation of Sustainable Development International Journal of Technology and
Design Education 15(2), 173–186, Springer

Fülöp, M. (2002) Competition in educational settings. Paper presented at The faculty of Education, University of
Ljubliana, Slovenia.

Osborne, J. & Dillon, J (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. London: King´s College. A
report to the Nuffield Foundation.

Sheridan,S. and Williams,P. (2007) Dimensioner av konstruktiv konkurrens. Konstruktiva konkurrensformer i

förskola, grundskola och gymnasium.Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Vetenskap och Allmänhet(2007). Projekt utan effekt? – utvärderingar av

N & T-initiativ under luppen. Stockholm; VA-rapport No 2007:7.
Bilingual and multi-representational
scientific literacy
John Airey1,2 and Cedric Linder1,3
1
Physics Education Research Group, Department of Physics, Uppsala University,
SE-751 21 Uppsala, Sweden.
2
Department of Human Sciences, University of Kalmar, SE-391 82 Kalmar, Sweden.
3
Department of Physics, University of the Western Cape, 7535 Cape Town, South Africa
E-mail: john.airey@hik.se
Phone: +46 (0)480 493188
.

Abstract
Our interests in scientific literacy can be divided into two related categories both of
which are discussed extensively in Airey (2006). Our initial (and continued) interest is
the meaning of scientific literacy in a bilingual environment. Our second, area of interest
can be seen as a generalization of this initial research question, where we focus on the
complete collection of representations used by a discipline. Here, oral and written
languages are seen as part of a wider semiotic system which includes diagrams, graphs,
equations, tools and activities. Together, this collection of semiotic modes makes up the
discourse of a discipline. It is in mastering this discourse that students become
scientifically literate.

1. Bilingual scientific literacy

A direct consequence of the Bologna declaration on harmonization of European
education has been an increase in the number of courses taught in English at Swedish
universities. A worrying aspect of this development is the lack of research into the effects
on disciplinary learning of changing the teaching language to English in this way. In the
first Nordic study of the relationship between teaching language and disciplinary learning
at university level, Airey & Linder (2006; 2007) highlighted a number of pedagogical
issues—including reduced student/teacher interaction and a split-attention effect for
student notetaking—when Swedish physics undergraduates were taught in English.
Useful though the results of this study are, we believe that the changes brought about by
the push to internationalize Swedish higher education call for much more than increased
pedagogical awareness. We argue that the question of language choice (Swedish or
English) can only be properly addressed by a thorough examination of the goals of
educational programmes.

In this research strand we attempt to map out the important parameters for determining an
appropriate language mix in natural science degree programmes. We do this from the
perspective of the overall goal of science education, which we suggest is the production
of scientifically literate graduates. Roberts (2007) divides scientific literacy into two
complementary components: the ability to understand science itself, and an
understanding of the applicability of science to everyday situations. We argue that both of
these aspects of scientific literacy need to be analysed with respect to the language
(Swedish or English) within which they are expected to function, and the type of
functionality required (active or passive). Here we have introduced a new term, bilingual
scientific literacy to describe the particular set of language-specific science skills that we
hope to foster within a given degree programme (Airey & Linder, in press-a). In order to
illustrate our constructs, we audited the input given to students (e.g. lectures, textbooks,
problem sets, etc.) and the production expected from students (e.g. laboratory reports,
answers to problem sets, dissertations, etc.) in a Swedish undergraduate physics
programme. We then used this analysis to create a composite picture of the ‘implied
student’ with respect to bilingual scientific literacy, i.e. a profile of the type of student
competencies that we might expect to result from this combination of input and output.

In our ongoing research we also attempt to estimate students’ levels of bilingual scientific
literacy through interviews carried out in both Swedish and English. Here we examine the
students’ ability to use English and Swedish to spontaneously describe and explain the
physics concepts that they have met in their lectures. This analysis consists of identifying
instances of hesitation, false starts and code switching. The resulting estimates of
students’ active bilingual scientific literacy are then related to the language(s) in which
the lectures were given (English, Swedish or both languages).

2. Scientific literacy: fluency in a disciplinary discourse

Our second, more general theme relates to the nature of scientific literacy. We suggest
that the vision (I) variant of scientific literacy suggested by Roberts (2007) (i.e. the ability
to do science) may be viewed in terms of becoming fluent in the discourse of a particular
scientific discipline (Airey & Linder, in press-b). Here, this disciplinary discourse refers
not only to language, but rather to a wide range of representational modes. For university
science, examples of these modes are: spoken and written language, mathematics,
gesture, images (including pictures, graphs and diagrams), tools (such as experimental
apparatus and measurement equipment) and activities (such as ways of working—both
practice and praxis, analytical routines, actions, etc.). In our work in this area we have
suggested that an appropriate, holistic experience of a scientific concept (i.e. vision (I)
scientific literacy with respect to a given science concept) is contingent on becoming
fluent in a critical constellation of these representational modes. This claim, if shown to
be valid, has a number of far reaching consequences for science education. First, if
scientific literacy is contingent on achieving fluency in a critical constellation of
representations, then teachers need information about which representations are
necessary and sufficient for which particular science concepts. Second, students need to
be given opportunities to use and become fluent in this critical set of representations.
Third, it is well known that the way in which courses are examined has a large effect on
what students learn. Here, the traditional focus in physics education on mathematical
problem solving could in fact be encouraging students to ignore other modes of
representation which are essential for their development of scientific literacy.

References
Airey, J. (2006). Physics Students' Experiences of the Disciplinary Discourse
Encountered in Lectures in English and Swedish. Licentiate Thesis. Uppsala:
Department of Physics, Uppsala University.
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2006). Language and the experience of learning university
physics in Sweden. European Journal of Physics, 27(3), 553-560.
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2007). Disciplinary learning in a second language: A case study
from university physics. In Wilkinson, R. & Zegers, V. (Eds.), Researching
Content and Language Integration in Higher Education (pp. 161-171). Maastricht:
Maastricht University Language Centre.
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (in press-a). Bilingual scientific literacy? The use of English in
Swedish university science programmes. Nordic Journal of English Studies.
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (in press-b). A Disciplinary Discourse Perspective on University
Science Learning: Achieving Fluency in a Critical Constellation of Modes.
Accepted for publication in Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy: Threats and opportunities. In
Abell, S. K. & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science
education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scientific and technological literacy
Karin Thörne
Karlstad University, department of Biology

To be a democratic competent citizen of today, you have to be able to make well-grounded

decisions in different areas related to science and technology. Issues concerning genetic
engineering, climate change and energy supply are examples where a certain grade of
knowledge of science and technology is required. Major improvements have changed our
world a lot over the last decades and it is important, both for the individual and for the society
as a whole, that we educate pupils to become scientific/technological literate persons capable
of making conscious choices and decisions.

The Swedish curriculum also emphasises the development of democratic competence. The
pupils should be trained in argumentation and decision making, not just grounded on facts,
but also based on ethical standpoints. Under the subtitle Rights and obligations, one can read:

It is not in itself sufficient that education imparts knowledge of

fundamental democratic values. It must also be carried out
using democratic working methods and prepare pupils for
active participation in civic life. (National Agency for
Education, 2006))

Vision II, which focuses on the ability of decision-making in society concerning issues with a
scientific base (Roberts, 2007), seems to permeate the curricula. The knowledge required is
not just a pile of facts, but what is also needed is to have a capability of using the knowledge
as a basis for personal standpoints.

The challenge is how to make the pupils prepared for a society that may demand a higher
grade of understanding of science and technology than ever, at the same time as the interest
for science is decreasing among pupils.

To train the pupils argumentation skills, the use of role play can be a method. Through the
role, the pupil can experience and take part in a new context to which they can create a
personal relationship. They will also notice that to make oneself heard in an argumentation,
one has to know facts and be able to communicate them (Ødegaard, 2001). In my work as a
teacher I have used a role play about climate change in several groups and in a minor study. I
have also investigated how drama and role play can help to develop knowledge in genetics.
My experience is that role play can make the subject personal and engaging and be helpful in
creating an interest for the issue. The pupils get the opportunity to argue for their standpoint
(which may be assigned) and listen to others and learn something new, and finally
compromise in the way you do in a democratic society. The difficult part, as far as I have
experienced, is to get the pupils focused in gaining deeper scientific/technological knowledge.

I think this is the main point also in society. People have unlimited access to information, but
maybe neither the time nor the interest in achieving any deeper understanding in difficult
areas, such as science and technology often can be experienced. It is much easier to make a
choice based on feelings and personal needs, than complicated facts that require some effort
to understand. The role play can be used as a spur to gain knowledge in order to be able to
argue, but we also need to address the importance of understanding generally accepted facts
and concepts in other ways. I think it is important to show the pupils how science is built and
how it works, which is more Vision I, where you look into science itself (Roberts, 2007). It
could be useful to show how scientists work and how new facts and theories are produced,
accepted or rejected and how they are built on previous knowledge. That to be compared with
unscientific activities in the society, and what an unawareness can lead to. People that do not
recognise the difference between scientific knowledge and opinions based on beliefs or
feelings will not be able to contribute in debates and make proper decisions in the same way
as scientific/technological literate persons.

I think that our goal should be to educate scientific and technological literate persons in line
with Vision II, but how much knowledge is needed to become a literate person? How people
understand the carbon cycle and connected areas is one of my main interests and I would like
to know to what extent scientific knowledge is needed for having a general understanding of
the main principles of these subjects. Could you for example understand the principles of
climate change if you do not actually know what a molecule is? Can you understand the
carbon cycle if you do not understand the concepts of gas or chemical reaction? It is necessary
that we develop the democratic skills of the pupils, and I think that includes focusing on
which details the pupils really have to understand to get the more general understanding of
complex ideas, such as climate change. We might need to focus on science itself and its
generally accepted facts as a first step, which could be seen as Vision I even if Vision II also
includes these aspects, and in addition use methods that give the opportunity to train the
democratic competence skills. One method could be to use the role play.

