244

Research In Science Education, 1988, 18, 244--250.

ADULT SCIENTIFIC AN D TECH NOLOGICAL LITERACY:

A REVIEW

R.A. Sohibeci

INTRODUCTION

"Science education in crisis" is current ly a popular eatchcry. Western pol i t ic ians

urge industry to be more technological ly eff ic ient . The pace of change, ineludng

technological change, is increasing. "Ci t izens need to be scientif ieaUy and technological ly

l i te ra te" , we are told (see, for example , the special issues of the Bulletin of Science,

Technology and Society (1986, 6 [2 & 3] and 1987, 7 [1 & 2]).

What is "sc ient i f ic and technological l i te racy"? Are they two concepts or one? How

do people in the community beeome more 'q i te ra te" in science and technology? What is

the role of the school and non-school agencies (such as the media) in raising the sc ien t i f ic

and technological l i t e racy level of the corn m unity?

It is useful for this discussion, f i rs t , to provide a framework for the various sources

of learning in science and technology. These sources may be ca tegor i sed as "school" or

"out-of-school". In each of these two categories , the provision of learning may be

"formal" or "informal". Formal sources of learning are those which set out in tent ional ly to

educate; informal sources a re those which educate "accidental ly" (Lueas, 1982). Thus, the

school provides "formal" learning opportuni t ies in a science class, and "informal"

opportunit ies in a seience club. The "formal" classroom provision of sc ience learning tends

to be t ightly s t ructured, with the speci f ic intent (generally) of achieving p re -de te rmined

object ives. The "informaP' source of learning (the science elub) is general ly much less

s t ruc tured and of ten has a much grea te r emphasis on enjoyment as an impor tan t

object ive. In a s imilar way, an "out-of-school" source of learning may be "formal", as in a

museum (in which there is a de l ibe ra te a t t emp t to educate) , or "informal", as in a play, a

novel, a film or a television programme. The f ramework for the various ca tegor ies of

sourees of learning are sum marised in Table 1.

245

TABLE 1

A Classification of Sources of Learning

With Examples

FORMAL INFORMAL

School science class science club

Out-of-School m useum novel/play

Let's now consider some of the meanings given to 'scientific and technological

literacy'.

Scientific and technological literacy: What are they?

The concept of "scientific literacy" has been around quite a while, so let us examine

it first. It has been defined in many different ways: a sample of views is as follows.

gaining scientific literacy is a matter not merely of evolving from primitive ideas to complex ones, but of tearing out and replacing a whole, originally functional world picture, with all its concepts, hypotheses and metaphors.

(Holton, 1984, p. 6)

These two dimension together - an understanding of the norms of science and knowledge of major scientific constructs - constitute the traditional meaning of scientific literacy as applied to broader populations. But if scientific literacy is to become truly relevant to our contemporary situation, one additional dimension must be added: awareness of the impact of science and technology on society and the policy choices that must inevitably emerge.

(Miller, 1983, p. 31)

We may define science literacy as an acquaintance with science, technology, and medicine, popularized to various degrees, on the part of the general public and special sectors of the public through information in the mass media and education in and out of schools.

(Shen, 1975, pp. 45-46)

Clearly, a wide range of elements is included in the concept of various authors. How

are we to make sense of this bewildering range of views of "scientific l i teracy"? Some,

like Maarschalk (1986), have abandoned the a t tempt , and instead have ehosen to focus on

selected apsects of scientif ic l i teracy. We must bear in mind, however, the consequences

of illiteracy; in the words of the Australian Minister for Science,

246

those who have no understanding of the ideas and practices of science...are as effectively cut off from the wider culture as those who have not yet learned to read or write. (Jones, 1986, p. 20)

Li te racy in the natural sciences and technology are obviously impor tan t a reas of concern.

This concern is not new. Pella, O ' I learn and Gale (1966) a t t e m p t e d twenty years ago

to unpack the concept of sc ien t i f ic l i t e racy . They began by ident i fying what they saw as

three basic reasons for teaching sc ience from kindergarten to university: "to prepare

scientists'W; "to prepare technologists"; and, "to provide a background in sc ience as a par t

of the general educat ion of the individual for e f fec t ive ci t izenship" (po 199). Achievement

of this third purpose of science education, they believed, would resul t in a "sc ient i f ica l ly

l i t e ra te" person, They sys temat ica l ly reviewed the science and science educat ion

l i t e r a tu re (for the period 1946-1964) for "referents" to sc ient i f ic l i t e racy . Analysis of 100

doeuments led them to identify six such referents : science and socie ty; e thics of science;

nature of science; conceptual knowledge; sc ience and technology; and, science and

humanities. They summarised their findings in this way:

The sc ient i f ica l ly l i t e ra te individual present ly is eha rac te r i sed as one with an understanding of the Ca) basic concepts in science, (b) nature of seience, (c) e thies that control the se ient is t in his work, (d) in terre la t ionships of sc ience and society, (e) in ter re la t ionships of science and the humanit ies, and, (0 d i f fe rences between science and technology. (p. 206)

Further , they c la imed that the l i t e r a tu re indicated that the first three were "more

important" than the remaining three referents . Those with all these qual i t ies would be

more than "sc ient i f ica l ly l i te ra te" ; they would be Renaissance persons, par excel lence!

