2
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 38, NO. 7, PP. 713–714 (2001) PREFACE The Interdependence of Scientific and Technological Literacy The articles in this issue explore the role of technology in science education. Technology has always had a place in the science curriculum, but the importance given to it has risen and fallen over the decades. In the first half of the twentieth century, technology assumed a more significant place in the curriculum as scholars and curriculum writers tried to match school science with their perceptions of the needs of a growing school population. The Sputnik-era reforms were in part a reaction against the place of technology in the school science curriculum as reformers strove to align school science with the practice of scientists (Cajas, 1998). The publication of Science for All Americans (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989) provided a significant boost to technology as an integra part of science literacy, introducing a new, broader vision of technology. It is this new vision of technology and its implications that are addressed in the first five articles in this issue. The sixth, and final article addresses another view of technology in science education–as an educational tool. The authors of the first five articles in this issue describe technology as artifacts, knowledge, processes, social practices, and even language. From their perspective, technology is both means and ends in science education. That is, they make the argument that technology-centered activities such as engineering design are suited to help students to learn science since students are involved in the design, creation, and testing of artifacts. These activities enable students to reflect on their designs and unpack the scientific ideas used in the process. Further, they see that learning about technology is also an end in itself. Some of the authors describe the importance of understanding specific technological ideas and skills that have been identified as part of science literacy, including the nature of design, systems, and important ideas about specific technologies such as materials, energy, and communications. This has been explicit in at least three standards documents: Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993), the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996), and the Standards for Technological Literacy (International Technology Education Association, 2000). This cluster of articles provides the science education community with a current analysis of the relationship between education in science and education in technology. The picture that emerges from these articles is that of complex relationship the suggestion between science and technology and that such complexity should be reflected in the school curriculum. In his article ‘‘The Science/Technology Interaction: Implications for Science Literacy,’’ Cajas points out that there is a move to go beyond the old dichotomies that formerly characterized the science- technology relationship, which calls for a reevaluation of the relationship between science ß 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The interdependence of scientific and technological literacy

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The interdependence of scientific and technological literacy

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 38, NO. 7, PP. 713±714 (2001)

PREFACE

The Interdependence of Scienti®c and Technological Literacy

The articles in this issue explore the role of technology in science education. Technology

has always had a place in the science curriculum, but the importance given to it has risen and

fallen over the decades. In the ®rst half of the twentieth century, technology assumed a more

signi®cant place in the curriculum as scholars and curriculum writers tried to match school

science with their perceptions of the needs of a growing school population. The Sputnik-era

reforms were in part a reaction against the place of technology in the school science curriculum

as reformers strove to align school science with the practice of scientists (Cajas, 1998). The

publication of Science for All Americans (American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1989) provided a signi®cant boost to technology as an integra part of science literacy,

introducing a new, broader vision of technology. It is this new vision of technology and its

implications that are addressed in the ®rst ®ve articles in this issue. The sixth, and ®nal article

addresses another view of technology in science education±as an educational tool.

The authors of the ®rst ®ve articles in this issue describe technology as artifacts, knowledge,

processes, social practices, and even language. From their perspective, technology is both means

and ends in science education. That is, they make the argument that technology-centered

activities such as engineering design are suited to help students to learn science since students

are involved in the design, creation, and testing of artifacts. These activities enable students to

re¯ect on their designs and unpack the scienti®c ideas used in the process. Further, they see that

learning about technology is also an end in itself. Some of the authors describe the importance of

understanding speci®c technological ideas and skills that have been identi®ed as part of science

literacy, including the nature of design, systems, and important ideas about speci®c technologies

such as materials, energy, and communications. This has been explicit in at least three standards

documents: Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1993), the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996),

and the Standards for Technological Literacy (International Technology Education Association,

2000).

This cluster of articles provides the science education community with a current analysis of

the relationship between education in science and education in technology. The picture that

emerges from these articles is that of complex relationship the suggestion between science and

technology and that such complexity should be re¯ected in the school curriculum. In his article

`̀ The Science/Technology Interaction: Implications for Science Literacy,'' Cajas points out that

there is a move to go beyond the old dichotomies that formerly characterized the science-

technology relationship, which calls for a reevaluation of the relationship between science

ß 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Page 2: The interdependence of scientific and technological literacy

education and technology education. In `̀ The Unrealized Potential of Everyday Technology as a

Context for Learning,'' Benenson suggests that although technology and science may have

different goals, there are many situations where science and technology share ways of thinking,

such as in improving existing designs. This provides opportunities for students to work with

existing artifacts and identify their weakneses; to improve them; and, in the process, to learn

about science, mathematics, technology, and even language. Seiler, Tobin, and Sokolic use their

article, `̀ Roadblocks, on the Path to Understanding Technology and Science,'' to show that

learning science through the study of technology is not straightforward. In fact, the introduction

of technology-centered activities in science education and the introduction of technology ideas

and skills identi®ed for science literacy will require putting in place material, conceptual, and

social resources that can support teachers as they help students understand the relationship

between science and technology.

Roth, in his article `̀ Learning Science through Technological Design,'' describes how

technology-centered activities would help students to learn about simple machines, energy, and

forces in increasingly scienti®c ways. He suggests that meaning emerges when students design

and interact with artifacts and communicate and defend their ideas. In his article, `̀ Learning and

Using Science and Technology with Investigate and Redesign Tasks,'' Crismond describes an

empirical study of the nature of design tasks that help students to learn key scienti®c and

technological ideas such as the notion of trade-offs. In the closing article in this issue, Wu,

Krajcik, and Soloway show how a computer-based visualizing tool can aid high school students

in understanding chemical representations.

The focus of the articles in this issue ranges from explorations of policy issues to the

concerns of enacting technology-based curricula in inner-city schools. Although standards

documents have clari®ed speci®c scienti®c and technological ideas and skills relevant for

literacy, how to move these intentions into actions is a rich research topic. The authors of this

issue study the kinds of resources that are needed to introduce technology-based activities

designed to teach science and/or technology. In doing so, they raise theoretical and practical

problems that need to be taken into account in any attempt to introduce technology studies in

general education or technology-based activities that are designed to teach either scienti®c or

technological ideas and skills identi®ed with scienti®c literacy.

Fernando CajasOrganizer of the Technology Cluster

James J. GallagherCo-Editor

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans.

New York: Oxford.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science

literacy. New York: Oxford.

Cajas, F. (1998). Teaching science for understanding and applications: The role of

technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. East Lansing MI: Michigan State University.

International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological

literacy. Reston, VA: Author.

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

National Academy Press.

714 PREFACE