References

National Agency for Education, 2006: Lpo 94, Frizes, Stockholm

Roberts, Douglas: 2007 Linné Scientific Literacy Symposium Opening remarks, Promoting
Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus
Tercentenary Symposium held at Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Ødegaard, Marianne, 2001: The Drama of Science Education. How public understandning of
biotechnology and drama as a learning activity may enhance a critical and inclusive science
education. Diss. Unipub forlag, Oslo Universitet
Workshop in Technological Literacy 080415
Maria Svensson

Pupil’s knowledge of technological systems and

connections to technological literacy
After being part of the curriculum for 15 years in Swedish schools, technology is subject of
discussions regarding the nature of technology, content and what is learned. The discussion is
not exclusive for Sweden, rather it is an ongoing international discussion (De Miranda, 2004;
De Vries, 2005; Hagberg & Hultén, 2005; Zuga, 2004). In spite of that, there is a lack of
empiric contributions about the nature of technology and the knowledge of the pupils. With
my research, I want to contribute to the discussion of technology didactics by searching into
pupil’s knowledge of technology and relate this to the nature of technology as it is described
in Swedish and international discussions. The didactic implications that the pupil’s knowledge
of technology can imply on teaching will also be an important part of my research. I will not
further elaborate on this but will rather emphasize thoughts about the nature of technology
and the pupil’s knowledge of technology.

Philosophical perspectiv

Nature of
Technology

Experience perspectiv
Didaktic perspectiv

Students’ Education in
technology technology
knowledge

The technology subject is relatively new in Swedish compulsory school. In the new
curriculum Lpo 1994 (Skolverket 1994, 1994/2000), the subject became mandatory with an
own syllabus. The syllabus uses the following quote to describe the characteristics of the
subject or give a picture of the essence of technology.

“Citizens in a modern society need basic competence in technology and this competence
must, in addition, be continuously expanded and adapted. This competence covers not only a
knowledge about the role of technological development from a historical perspective, but
some experience in reflecting over and solving technical problems in practical terms. In
addition, it is necessary to be able to analyse and evaluate the interaction between people,
technology and the conditions under which we will exist in the future. Exploitation of
technology raises a number of intricate issues, which affect fundamental values, for example,
the impact of technology on the environment. In addition, many other aspects of existence,
such as working life, housing and recreation, are influenced by technology. Opportunities for

-1-
Workshop in Technological Literacy 080415
Maria Svensson

the group and individuals to exercise influence and power are largely dependent on how
technology is designed and used in society.”(Skolverket s. 94
http://www3.skolverket.se/ki/eng/comp.pdf)

In other countries, technological literacy is used to describe the essence of the subject
technology (Compton & France, 2007; Gamir & Pearson, 2006; Pearson & Young, 2002).
The Swedish technology syllabus connects to the existing descriptions of technological
literacy. The American Committee on Technological Literacy1 describes technological
literacy as three dimensions: (1) knowledge, (2) critical thinking and decision-making and (3)
capability. It is important to regard these dimensions as a framework that can be helpful when
thinking and talking about technological literacy. The knowledge dimension of technological
literacy includes both factual knowledge and conceptual understanding. The critical thinking
and decision-making dimension, has to do with one’s approach to technological issues. The
final dimension, capabilities dimension relates to how well a person can use technology and
carry out a process to solve a problem (Garmire & Pearson, 2006). It is in practice difficult to
separate these dimensions from one another. A person with good technological knowledge is
also involved in critical thinking when they approach a technological issue. In The New
Zealand Curriculum technological literacy is structured around three strands: Technological
Practice, Nature of Technology and Technology Knowledge. Through the strands students
could provide three types of knowledge, ‘know how’, ‘know why’ and ‘know that’,
combinations of these knowledge types seen as important in developing a sophisticated
technological literacy (Techlink, 2007)

Within scientific literacy, Roberts (2007) emphasizes two different views of literacy:
- ‘Vision I, looks inward at science itself – its products such as laws and theories, and
its processes such as hypothesizing and experimenting’
- ‘Vision II, on the other hand, looks outward at situations in which science has a role,
such as decision-making about socio-scientific issues’ (p. 9).
When I compare the description of scientific literacy with the description of technological
literacy, I perceive that in technological literacy most emphasis is on what is described in the
second view, Vision II.
The relation between knowledge of technology and technological literacy, as I see it, is that
knowledge of and about technology builds a person’s literacy. This knowledge is the tools
that the person needs to manage in a technologically mediated world.
If technical knowledge is related to the visions above, I would describe it as knowledge of
technology, to understand how technology works and the ability to manage technology
surrounding us, is related to Vision I. Knowledge about technology, to evaluate and
understand consequences of technology, is related to Vision II. The technology syllabus deals
with knowledge that will lead to technological literacy which spans both Vision I and II in
several ways. However, does the pupil’s knowledge in technology span the whole domain
covered by technological literacy?

If the goal with education in technology is for the pupils to become technological literate, it is
important that the knowledge that they develop is useable for understanding, managing and
evaluating technology and also to understand consequences of technology. A technologically
‘literate’ person is one who understands what technology is, how it is created, how societies
shape it and how, in turn, it shapes societies. Technology must be put into a social, cultural

1
Committee on Technological Literacy, a group of experts on diverse subjects under the auspices of the National
Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the Centre for Education, part of the National Research Council (NRC)

-2-
Workshop in Technological Literacy 080415
Maria Svensson

and environmental context to be understood properly. In the past, the meaning of the word
technology was more related to practical arts, and education in technology was closely related
to industrial arts. Today technology education must reflect the technologically mediated
world. The process of becoming technologically literate requires participants to become
sensitive to the impact that new and emerging technologies will have upon their
technologically mediated world. People have to be more critical of the interaction between
technology and society. (Dakers, 2005)

I want to, using empirical research of pupil’s knowledge of technology, examine if this
knowledge connects to descriptions of technological literacy. To do this, I have chosen to
discuss with pupils how they perceive everyday objects such as mobile phones, light bulbs,
energy lamps and bananas and also if they can relate these to technological system. Objects
and knowledge about how they work and are handled, is a part of technology that can be
concretely apprehended and is relatively easy to grasp. Technological system and relations
between technological systems and objects requires a capacity for abstract thought, which
makes this part of technology more complex and harder to grasp. Knowledge of objects and
systems is a part of technological literacy and if we want pupils to become technological
literate, they need to have knowledge about these. By means of studying pupils’ knowledge of
technological system with objects as a starting point, I try to see if it is possible for the pupils
with Vision I as a starting point, to make connections/transfers to Vision II.

Reference

Compton, V. & France, B. (2007) Redefining Technological literacy in New Zealand: From
concepts to curriculum constructs. Paper presented at the PATT 18, International confernce
on Deisgn and Technology Educational Research, Glasgow, UK

Dakers, J. (2005) Technology Education as Solo Activity or Socially Constructed Learning.

International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15, 73-89

De Miranda, M. A. (2004). The grounding of a discipline: Cognition and instruction in

technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 61-
77.

De Vries, M. J. (2005). Teaching about Technology. An introduction to Philosophy of

Technology for Non-philosophers. Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Springer

Gamire, E., & Pearson, G. (2006). Tech Tally: Approaches to Assessing Technological
Literacy. Washington, D.C: National Academic Press.

Hagberg, J. E., & Hultén, M. (2005). Skolans undervisning och elevers lärande i teknik:
svensk forskning i internationell kontext (Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie. Rapport nummer 6).
Uppsala, Sverige: Ord & form.

Pearson, G. & Young, T.A. (2002) Technically Speaking – Why all Americans need to know
more about Technology. Washington, D.C: National Academic Press

Roberts, D. A. (2007). Linné Scentific Litercy Symposium. Openings Remarks at the

Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

-3-
Workshop in Technological Literacy 080415
Maria Svensson

Skolverket (1994/2000). Lpo 94, Kursplaner för grundskolan, 1994/2000. www.skolverket.se

Techlink, (2007). Curriculum Support. Technological Literacy. http://www.techlink.org.nz/

Zuga, K. F. (2004). Improving technology education research on cognition. International

Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 79-87.