A somewhat d i f ferent view is provided by Shen (1975). He divided sc ien t i f i c l i t e racy

into three categor ies : prae t ica l , civic and eultural . He defined p rac t i ca l sc ience l i t e r aey

as "the possession of the kind of sc ient i f ic knowledge that can be used to help solve

p rae t ica l problems" (p. 46). Sueh knowledge, he claimed, ran mean the d i f fe rence between

heal th and disease or l ife and death for many people. In his view, the del ivery of p rac t ica l

se ienee l i t e racy would require a large mass communicat ion ef for t l inked perhaps, with

"a lphabet ic l i t e r acy (reading and writing)", although the l a t t e r is not a prerequis i te for the

former. In fact , there may be a ease in some instances for giving a higher pr ior i ty to

increasing prac t ica l se ienee l i t e r acy than to increasing a lphabet ic l i t e racy . (For example,

in some areas of heal th or nutri t ion, a basic knowledg is essential for a heal thy life).

Shen's second category is civic scienee l i te racy , the purpose of which is "to enable

the e i t izen to become more aware of sc ience and se i enee - re l a t ed issues so that he and his

represen ta t ives would not shy away from bringing their com monsense to bear upon such

issues" (p. 48). Thus, while the exper ts would decide how a project would be implemented,

247

ci t izens would decide whether the project would go ahead. He urged the raising of the

functional level of civic science l i t e racy by two means: f irst , by increasing the quali ty of

quanti ty and science in the media, and ensuring that school science provides a solid

foundation for future eit izens; and, secondly, by an analysis ("in plain English"!) of current

issues which have a science and/or technology dimension.

The third ca tegory Shen label led cultural sc ience l i t e racy , which "is mot ivated by a

desire to know something about science as a major human achivement" (p. 49). In Holton's

(1984) words, the person with cultural sc ience l i t e racy has moved from a "somewhat pre-

Ar is to te l ian pic ture of the natural world" to a "post-Darwinian, post-Einsteinian" view.

Shen's view of prac t ica l , civic and cultural sc ien t i f ic l i t e racy provides a useful

s ta r t ing point. Raising the level of sc ient i f ic l i t e racy is an impor tant aim for a

community, if only to improve the health of its people. That is, we need (as a first step)

to raise the level of prac t ica l sc ience l i t e racy; beyond this, we can try to raise the level of

civic seienee l i t e racy and (most diff icul t of all) cul tural sc ienee l i t e racy .

What about "teehnologieal l i t e raey"? Is it synonymous with "sc ient i f ic l i te racy"?

This requires us to examine the two eoncepts, "science" and "technology".

In a background paper to a SITCO (1986) report in Western Aust ra l ia "science" was

~-defined as "the process and the publiely accessible product of our a t t e m p t s to describe,

explain and prediet natural phenomena" (p. A8) while technology is "the sys temat ic

process, and the product, of designing, developing maintaining and produeing a r te fae t s" .

The author of this background paper argued strongly that technology was not merely

"applied science". Indeed, much of what is ecru monly regarded as the "history of science"

is in faet "history of teehnology", he argued.

Perhaps we can draw a paral lel with Shen's ca tegor ies of se ien t i f ic l i t e racy and

develop the ea tegor ies of prae t iea l , civic and cultural technological l i t e raey . Prae t iea l

technological l i t e racy would be the possession of teehnological knowledge whieh we need

to solve p rac t ica l problems. Civic teehnologieal l i t e raey would enable ci t izens to be

aware of technology and technology-re la ted issues so that they can help decis ion-makers

to make rat ional , informed decisions. Cultural teehnologieal l i t e r acy would be

eha rac te r i sed by a desire to know something of technology as a major human aehivement .

Scient i f ic and technological l i teracy: Who provides for them ?

Lueas (1983) argued that sc ient i f ic l i t e racy could develop from a var ie ty of sources,

both "school" and "out-of-school". That is, while it is reasonable for a corn m unity to look

to its schools as a mechanism for improving the level of sc ient i f ic and technological

l i t e racy of the young, there are also many sources of out-of-school learning (Table 1

ident i f ied the various categor ies of sources of learning).