-4-
Scientific literacy assessed by OECD’s PISA study, as a framework for effect studies in
Swedish compulsory school

Maria Åström, doctoral student in science education at the Swedish National Graduate School
in Science and Technology Education Research, FoNTD
Mid Sweden University and Linköping University
Maria.astrom@miun.se

My research interest is how students results on written assessments is influenced of the

way science education is organised in the matter of integrated and subject-specific science in
Swedish compulsory school. I have been analysing data from the PISA 2003 and PISA 2006
study and therefore my interest in scientific literacy have a near connection to the definition of
scientific literacy used in the PISA framework.
The scientific literacy definition in the PISA study in turn depended on work done by
Bybee (Bybee, 1997). Bybee’s categorisation of a scientific literacy framework is a threshold
model that assumes that the degree of scientific and technologic literacy is continuously
distributed within the population. Another characteristic of the framework is that of inclusion
rather than exclusion. It also recognises a continuum of scientific and technology literacy that
can develop over a lifetime (ibid p. 55-56). A good overview of scientific literacy, the
definition of and discussion about Scientific Literacy and Science Literacy is found in
Roberts, where he discusses both the development of the concept during the last part of the
previous century and different problems and ambiguities with the use of the concept (Roberts,
2007).
The definition of scientific literacy according to the PISA study is: ‘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). Knowledge and skills tested in
PISA are called life-skills and are defined by PISA as ‘The knowledge, skills, competencies
and other attributes embodied in individuals that are relevant to personal, social and
economic well-being.’ (OECD, 1999)
The PISA study measures competencies, knowledge and attitudes in the context of life
situations that involve science and technology with particularly the three competencies in
scientific literacy called “Identifying Scientific Issues”, “Explaining Phenomena
scientifically” and “Using Scientific Evidence” (OECD, 2007) p. 39). The competency of
“Identifying Scientific Issues” concerns recognising issues that are possible to investigate
scientifically, identifying keywords to search for scientific information, and recognising the
key features of a scientific investigation. The competency of “Explaining Phenomena
Scientifically” concerns applying knowledge of science in a given situation, describing or
interpreting phenomena scientifically and predicting changes, and identifying appropriate
descriptions, explanations and predictions. The competency of “Using Scientific Evidence”
concerns interpreting scientific evidence and making and communicating conclusions,
identifying the assumptions, evidence and reasoning behind conclusions and reflecting on the
societal implications of science and technological developments. The domains that are
assessed in the PISA 2006 study are physical systems, living systems, earth and space systems
and technological systems, and the three science competencies are intertwined in the different
domains. The competencies concerns both Knowledge of Science and Knowledge about
Science, in PISA’s terminology.
The PISA project is directed to public understanding of science and the OECD has a
high interest in innovative science learning (Fensham, 2006). The most innovative part of the
PISA assessment of 2006, where science is the main domain, is that attitudes have been a part
of the assessment, and for that manner that the affective part of a student’s conception of
science is incorporated in the study.
In connecting scientific literacy PISA data itself does not say anything about how to, in
a school classroom, accomplish the scientific literacy. The PISA project does not have the
rationale of working with curricula or national standards of what to learn in science, but has
the rationale of what 15-year-olds are supposed to have learnt to become functional citizen in
a changing world. Other writers’ works with the concept of scientific literacy and defines the
way to accomplish this as ‘teaching in a different way, a way that only a few teachers are
currently prepared to do. It stresses longer-term process over shorter-term product and
questions over answers, so that in the short run the student know fewer things but goes forth
in the world with skills for learning more things on his or her own.’ (Maienschein, 1999),
p.79). This is a close description of the integrated (Venville, Wallace, Rennie, & Malone,
1998) or informal (Bennett, 1976), progressive (Dewey, 1938/1997), teaching that are
described by writers in different time periods. My research interest have been to try to find if
integrated science education in Swedish schools give a better students result at the PISA
assessment than the more traditional subject-specific science teaching that the majority of
schools uses in Sweden (Åström & Karlsson, 2007). In this study I have used additional
collected data related to the PISA 2003 database and analysed the relations between students
result and different science education. What also appeared is that teachers have different ideas
about how to work integrated, and subject-specific, and that those views do not conspicuously
separate between integrated and subject-specific science (Åström, 2007).

References

Bennett, N. (1976). Teaching styles and Pupil Progress (Third edition ed.). London: Open
Books.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Toward an Understanding of Scientific Literacy. In W. B. Gräber, Claus
(Ed.), Scientific Lliteracy (Vol. IPN 154, pp. 37-68). Kiel: Instut Für die Pädagogik
der naturwissenschaften an der Universität Kiel.
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.
Fensham, P. J. (2006). Values in the measurement of students' science achievement in TIMSS
and PISA. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon & R. F. Gunstone (Eds.), The Re-Emergence of
Values in Science Education (pp. 215-229). Rottendam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
Maienschein, J. (1999). Commentary: to the future - arguments for scientific literacy. Science
communication, 21(1), 75-87.
OECD. (1999). Measuring Student knowledge and Skills - A new framework for Assessment.
Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2007). PISA 2006. Science Competencies for tomorrows World. Volym 1: Analysis.:
OECD.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science Literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 729-780). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Venville, G. J., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. A. (1998). The Integration of Science,
Mathematics, and Technology in a Discipline-Based Culture. School science and
Mathematics, 98(6), 294-302.
Åström, M. (2007). Integrated and subject-specific. An empirical exploration of Science
education in Swedish compulsory school., Linköping University, Norrköping.
Åström, M., & Karlsson, K.-G. (2007). Using hierarchical linear models to test differences in
Swedish results of OECDs PISA 2003: Integrated and subject-specific science
education. Nordina, 3(2), 121-131.
2008-03-15, Miranda Rocksén

Looking for the Visions in Practice

I will briefly discuss some interesting aspects of scientific literacy (SL) which might be of relevance for the
design of my upcoming research. As quite recently being accepted as a phD-student I look into this scientific and
technological literacy (STL) discussion from a dual position, not only the phD-student’s position but also the
science teacher’s position. STL is clearly a question of great interest and impact on the teachers daily work. For
me it is stimulating to meet all these different aspects of STL and the way in which they are described and
discussed by the research community, I am glad to take part in a visionairy and involved debate concerning the
question of scientific literacy.

As a start I will reflect on one aspect in the situation of being a science teacher in Sweden
today. In a Swedish school context of today I think that the STL discussion partially meets
two different demands on science education. The two demands, namely the demand for pupils
responsibility and influencei fixed in the swedish curriculum (the National Agency for
Education., 2006) and the demand for putting more emphases on content to provide students
with necessary tools to perform higher education. These demands, together with some others,
are discussed by several authors (Millar & Osborne, 1998; Roberts, 2007b; Sjøberg, 2005)
sometimes in the name of justification arguments. According to my experience these demands
are sometimes unexpressed but always present in the science classroom. As a science teacher
you have to deal with the demands together with your colleages but with vague support or
direction from the curriculum.

Switching from teacher to researcher I am seeking a starting point and some perspectives that
might be useful. Looking into theoretical perspectives I find democracy and the relationship
between a democratic society and the knowledge formation (or maybe literacy) of the
individual citizen useful. The two visions of STL described by Roberts (Roberts, 2007a,
2007b) explains some distinctions that are found within the larger concept of STL. Vision I is
described as something that “…gives meaning to SL by looking inward at the canon of
orthodox natural science…” while Vision II has a more functional aspect and Roberts
concludes that it “…derives its meaning from the character of situations with a scientific
component, situations that students are likely to encounter as citizens” (Roberts, 2007b, p
730). This distiction certainly makes Vision II interesting to me but I also start to think about
the relationship between Vision I and Vision II in education and in society.

Together with my theoretical perspective I am trying to focus on molecular education as a

specific topic of interest within science education. Sjøberg describes four arguments
supporting science education (Sjøberg, 2005). One of the arguments: Science for citizenship
and democratic participation is discussed through biology as being one scientific field under
strong development. The genetic knowledge and genetic engineering raises new types of
questions and calls for ethical discussions where the citizen need to make new kinds of
decisions. In this situation three perspectives on literacy become important; knowledge about
scientific concepts, knowledge about scientific processes and knowledge about science,
technology and society. Zeidler on the other hand discusses the necessity of including moral
reasoning and ethical considerations into the SL discussion and calls this a functional SL
(Zeidler, 2007). Among six core questions in a framework for SL and socioscientific issues
(SSI) I find some aspects relevant. Primarily I find the distinction between technocratically
functional and humanistically functional interesting, but also the role of argumentation and
the issue about who controls or should control scientific literacy.

Finally I find science language and the question relating STL and discourse interesting and
this makes me look for some ideas concerning the use of discourse as an analytical
2008-03-15, Miranda Rocksén

instrument. Brown, Reveles och Kelly (Brown et al, 2005) are discussing the two visions of
scientific literacy and hold that they must not contradict each other. They suggest further
examination concerning the relationship between scientific literacy and discursive identity.
Another contribution is made by Wallace who presents a framework for research relating STL
and language (Wallace, 2004). The framework consists of three key aspects; Authenticity,
Multiple discourses and “Third space”. She presents a triangle model by which these aspects
and their relationships in a specific context may be investigated.

What about my own research interest then? I am planning to study science education from a
broader perspective and mainly in other settings than the ordinary school. I am interested in
putting some light into the kind of informal learning that might occur when you meet and talk
to professional experts in a specific topic. This might occur in different situations in your
everyday life but still I think these talks may contribute to your overall science understanding.
When this early idea met the STL discussion I found a new possible direction: is it possible to
look for, to trace and find the different visions of STL in practice? Is it possible to find
environments where professional people talk and act the visions, making them come alive?
Trying to connect this new idea to the topic of molecular science I found some new
challenges coming up: where can I possibly find environments to perform such a study? At
this stage I have only a brief idea of a doctor’s clinic as one possible environment for tracing
the talk and actions of vision II. Maybe tracing the talk and action of vision I might be made
among teachers performing courses in molecular biology at the university? When
environments are detected, language and for example the use of metaphors to enhance
understandings might be investigated and some similarities and differences may fall out. This
new direction raises many new questions but it also give rise to an interesting comparison
between my upcoming research design and a detective’s work: Tracing the Two Visions of
Scientific Literacy in Practice.
-----------------------------------
Brown, B., Reveles, J., & Kelly, G. (2005). Scientific Literacy and Discoursive Identity: A
Theoretical Framework for Understanding Science Learning. Science Education,
89(5), 779-802.
Millar, R., and Osborne, J., (Ed.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future.
London: King's College London, School of Education.
Roberts, D., A. (2007a). Opening Remarks. Paper presented at the Linnaeus Tercentary 2007
Symposium Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education in Transaction.
Uppsala.
Roberts, D., A. (2007b). Scientific literacy / Science Literacy In S. Abell, K., Lederman,
Norman, G., (Ed.), Handook of Research on Science Education (pp. 729-780).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sjøberg, S. (2005). Naturvetenskap som allmänbildning:en kritisk ämnesdidaktik (2 ed.).
Lund: Studentlitteratur.
the National Agency for Education. (2006). Curriculum for the compulsory school system, the
pre-school class and the leisure-time centre Lpo 94 (Vol. 06:941). Stockholm: Fritzes
Wallace,C.,S.,.(2004). Framing New Research in Science Literacy and Language Use:
Authenticity, Multiple Discourses, and ”Third Space”. Science Education, 88(6), 901-
914.
Zeidler, D., L.,.(2007). An Inclusive View of Scientific Literacy: Core Issues and Future
Directions. Paper presented at the Linnaeus Tercentary 2007 Symposium Promoting
Scientific Literacy: Science Education in Transaction. Uppsala.
i
The questions that arise among students are often related to rather diverse aspects and not only to the content including understanding
certain concepts. Students also call for answers on the relevance of learning these concepts; they want to discuss situations where this
2008-03-15, Miranda Rocksén

particular content may be useful for making important personal decisions or decisions that contributes to a more sustainable development.
Discussion among students may also include a rather critical view on science and scientists. From my view as a teacher, this STL discussion
makes things clearer and stresses the different perspectives that you have to deal with in science education where pupils influence and
participation is one perspective and from my point of view of great importance.
International Scientific Literacy Workshop Gøteborg 13-14th May 2008
Rebecca Carver, PhD student, University of Oslo

Media Framing and Public Understanding of Genes

By Rebecca Carver (PhD Student).

Jarle Breivik (1st Supervisor, Institute for Basic Medical Sciences, IMB, University of
Oslo)
Ragnar Waldahl (2nd Supervisor, Institute for Media and Communication, IMK,
University of Oslo)

Public literacy, or understanding, about science and technology is attained through a

variety of ways. People reconcile their existing knowledge with information from many
different sources, including school education and the mass media (Einsiedel and Thorne
1999, Waldahl 2007). If we look beyond school education, then over time the mass media
can be a very important – if not the only – source of scientific information for the general
public (Einsiedel and Thorne 1999). Journalists not only provide important scientific
information, but they also frame information to convey particular representations or
understandings of an issue. They draw their ideas from popular culture and thus “straddle
the boundary between producers and consumers of meaning” (Gamson and Modiglini
1989). Together with Professors Jarle Breivik and Ragnar Waldahl at the University of
Oslo, I have looked at how British and Norwegian newspapers frame understandings of
the gene concept to gain insight into public understanding of gene-related issues.
Jon Miller (1998) has argued that public understanding of a few basic scientific
concepts, including DNA, is required for individuals to make better personal decisions
and to understand current policy disputes in modern society. The gene concept is indeed
central to understanding a whole range of issues within science and technology.
Numerous applications of gene technology for example are becoming increasingly
relevant to peoples lives; consequently, information about issues such as genetic testing,
gene therapy, reproductive technologies and genetically modified organisms frequently
appears in the mass media. An individual wanting to make a personal decision over
whether or not to take a genetic test for a particular disease would benefit from
understanding how both genetic and environmental factors contribute to disease
development, and what it means to have a genetic risk. Does the mass media convey such
understanding?
Sometimes, yes. But understanding comes in many forms. As Professor of public
understanding of science John Durant has claimed, there is a difference between
understanding as knowing a lot of science, understanding as knowing how science works,
and understanding as knowing how science really works (Gregory and Miller 1998,
p.89). Likewise, our framing analysis has uncovered different ways of representing genes
in the print media, reflecting different levels of understanding (we call these materialistic,
deterministic, relativistic, evolutionary and symbolic). The evolutionary frame for
example can convey the most insightful understanding, which could give people insight
into how genetic and environmental factors can affect their health. Journalists writing in
this frame reflect the “interactive” or transmission model (vision 1) of scientific literacy
which puts facts into context and considers the wider applications of such knowledge
(Einsiedel and Thorne 1999). The materialistic frame on the other hand is often
characterized by “ready-made text book science” and may thus convey a more basic
understanding, resembling the deficit model of scientific literacy. This model (vision 2)
International Scientific Literacy Workshop Gøteborg 13-14th May 2008
Rebecca Carver, PhD student, University of Oslo

conceptualizes the lay mind as an empty bucket into which the facts of science can be
poured (Gregory and Miller 1998). However, scientific facts alone may not be all that
meaningful. Being told that “genes are digital codes written on DNA molecules and that
the code is in three-letter words” (The Sun) does not give any understanding of its
significance. The other frames might contribute to other types of understanding, and may
even contribute to misunderstanding
Media frames are shaped by a tangled feedback web of information coming from
science and popular culture (Einsiedel and Thorne 1999). In this way the mass media
may be seen as more interactive in its transmission of scientific knowledge than
traditional school science teaching (Linder et al. 2007), which has been based on a one-
way flow of information. However, there are still some tones of this linearity in media
texts, particularly when ideas about genes are framed materialistically as a string of facts,
or deterministically in order to fit tabloid formats.
In the next stages of the project I shall perform quantitative analyses of the
number of gene frames present in various newspapers, and later undertake reception
studies to assess the direct effect of media framing on an audience’s understanding of
genes and cancer. I also hope to conduct in-depth interviews with journalists and
scientists to try to understand what happens to information as it moves from scientific to
media discourse. The study is part of a long-term project to promote public understanding
of life science. The results will hopefully provide a reference for developing better
strategies in science communication of gene-related issues.

References:
Einsiedel E. and Thorne, B. (1999) “Public Responses to Uncertainty”. In Friedman
S.M., Dunwoody S., and Rogers C.L. (eds) Communicating Uncertainty. Media
Coverage of New and Controversial Science, pp 47-55. Mahwah, New Yersey and
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Entman, R. (1993) “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm” In Journal

of Communication, 41(4): 51-58.

Gamson, W. and Modigliani, A. (1989) “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear
Power: A Constructionist Approach” In The American Journal of Sociology 95(1): 1-37.

Gregory, J. and Miller, S. (1998) Science in Public. Communication, Culture, and

Credibility. New York: Plenum Press.

Kitzinger, J. (2007) “Framing and Frame Analysis” In Devereux, E. (2007) Media

Studies: Key Issues and Debates. London: Sage.

Linder, C., Ostman, L. And Wickman, P-O. (Eds). “Promoting Scientific Literacy:
Science Education Research in Transaction.” Proceedings of the Linnaues Tercentenary
Symposium, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, May 28-29 2007. Uppsala:
Geotryckeriet.
International Scientific Literacy Workshop Gøteborg 13-14th May 2008
Rebecca Carver, PhD student, University of Oslo

Miller, J. (2004) “Public Understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: what
we know and what we need to know” In Public Understanding of Science, 13: 273-294.

Waldahl, R. (2007) Opinion og Demokrati. Oslo: Universitetesforlaget.

International workshop: Scientific and Technological Literacy, Göteborg, Sweden, April 2008

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY: THE ROLE OF NATURE OF

CHEMISTRY

Veli-Matti Vesterinen
Department of Chemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland

“The great aim of education is not knowledge but action.”

Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) British Philosopher

Social and ethical aspects of chemistry as part a of scientific literacy

Douglas A. Roberts (2007) proposes that there are two schools of thought that characterize defining
scientific literacy. According to Vision I school science should give pupils knowledge and skills to
approach situations as a professional scientist would. Vision II approach is interested in the role science
plays in human affairs. In Vision II aim of the education is enabling students to approach situations as a
citizen well informed about science would.

The need for “Vision II”-like approach for practising scientists has been a acknowledged by researchers
like Jesper Shöström (2008). According to him, there is a need for taking into account the societal and
ethical dimensions of scientific practise and taking part in public discussion about the discipline by
practising chemists. Kathrine Krageskov Eriksen (2002) argues a Bildung focus should be adapted as a
perspective on tertiary chemical education. With a Bildung perspective guiding the educational
planning, students capable of critically considering the premises of the system, ‘the rules of the game’ –
not just skilled players – will be the intent. She argues for the need of three kinds of knowledge in
chemical education: (1) "ontological" chemical knowledge, i.e., real chemistry; (2) "epistemological"
knowledge, i.e. philosophical and sociological perspectives on the chemical practice; and (3) "ethical"
knowledge, i.e., reflection on the role of chemistry and chemistry education in society.

Developing a scientifically literate citizenry is not the only reason to include “Vision II”-like interest in
the role science plays in human affairs as a goal of science education. Even if assume that the general
role of science education is the preparation of future scientists and engineers, which according to
Gaalen Erickson (2007) is closely related to Vision I approach to aims of education, one could argue
that including societal and ethical aspects should still be emphasized in secondary science education, if
we want future scientists to be competent on epistemological and ethical level.

Aims of chemistry education and technological literacy

Of all the sciences, chemistry is perhaps most closely related to industry and technology. Self-image of
chemists’ has been determined by a symbiotic relationship between the science and the industry
(Laszlo, 2006). Jesper Sjöström (2008) argues that, as chemists are not only interested in molecule’s
character and behaviour, but also in generating wholly new molecules and structures, chemistry is
closely related to technology as well as science. He quotes Schummer (1999): "All received concepts to
distinguish between science and technology fail, if we try to apply them to chemistry." In addition to
technological research interests chemistry has a laboratory core that is technological.

Chemistry is quite often at least as interested in creating new structures or methods of production as it
is in constructing bodies of theory. The skill of designing often associated with technology is of utmost
importance in chemistry. Chemistry and technology are closely related at conceptual as well as societal
International workshop: Scientific and Technological Literacy, Göteborg, Sweden, April 2008

level and the nature of chemistry is closely connected to both technological and scientific literacy.
Hence chemistry education should “engage with the development of informed attitudes about the
impact that existing and emerging technologies will have upon their cultural development, as well as
the potential and actual consequences these technologies will have upon the environment, both locally
and globally” (Dakers, Dow & de Vries, 2007).

Chemistry as a discipline is closely related to many new and influential research fields, such as
biochemistry and nanotechnology. In my opinion, chemistry teaching should give competence to
understand the impact these new fields of technology and science have on scientific research and on
society at large.

My research and teaching interest in scientific and technological literacy

It is said that education without clear aims is like a rudderless ship. As teachers implements the aims
and objectives defined by the curricula, teachers’ conceptions of the aims of education are of enormous
importance on developing science education. To make informed curricular decisions, chemistry
teachers should understand not only the models and concepts used in chemistry but also how scientific
products are produced and what is the role of chemistry on society. In my research, I investigate
chemistry teacher students’ conceptions of the aims of secondary education.

The nature of science (NOS) is knowledge on the process and social institution of science. As part of
scientific literacy, the nature of science is often seen at the core of the curricular aims of science
education. The nature of chemistry is a part of the nature of science, which includes the philosophical
and sociological perspectives on the chemical practice and reflection on the role of chemistry as a part
of society. All questions that are essential for the nature of science in general are not necessarily
essential for the nature of chemistry.

In my previous research (Vesterinen, 2007) I have analyzed three Nordic national frame curricula for
upper secondary education for defining how issues related to the nature of chemistry might be taken
into account in aims of chemistry education. By categorizing and conceptualizing students’ conceptions
of the aims of chemistry education, I try to get better understanding on the reasoning converting issues
related to the nature of chemistry to educational objectives.

As the nature of science (McComas & Olson, 1998) also the nature of chemistry can be seen in the
intersection of four fields of specialized science studies: philosophy of chemistry, history of chemistry,
sociology of chemistry and psychology of chemistry. Research published on journals devoted to
philosophy on chemistry (e.g. HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry and
Foundations of Chemistry) has been interested in all the four fields of science studies. In my research I
try to take into account the ideas presented in the research of the philosophy of chemistry to categorize
teacher students’ conceptions of the aims of chemistry education.

There clearly is a need to teach the future chemistry teachers not only ontological chemical knowledge,
i.e. chemical models, but also philosophical and sociological perspectives on the chemical practice and
reflection on the role of chemistry on society. At University of Helsinki I teach Chemistry as a
Scientific Discipline (5 ECTS credits) and Chemistry and environment (4 ECTS credits) courses for
future chemistry teachers. Aims of these courses include familiarizing students with philosophical and
sociological perspectives of chemistry and discussing their implications for chemistry education.
International workshop: Scientific and Technological Literacy, Göteborg, Sweden, April 2008

References

Dakers, J. R., Dow W. J. and de Vries M. J. (2007). Introduction. In J. R. Dakers, W. J. Dow and M. J. de Vries
(eds.), Pupils Attitudes Towards Technology 2007, International Conference on Design and Technology
Educational Research, Teaching and Learning Technological Literacy in the Classroom (p. 7). Glasgow:
University of Glasgow.

Erickson, G. (2007). In the path of Linnaeus: Scientific literacy re-visioned with some thoughts on persistent
problems and new directions for Science Education. In C. Linder, L. Östman and P-O. Wickman (Eds.),
Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction, Proceedings of the Linnaeus
Tercentenary Symposium held at Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, May 28-29, 2007 (pp. 18-41). Uppsala:
Geotryckeriet.

Krageskov Eriksen, K. (2002). The Future of Tertiary Chemical Education – A Bildung Focus. Hyle:
International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 8, pp. 35-48.

Laszlo, P. (2006). On the Self-Image of Chemists, 1950-2000. Hyle: International Journal for Philosophy of
Chemistry, 12, pp. 99-130.

McComas, W. F. & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education documents. In
W. F. McComas (ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52).
Dordrecht: Kluwer,.

Roberts, D.A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of
research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schummer, J. (1999), Coping with the Growth of Chemical Knowledge – Challenges for Chemistry
Documentation, Education, and Working Chemists, Educación Química, 10, pp. 92-101.

Sjöström, J. (2008). The Discourse of Chemistry (and Beyond). HYLE: International Journal for Philosophy of
Chemistry, 13, pp. 83-97.

Vesterinen, V-M. (2007). Philosophy of chemistry in the national curricula for secondary education in three
Nordic countries. Paper presented in the ESERA 2007, European Science Education Research Association,
International Conference in Malmö, Sweden, August 21-25, 2007.
 1
DEVELOPING AN ASSESSMENT RESOURCE BANK FOR
TECHNOLOGY IN THE NINE YEAR COMPULSORY SCHOOL
Björn Andersson, Maria Svensson, Ann Zetterqvist
Department of Education, University of Gothenburg

For about a year now the authors of this paper have been working with developing a resource
bank aiming at assisting compulsory school teachers of technology with assessing to what
extent and with what quality pupils attain curricular goals. Financial resources are fairly
limited – 70 % of a full time position. The point of departure for our work is the national
syllabus for Technology (Utbildningsdepartementet, 1994). The following goals to aim for are
central – see table 1.
Table 1. Goals to aim for in technology
The school in its teaching of technology should aim to ensure that pupils
• develop their insights into the traditions of knowledge and the development of the culture of technology
and how technology in the past and the present influences people, society and nature,
• develop a familiarity in the home and workplaces with commonplace devices and working methods of
different kinds, as well as knowledge of the technology which is a part of our surroundings,
• develop the ability to reflect over, assess and evaluate the consequences of different technological choices,
• develop the ability to incorporate their technical knowledge into their own personal views of the world and
practical actions,
• develop an interest in technology and their ability and their judgement when handling technical issues.
In the syllabus it is also noted that five perspectives are specific to technology, namely
Development, What technology does, Construction and operation, Components and systems
and Technology, nature and society. In connection with these perspectives, examples of
content that might be dealt with are given, e.g. transportation technology, electrical
technology and control systems. However, it is no mandatory to deal with these particular
topics. Nor is it stated as goals that pupils should attain understanding of core concepts of
technology such as system, input, output, process and feedback.
The goals to aim for and the five perspectives might be seen as an answer to the question
”What is technological literacy?” Several points of contact with international documents in
the field are noted. Here is one example from the province of Saskatchewan, Canada:1
Technological Literacy can be described as the intellectual processes, abilities and dispositions
needed for students to understand the link between technology, themselves and society in general.
Technological Literacy is concerned with developing students’ awareness of how technology is
related to the broader social system, and how technological systems cannot be fully separated from
the political, cultural and economic frameworks which shape them.
An extensive work to clarify what is meant by technological literacy has been carried out by
International Technology Education Association (ITEA).2 They state that ”technological
literacy is the ability to use, manage, evaluate, and understand technology”. From this point of
departure, 20 ”standards for technological literacy” have been formulated, grouped into five
main categories:
THE NATURE OF TECHNOLOGY: Students will develop an understanding of:
1 the characteristics and scope of technology,
2 the core concepts of technology,
3 the relationships among technologies and the connections between technology and other fields of study.

1http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/policy/cels/ Se Chapter V: Technological literacy

2International Technology Education Association, 2002. Arbetet är finansierat av National Science Foundation
(NSF) och National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
 2
TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY: Students will develop an understanding of:
4 the cultural, social, economic, and political effects of technology,
5 the effects of technology on the environment,
6 the role of society in the development and use of technology,
7 the influence of technology on history.
DESIGN: Students will develop an understanding of:
8 the attributes of design,
9 an understanding of engineering design,
10 the role of troubleshooting, research and development, invention and innovation, and experimentation in
problem solving.
ABILITIES FOR A TECHNOLOGICAL WORLD: Students will develop abilities:
11 to apply the design process,
12 to use and maintain technological products and systems,
13 to assess the impact of products and systems.
THE DESIGNED WORLD: Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use:
14 medical technologies,
15 agricultural and related biotechnologies,
16 energy and power technologies,
17 information and communication technologies,
18 transportation technologies,
19 manufacturing technologies,
20 construction technologies.
These standards partly coincide with the perspectives and goals to aim for of the Swedish
technology syllabus. However, there is no Swedish equivalent of the content areas specified
under ”The designed world”, nor of ”the core concepts of technology” (standard 2).
Our work with concretizing technological literacy, i.e. transforming goals to aim for and the
five perspectives into assessment tasks, means dealing with various problems. One has to do
with the fact that goals for technology are expressed on a meta-level, i.e. they are decoupled
from content. This gives rise to a number of both difficult and interesting questions, e.g.:
• Will teaching different content lead to the same attainment of the goals to aim for (table 1)?
• How might the effect of technology teaching be distinguished from other influences, such as
media, when it is a question of e.g. judging the effects of technology on the environment?
• Will participation in a few design projects lead to the development of a general design ability?
• Is there some general ability to reflect over, assess and evaluate the consequences of different
technological choices, that is independent of content?
We do not have answers to these questions and are therefore interested in discussions about
possible experiences and research results.
As said above, there are no content areas of technology that are mandatory according to the
Swedish syllabus. But assessment tasks must have a content. What should it be? In principle
we don't know what Swedish technology teachers deal with during their lessons. What are the
implications of this for our work? Another question is if there are content areas that are so
important that they should be mandatory. An example is motoring. There are now about 900
million cars rolling on our globe. Should technology teachers deal with this big system and its
implications for economy, society and nature?
In an attempt to navigate in what for us are rather unknown waters, we do the following:
Within the perspectives Construction and operation and Technology, nature and society we
create tasks, study how pupils solve them and try to develop criteria for assessing their work.
Examples are constructing a cardboard chair, designing a paper airplane that will fly as far as
possible and considering consequences of technical installations, e.g. building a dam or a
bridge. I addition to that we create paper- and pencil tasks that test specific technical
knowledge, e.g about trusses and other ways to create stable and strong constructions.
 Socio-scientific issues - a way to improve students’ interest and learning?
Margareta Ekborg, Umeå University and Britt Lindahl, Kristianstad University

We are working with a research project funded by the Swedish Research Council which
started in January 2007, and will continue for at least three years. The research group is called
SISC (Science in Social Contexts) and consists of researchers from Kristianstad University,
Umeå University and Malmö University in Sweden.

Background and aims

Research shows that pupils are interested in science, but not in school-science, which they
often find difficult and boring (Lindahl, 2003: Lyons, 2006). This result needs to be taken
serious as it might be one reason for the declining interest among young people to choose a
scientific career but it could also be one explanation to scientific ignorance among the general
public (Osborne, Simon & Collins, 2003). Research also shows that one way to increase
students’ interest in science can be to bring in a humanistic perspective (Aikenhead, 2006)
and to focus on scientific literacy i.e., the ability to understand and take part in the public
debate about socio-scientific issues, to form a personal opinion and to make decisions using
both knowledge in and about science, from other knowledge areas and to consider personal
values (Roberts, 2007).

The aim of this project is to learn more about what importance features of the actual case as
well as factors in classroom work, have for the impact on students’ interest and learning.
Another aim is to gain knowledge about teachers’ experiences with teaching in this way.

What we done so far…

As research about work with SSI in science does not particularly discuss characteristics of the
content (Jimiénez-Aleixandre & Pereiro-Munoz, 2002; Kolstø, 2001; Lewis & Leach, 2006;
Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003; Sadler, 2004) our first step was to develop a conceptual framework
for construction and analysis SSI. The framework consists of six components and we have
constructed six socio-scientific cases that are different regarding these components. The
components are starting-point (authentic situation), school science subject, nature of scientific
content, social content, use of scientific knowledge and level of conflict of interest. The six
cases was constructed so that they differ according to the above described components and
they are: You are what you eat?, Laser treatment and near sightedness, To hear or not to
hear?, Me, my family and global warming, Are mobiles hazardous? and Climate-friendly food
in school?

Another problem is to measure factors within the affective domain. Several surveys of studies
on attitudes towards and interest in science conclude like Osborne et al (2003) that the
concept of an attitude is somewhat nebulous, often poorly articulated and not well understood.
Koballa and Glynn (2007) claimed that we have to take a multidimensional approach to
understand students´ experiences during learning. Therefore we have tried to develop
questionnaires that allow us to consider the multivariate characteristics. The aspects we want
to assess besides different types of knowledge outcomes are for example attitudes, motivation,
epistemological beliefs, self-efficacy and the impact of different working forms.

Aikenhead (2006) draws the conclusion that most work attempting to change school practice
has failed as a result of problems arising when researchers try to transfer the success of one
research project to a new context. Most studies are small-scale studies involving only a few
volunteer science teachers to initiate novel project. Therefore we started with a quantitative
data collection with about 70 school classes and approximately 1500 pupils’ work with one or
several cases. We do not suggest detailed teaching sequences. Instead the teachers were asked
to work with the cases in a way they found appropriate in their regular work. However they
got some instructions about how to introduce the case to the pupils, the minimum time to use
and a requirement that the pupils must get the opportunity to discuss in small group on at least
one occasion. The teachers got some support in a teachers’ guide – ideas of questions to ask
and resources to use. For more detailed information please go to www.sisc.se.

Bibliography
Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science Education for Everyday Life: Evidence-Based Practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Jimiénez-Aleixandre, M-P, & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers?
Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of
Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
Kobala & Glynn (2007). Attitudinal and Motivational Constructs in Science Learning. In Abell & Lederman
(Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education. Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA Publishers.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). 'To trust or not to trust,...'-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-
scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877-901.
Lewis, J. & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of Socio-scientific Issues. The Role of Science Education. International
Journal of Science Education, 28 (11). 1267-1287.
Lindahl, B (2003). Lust att lära naturvetenskap och teknik? En longitudinell studie om vägen till gymnasiet.
Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. <http://hdl.handle.net/2077/9599>
Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries same science classes: students’ experiences of school science in their own
words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591-613
Osborne, J. Simon, S.& Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: review of the literature and its implication.
International Journal of Science Education, 25(9). s.1049-79.
Ratcliffe, M & Grace, M (2003). Science Education for Citizenship. Teaching Socio-Scientific Issues.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Roberts, D, A.(2007). Scientific Literacy/Science Literacy. In Abell & Lederman (Eds.). Handbook of Research
on Science Education. Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA Publishers
Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 41 (5).,513-536

Questions to discuss
1. We have used Ratcliffe and Grace’s (2003) characteristics of socio-scientific issues;
They are important for society and have a basis in science, involve forming opinions, are frequently
media-reported, address local, national and global dimensions with attendant political and societal
frameworks, involve values and ethical reasoning, may involve consideration of sustainable development
and may require some understanding of probability and risks. The issues have no “right answers”.

Could scientific literacy be defined as the ability to understand and take part in public debate
about such issues, to form a personal opinion and to make decisions based on both knowledge
in and about science, on other knowledge areas and to consider personal values?
Are there other components that should be regarded as important for scientific literacy?

2. Is it possible to get scientific literacy without science literacy?

3. The competence you need for scientific literacy today is much more complex than
yesterday and we are supposed to educate pupils for the future. What will be most important?
How can we know what is important for the future without knowing anything about the
future?

4. How to assess scientific literacy?

 Enacting technological literacy in contemporary society
Åke Ingerman,
University of Gothenburg

My current interest in technological literacy (TL) focus primarily on where we might find TL
in contemporary society, and what characteristics it might have in different places. The
international discussion on TL has primarily brought it out as a quality of the individual, who
often is seen as a vessel for ‘knowledge, ways of thinking and acting, and capabilities’ (taken
from p.3 Technically Speaking, Pearson et al., 2002). The International Technology Education
Association (ITEA, 2000) have gone as far as developing a series of standards that spells out
in detail how to achieve TL and what goals need to be achieved at different grades within a
school curriculum.

The recently published book Defining Technological Literacy (Dakers, 2006), which
represents the current emerging focus in the TL discussion and draws on an discussion
originating from the philosophy of technology. In this book, the focus is on technology
education in an attempt to develop a framework for educating for TL. As Dakers argues on
page one,
‘We need to develop a new language, a new literacy, in order to both understand our brave
new world, and learn how to live a meaningful existence in it. Where better to start this new
literacy than in technology education?’ (ibid, p.1)
In both the framework for TL presented by the ITEA as well as position developed in the
book edited by Dakers, much of what TL is is defined from within technology (defined as a
field by the set of various technology experts). The opening chapters of Dakers’s book
provide a number of examples supporting this claim. Feenberg (2006) explores the origins of
technology from the Greek Technē and maps out alternative theories on the progress and
control of technology. De Vries (2006) has taken as his starting point an analysis of the nature
of technological artefacts and thereafter defines technological knowledge in terms of the
nature of artefacts and their interaction with other physical objects. Michael (2006) introduces
a sociological perspective on the use of technological artefacts. He further analyses the
sociological consequences of the use of technology. He is a strong advocate of developing the
forms in which citizens can voice their views on technology. This is based on an argument by
Wynne (2002) showing how citizens come in late in the technological process – the
application stage (Keirl, 2006, p.90) – too late to have any influence, and explores ways of
changing that.

In line with this, I suggest that the current main-stream descriptions of TL as mainly involving
the ‘content’ of TL. This contrasts to descriptions of technology, where process (e.g. of
technological problem solving) and function (e.g. of artefacts) are essential ingredients in the
description (see e.g. de Vries, 2006). In the context of TL, I would argue that the functions of
TL for individuals and for society are important to articulate.

At this stage, consider the question: Why should an individual aspire to be technologically
literate? It is common cause that technology in its various forms concerns everybody. For
some, technology takes a narrow form, such as in the gestalt of information technology
(experienced as computers) and other kinds of artefacts. However, for many others, the
impact that technology has on their lives is something that they negotiate on a daily basis. I
would argue that a definition of TL must relate to the context of such negotiation, i.e. the
function of TL embedded in this particular negotiation (to what ends TL may transform the
situation). TL would, in such situations, point to certain ways of dealing with that negotiation,
by taking into account the nature of technology as well as aspects of technology related to
certain kinds of content. Furthermore, TL must exist in the relation between a subject and an
object, i.e. between an individual and technology in its broadest sense. Hence, it is neither
about the individual as such, nor is it about technology as such, but about how individuals
deal with aspects of their lives in a way which relates to technological artefacts and processes.

Thus I view technological literacy as something that is taking place – something that is
realised in particular settings and situations – over and over again. In this situation, there is
certain content to what TL means (e.g. certain comptences that can be brought to bear on the
situation) and the TL has a function in what is taking place. In the situation, there is a
potential for TL that is realised through an enactment of TL. In TL, as enacted, I identify three
primary pillars: knowledge, engagment and participation.

Something that has been widely discussed in the emergence of the idea of TL is what it means
to have knowledge of particular situations. There are several aspects to knowledge, some of
which have been suggested as capability, skills and the content of particular ways of
approaching the environment you find yourself in – given the expectations of the situation.
Engagement as used here refers, on the one hand, to the rationale for engaging in a situation
in a particular way – and relies thus on evaluation. On the other hand, it refers to volition and
the basis for ethical considerations for the engagement – the emotional basis. A very small
part of the application of technological knowledge and engagement is performed by an
individual in isolation with respect to society. Instead we are immersed into a society of
interactions through and around technology. It is through participation in specific practices in
society (see e.g. Wenger, 1998, for the constitution of pracitce and participation) that the
potential for TL as discussed above can be manifested. This realisation of technology in a
society occurs through processes that include interaction between different individuals (who
may position themselves in relation to this interaction, see e.g. Linehan & McCarthy, 2000)
and the application of various tools. Participation is what frames the realisation of potential,
and in that framing, what gives access to processes that can be regarded as TL.

A particular aspect of being involved in TL processes for individuals are the associated
democratic and emancipatory aspects. I would argue that an important defining aspect of a TL
process is its democratic structure. This does not mean that everybody involved has the equal
amount of influence (or the same role for that matter) in a particular process. It refers to the
possibility for negotiating about roles, on the basis of merit, cooperation and personally
pursued goals. Furthermore, bringing in elements of overarching goal consideration,
consequence analysis, and communal engagement in shared infrastructure, adds to the
democratic structure of processes, characterised by TL. Thus, to participate in a TL process is
a way of enacting not only technology, but also democracy, for the individual. Enactment is
also emancipatory, since it gives freedom to the individual to shape the situation at hand,
making it characterised by TL. This can be related to Roberts (2007) descriptions of science
literacy potentially being about supporting individuals to take their starting point in their lives
(“Vision II”), and potentially make use of science (and other fields) as a body of knowledge
as a way of addressing issues important for them. The primary implication interesting to
discuss in the context of this workshop is that to enable strong currents TL in contemporary
society requires not only education (schooling) to build powerful potential for TL, but also
structures in society in general where certain kinds of participation is encouraged with respect
to technological processes. Thus we must consider the additional question: What changes in
society and the ways in which people interact (with each other and with technological experts)
are due to support TL at various levels of society and peoples lives?
References
Dakers, J. R. (2006). Defining technological literacy : towards an epistemological framework.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
de Vries, M. J. (2006). Technological knowledge and artefacts: An analytical view. In Dakers
(2006), pp. 17-30.
Feenberg, A. (2006). What is philosophy of technology? In Dakers (2006), pp. 5-16.
ITEA (2000). Standards for technological literacy. Content for the study of technology:
International Technology Education Association.
Keirl, S. (2006). Ethical technological literacy as democratic curriculum keystone. In Dakers
(2006) pp. 81-102.
Linehan, C. & McCarthy, J.(2000). Positioning in Practice: Understanding Participation in the
Social World, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30:4, 435- 453.
Michael, M. (2006). How to understand mundane technology: New ways of thinking about
human-technology relations. In Dakers (2006), pp. 49-63.
Pearson, G., Young, A. T., National Academy of Engineering. Committee on Technological
Literacy, & National Research Council (U.S.). (2002). Technically speaking: Why all
Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
Roberts, D. (2007) Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbbok of research on science education (pp.729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice : learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
U.K. ; New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Workshop on scientific and technological literacy, May 13 – 14, 2008-04-03
Christina Kärrqvist, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

When did thoughts about Scientific Literacy show up in the Swedish School Curricula?

In 1842 science education brings into compulsory school as a subject matter. The aim was to
open up the pupils´ eyes to the great wonder of God in Nature and learn to love him and be
careful about his creation. The teacher demonstrated and illustrated objects and principles. In
the beginning of 1900 God disappeared and science education was taught in the light of the
Nation in order to contribute to a feeling of solidarity with other Swedes. The pupils should
themselves do more practical work and excursions 1936 the compulsory school extended to 7
years instead of 6 and the ideal was to educate for life in a rational and modern welfare state.
The pupils worked more and more with exercises in order to stimulate reflection and obstruct
to much learning by heart. In the middle of 1900 the ideal was the Swedish welfare state.
(Hultén, 2008).

In 1962 the compulsory school was 9 years long. The dominating code for education in the
curricula 1962, Lgr 62 and 1969, Lgr 69 was a scientific rational one. Then it was a great
belief in science as the solver of all society problems. The view of science was coloured by
positivism. There was a demand on objectivity in education and the school subjects of
physics, chemistry and biology were tight connected to the corresponding academic
disciplines, mini copies of the academic subject matters. The aim was to educate students for
the labour market, to be engineers, technicians and other high status professionals.
Democracy was seen as a form of government run by the elite who the people had
confidence in (Östman, 1995). Scientific knowledge was seen as a guarantor for truth.
Of course the democracy goal is not forgotten, but it is subordinate other goals like
economic growth and welfare in a harmonic society, free from conflicts. Social studies
are not very important but science studies are (Englund, Svingby & Wallin, 1986b).

When you look into the Swedish compulsory school system and study how the curricula have
evolved from 1962 up to today and consider Science literacy you do not meet the words Civic
competence in a democratic society until 1980. There are according to Englund (1986a)
different educational conceptions determining the framework of the civic curriculum code,
which have guided the content of the citizenship education since 1960.

The democratic code was formulated in the curriculum Lgr 80. A distinguishing
characteristic in this was the goal to prepare students for active participation in the
political life. It is now apparent that different conflicts can be discussed at school,
which is a school for all, where all students get a long theoretical education. Scientific
knowledge is seen as one of many sources of knowledge and there are conflicting theories
about things. The school should be open for discussions of different opinions and values and
shall not be neutral but maintain and defend the democratic values (Lgr 80). The student shall
develop confidence in her/his own capability to influence and improve society and learn to
work with conflicts. The ideal is the active citizen who can understand and participate in
debates and decisions about nature and technology in society. It is not to learn the scientific
knowledge in order to be a scientist. Science as a school subject is seen as loaded with values
and the problems discussed can be taken from outside the disciplines. Ethical problems are
important. The problems should not be left for the experts to solve but be discussed by
ordinary people. All pupils will get a good education in science in order to maintain the
democracy. (Englund, Svingby & Wallin, 1986b). The goal is to give the pupils better
prerequisites to understand, critically question and decide in relation to different
topics. And it is possible to choose subject matter in relation both to what is important
in the academic disciplines and to what is important for an enlighten citizen. The
choice of subject matter is stimulated to be interdisciplinary and the aim is to bring up
pupils to active members in a democratic society.

Our syllabus of today is from 1994 with smaller changes from 2000. The aim of
science education is to make the results and working methods of science accessible for
everyone. The education contributes to society´s efforts to create sustainable
development and develop concern for nature and Man. At the same time the education
aims at an approach to the development of knowledge and views which resonate with
the common ideals of the natural sciences and democracy on openness, respect for
systematic investigation and well-founded arguments.

The aims of science education is that the students shall develop their concern and
responsibility when using nature, develop the ability to use scientific knowledge and
experiences as a basis for examining their views and develop a critical and
constructive attitude to reasoning of their own and others, showing respect and
sensitivity to the views of others. Science knowledge is seen as a human construction
and science theories can always be questioned and changed over time.

The democratic aspect is still very important in Lpo 94. The latest curriculum seems to
be even more loaded with values than earlier curricula, values that are common for
most people in Sweden and many other western democracies and are called
democratic values. And science education appears as one of the tools for our society to
educate for democracy. The change from the scientific rational to the democratic code
appeared already 1980 in the Swedish written curricula. Science literacy in
contemporary society will educate people for democracy. And this aim was formulated
already in 1980. The implemented curriculum is another story!

Englund, T. (1986a). Curriculum as a Political Problem. Changing Educational Conceptions,

with special Reference to Citizenship Education. Lund: Studentlitteratur/Chartwell – Bratt.

Englund, T.,Svingby, G. & Wallin, E. (1986b) Orienteringsämnenas innehåll och den

medborgerliga kompetensen. Nordisk pedagogik, nr 3.s 147 – 155.

Grundskolan. Kursplaner och betygskriterier 2000. Skolverket och Fritzes, 2000.

Hultén, Magnus (2008) Naturens kanon – Formulering och förändring av innehållet i

folkskolans och grundskolans naturvetenskap 1842 – 2008. Doktorsavhandling i pedagogik
vid Stockholms universitet 2008.

Läroplan för grundskolan 1962, Lgr 62, Kungliga Skolöverstyrelsens skriftserie 60. Emil
Kihlströms tryckeri AB, Stockholm 1963.

Läroplan för grundskolan 1969, Lgr 69, Allmän del. Skolöverstyrelsen. Utbildningsförlaget.
1969.
Läroplan för grundskolan, Lgr 80, Allmän del. Skolöverstyrelsen och Liber
Utbildningsförlaget. 1980.

Läroplan för det obligatoriska skolväsendet, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet (Lpo 94). I
Regler för målstyrning. Grundskolan svensk Facklitteratur, Stockholm. 2002.

Östman, L. (1995). Socialisation och mening : No-utbildning som politiskt och miljömoraliskt
problem = Socialization and meaning : science education as a political and environmental-
ethical problem. Uppsala studies in education, 61. Uppsala
Stockholm, Univ. ; Almqvist & Wiksell International distribution: 226.
To understand or to believe in the theory of evolution?

Anita Wallin, Department of Education, University of Gothenburg

My research interest has for many years been teaching and learning the theory of biological
evolution by natural selection (Andersson & Wallin, 2006; Wallin, 2004). I think this theory
is a good candidate for being part of the content in scientific literacy. In Sweden the theory is
self-evident in the curriculum and syllabus of biology. In compulsory school there is a goal to
aim for in teaching which draw heavily on evolution: The school in its teaching of biology
should aim to ensure that pupils develop their knowledge of the conditions and development
of life and are able to see themselves and other forms of life from an evolutionary perspective
(National Agency for Education, 2001, p.44).
I am myself convinced that the theory of evolution is an important part of scientific literacy.
Not only because of its scientific value as a powerful theory for explaining life on earth and
its past and ongoing development but also because it is a highly suitable content for
discussing nature of science. I will come back to this discussion in a moment but first: What is
scientific literacy?
Roberts (2007) says that the phrase refers to a broad umbrella goal for orienting science
curriculum and teaching. Since its debut in the science education literature some fifty years
ago, this concept has been given so many definitions that it now refers, at least potentially, to
every conceivable objective of school science education and even out-of-school, or informal,
science education provided by zoos, museums, science centres, and the like (p. 9).
He proposes two visions of scientific literacy called Vision I and Vision II. In Vision I
education takes its point of departure from inside science itself while Vision II starts from
outside situations in which science has a significant role. As I see it the theory of evolution
has the possibility to be taught successfully both with Vision I and Vision II perspectives. In
Vision I you could use the theory as such as a starting point while in Vision II an authentic
discussion about science and faith performed by young people in a newspaper, on the TV, or
in a school could be used. In both cases I am convinced that the theory of evolution would be
in the foreground and used to illustrate how science explains the evolution of life. I think that
all pupils and students sometimes have thought about faith or religion and their connection to
evolution which makes discussions about science and faith very interesting. The theory of
evolution is therefore a perfect content to discuss nature of science.
But what is scientific literacy? OECD has through the PISA assessments defined scientific
literacy in different ways in 2003 and 2006. In 2003:
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, 2003 p. 133).
This definition draws strongly on the capability to use the scientific knowledge and I see it as
a predominantly Vision II perspective. In the definition 2006 OECD also include possession
of scientific knowledge and how to acquire new knowledge. Further more a literate person
shall be able to explain scientific phenomena, to understand the nature of science and to
engage in science-related issues. I understand this later definition as drawing both on Vision I
and on Vision II perspectives.
In teaching biological evolution there is an ongoing discussion about the aim of this
education, which can be interesting in the context of scientific literacy. What and how shall
the pupils and student learn the theory? Shall they understand it? Shall they believe in it? For
example is it a goal of education to make a religious pupil or student to abandon his/her faith
and start believing in evolution? Or is the goal to teach pupils and students in such a way that
they become invited to learn the theory of evolution as a scientific theory? Is it possible to
really understand the theory of evolution by natural selection if you do not believe in it?
Anderson (2007) discusses four different approaches to teach evolution labelled conflict,
independence, dialogue, and integration. In the conflict approach science and religion are at
war. The independence approach says that religion and science have different epistemologies.
By the dialogue approach science and religion should be in conversation with each other and
engage in critical reflection. The last approach, integration, means a closer partnership
between science and religion with a potential integration of the two. Anderson himself has the
greatest sympathies for the dialogue and integration positions and argues against the position I
appreciate, the independent one, by saying: The independence perspective requires a
compartmentalized approach that often is philosophically naive; deeper thinking is required
than simply saying the two are unrelated and then expect to just let it go at that. (p.667)
In my research studying 17 – 19 year old students’ learning of the theory of evolution the
teachers and I decided to take on the independence approach. I do not consider it
philosophically naïve at all, on the contrary our students were able do make their personal
dialogues and integrations. I think they became capable to take these perspectives on account
of our independence strategy. By this strategy the students who had a religious faith did not
feel any threats since we separated science and faith and this made it possible for the students
to create their own integration. I think that at least at this age the students are capable to do
this without their teachers guiding them. I do not think that we in science classrooms shall
integrate religion and science but I do think we shall have a dialogue.
In the literature I got support for my independence approach position by Smith and Siegel
(2004) who argue that the goal for scientific education is to understand. I think a scientific
literate person shall understand the theory of evolution but do not necessarily have to believe
in it. I am convinced that a person can have a faith and at the same time be scientific literate.
Anderson, R. (2007). Teaching the Theory of Evolution in Social, Intellectual, and Pedagogical
Context. Science Education 91, 664 – 677.
Andersson, B., & Wallin, A. (2006). On developing content-orientated theories taking biological
evolution as an example. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 673-695.
National Agency for Education. (2001). Compulsory school. Syllabuses. Stockholm: Fritzes.
OECD (2003) Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving Knowledge and Skills: A
framework for PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved [2008-04-12] from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/29/33707226.pdf
OECD (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA. Paris:
OECD Publishing. Retrieved [2008-04-12] from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf
Roberts, D., A. (2007). Opening Remarks. In C. Linder, L. Östman & P-O. Wickman (Eds).
Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction. Proceedings of the
Linnaeus Tercentenary. Symposium held at Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, May 28-29,
2007. (pp. 9-17). Uppsala: Geotryckeriet.
Smith, M. & Siegel, H. (2004). Knowing, Believing, and Understanding: What Goals for Science
Education? Science & Education 13, 553–582
Wallin, Anita. (2004). Evolutionsteorin i klassrummet: På väg mot en ämnesdidaktisk teori för
undervisning i biologisk evolution. Göteborg studies in educational sciences 212. Göteborg: Acta
Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
 WORKSHOP ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY - GOTEBORG

INTERESTS IN SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

PAUL WEBB – NELSON MANDELA METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

PORT ELIZABETH, SOUTH AFRICA

Background

In 2001 the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) produced an ‘Atlas of
Science Literacy’ for Project 2061 to help teachers, curriculum planners and assessment developers
achieve coherent curricula and teaching and learning strategies. The atlas provides grade level
analyses in terms of the concepts and processes that students should progressively learn at particular
levels. Three years later, Fensham (2004) wrote a historical review of the ideas about scientific
literacy that have resulted in the popular ‘Science Literacy for All’ movement and the development
of ‘Science for Citizenship’ curricula, and commented on what he thought science literacy for all
might include and not include.

Yore and Treagust (2006), however, feel that the types of curricula that emphasise either knowledge
and skills only, or personal well-being, democratic well-being, socioeconomic well-being, and
scientific well-being only, are both inadequate; the latter approach does not place enough emphasis
on learner’s cognitive tools while the former approach does not develop the communication abilities
that are needed to be able to maintain and further develop students scientific literacy after they leave
school. In other words, they believe that the promotion of science literacy should not only focus on
knowledge and skills, but should empower people to be literate in the discourses of science, i.e.
reading, writing and talking science. As such, scientific literacy requires that learners are proficient
in science language, thinking and emotional dispositions (the fundamental sense of science), as well
as understand the big ideas of science, and the relevance and interactions between science,
technology, society and the environment - the derived sense of science (Hand, Prain, & Yore, 2001;
Norris & Phillips, 2003). Gee (2005) agrees with this conceptualisation and believes that no
learning area represents academic language better than science because it makes demands on
learners to use language orally and in print, as well as symbolically as diagrams, equations,
analogies, etc.; skills that are at the heart of what is required for higher levels of school success.

My interest is framed mainly within the description of scientific literacy provided by Yore and
Treagust (2006).

Current project

I have been working for the past two years with colleagues at the NMMU and at the University of
North Carolina on developing a scientific literacy programme for teachers that focuses on reading,
writing, talking and doing science. The strategy has been pilot tested with the Primary science
Programme in Cape Town, The Maths Centre in Johannesburg and with READ trainers in
Johannesburg. Currently we (NMMU and READ) are implementing and researching the strategy
with approximately 30 teachers in each of seven of the nine South African provinces. The rationale
for the approach is that South African research findings have noted the following:

• Learners’ level of language competence in some schools is so poor that they are unable to
read the learning material provided for them, and that the tasks and exercises they are given
are often conceptually too difficult and beyond their competence.
 • This leads to a heavy reliance on rote learning and makes the learners dependent on the
teachers for everything they learn.

The strategy aims at:

• Enhancing reading to learn science and learning to read for science

• Improving classroom discussion and exploratory talk towards investigable questions
• Planning and doing an investigation in the classroom
• Writing to learn science
• Argumentation and critical thinking

The model used with the READ organisation can be best explained through the following diagram
which includes the teacher-training requirements (shown in blue) and caters for second-language
learners and teachers:

TEACHER TRAINING
Reading &
Enhancing research
teacher Promoting discussion, skills for Better
Reading and 2nd fundament procedural science derived
language issues al sense of understanding, learners sense of
and techniques science language issues science

Further reading / Improved Line of

research Learning in Science
Basis for
Notebooks
discussion,
raising
Provides Fundamental questions, Derived sense
required sense of planning and of science
info / science executing [Conceptual Evaluating
Reading Improved
knowledge [Reading, investigation science
materials understanding,
literacy and scientific
for writing, big picture,
feedback to literacy
learners talking, procedural learners
discussing, knowledge,
arguing] NoS, etc.]

Improved procedural
Argumentation knowledge, under-
Promoting argumentation and writing standing of NoS, etc.,
and science notebooks

Better
fundamental
Integrated teaching strategies model and derived
sense of
for improved scientific literacy in science
second-language learners

Research has been done on classroom discussion (Webb & Treagust, 2006), science notebooks, and
argumentation (see below) and currently there is a PhD student researching the overall strategy and
a MEd student who has researched (currently handing in dissertation) the effect of the strategy on
students general literacy (see below).

Villanueva-Hay, M. (2006). Science notebooks: a strategy to promote investigations in grade six

science classrooms.
Williams, Y. (2006). Concept cartoons and the development of argumentation in science classrooms.
Villanueva-Hay, M. (Current). An integrated teaching strategies model for improved scientific
literacy in second-language learners.
Mayaba, N. (Current). Language development via an integrated scientific literacy strategy.

17 March 2008