248

Unfortunately, there is much evidence which shows that school science generally

presents a view of science which is distorted and vague. Gordon (1984) eharaeter ised this

view as a "bucket image" of science, which does not correspond with actual science

practice. Some of the elements of this "bucket image" are:

Scientific truth exists "out there". It consists of a eolleetion of farts* We today know some of them. At one time, fewer were known and in the future, more will be known. Scientific knowledge accumulates steadily. Generally there are no revolutions in science. It rarely occurs that a s t a t ement believed to be true is discovered afterwards to be untrue.. . With regard to far t s as yet unknown to us, the reason they are unknown is that scientists havenVt gotten around to diseovering them. When they have the t ime, they will discover them, because discovering these far t s isnTt problematic, a t leas t not for scientists, who are clever people. (p. 372)

If Gordon's analysis is correct, then mueh work remains to be done to improve

scientific l i t e ra ry among school age children. Technological l i terary also needs to be

improved. In Australia, the a t t empt to introduce a "technology studies" for all s tudents is

a recent phenomenon. In Western Australia, for example, a 'Technology Studies ~ unit (a 40

hour unit) has recently been trialled. It emphasises the difference between science and

technology, and stresses the accessibil i ty of much teehnology to all, not just to a group of

specialists*

For those who have left sehool, we must turn to other sources, some formal, and

some informal. Of these, television is potentially the most powerful. In an interesting

art icle "Marcus Welby, MD ~ as Medical Communication", OtConnell (1975) discussed the

impart of this show on viewers. He began by pointing out the enormous impar t of

television as

an awesome tool of eommunieation. . . this plaees a tremendous responsibility on the producers of.. .medieal program rues to be authent ic medically, while supplying stories dramatic or enter ta ining enough to a t t r ae t a continuing audience (p. 165).

He emphasised the value of sueh a program me as "a public service". A documentary

on any of the issues which have formed the basis of tWelby' stories (abortion, enthanasia,

teenage pregnaney, sexual assault , to name but a few) would, he pointed out, a t t r ae t

l imited audiences, wWelbyT, on the other hand, reached a weekly audience of 40 million in

North Ameriea. Thus, it provided a very powerful medium for medieal science education

outside the school. Part of its a t t rac t ion, of course, is that it deals with medicine, which

interests all of us. (In a recent analysis of seienee on television in Australia [Sehibeei et.

el., 1986], we noted that medical stories consti tute by far the largest group of stories in

each show, presumably because of the publiels interest in mat ters medical). As OtConnell

pointed out, a "medical show such as Marcus Welby, MD is inherently inst ruct ional as well

as dramatic en te r ta inment" (p. 170).

249

Schools must continue to work hard to produce scient i f ical ly and technological ly

l i t e ra te graduates. Both school and out-of-school sources of learning have the potent ia l to

raise the level of sc ient i f ic and technological l i t e racy of our corn munity. Educators must

try harder to make both sources of learning work.

Adult sc ient i f ic and technological l i t e racy

How can we raise the level of adult sc ient i f ic and technological l i t e racy? One

approach is to identify a variety of adult needs. We can try to show adul ts that sc ience

and technology are of d i rec t re levance to everyday l ife. In the longer term, hopefully,

these adul ts will be able to pa r t i c ipa te more e f fec t ive ly than they current ly do in

decision-making processes on issues involving science and technology.

One research s t ra tegy that is re levant here has a focus which has been labeled

"sc ience-for-speci f ic -socia l -purposes (SSSP)" as outl ined by Layton et. al. (1986). That is,

the focus here is on specif ic aspects of science and technology which impinge on adults '

out-of-work ac t iv i t ies , as a way of narrowing the gap between adul ts and science and

technology. This approach can be cont ras ted with the "general survey of knowledge and

percept ions of sc ience and technology" approach which has been used, par t icu lar ly

overseas (for example by Miller, 1983).

Research in adul t sc ient i f ic and technological l i t e racy is c lear ly needed because, as a

review by Eckersley (1987) has shown, no sys temat ic work in this a rea in Austral ia has

been done.

REFERENCES

ECKERSLEY, R. (1987) Australian attitudes to science and technology and the future. (A report for the Corn mission for the Future).

GORDON, D. (1984) The image of science, technological consciousness, and the hidden curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 14, 367-400.

HOLTON, G. (1985) The struggle for scientific maturity. In K. Hays (ed.) TV, science and kids; Teaching our children to question. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 3-12.

JONES, B.O. (1986) Living by our wits. Canberra: Canberra Publishing.

LAYTON, D., DAVEY, A. & JENKINS, E. (1986) Science for specific social purposes (SSSP): Perspectives on adult scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 13, 27-52.

LUCAS, A.M. (1982) Interactions between informal and formal science education. In J. Head (Ed.) Science education for the citizen. London: Chelsea College, 89-100.

LUCAS, A.M. (1983) Scientific literacy and informal learning. Studies in Science Education: 10, 1-36.

250

MAARSCHALK, J. (1986) Scientific literacy through informal science teaching. European Journal of Science Education, 8_~ 353-360.

MILLER, J.D. (1983) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29-48.

OICONNELL, D.J. (1975) IMareus Welby, MD t as medical communication. In S.B. Day (ed) Corn munieation of scientific information. Basel: Karger, 165-173.

PELLA, M.O., OVHEARN, G.T. & GALE, C.W. (1966) Referents to scientific literacy. Journal of Reseraeh in Science Teaching, 4._, 199-208.

SCHIBECI, R.A., WEBB, J., ROBINSON, J. & THORN, R. (1986) Science on Australian television: Quantum and Beyond 2000. Media Information Australia, 42__, 50-53.

SHEN, B.S.P. (1975) Scientific literacy and the public understanding of science. In S.B. Day (ed) Communication of scientific information. Basel: Karger, 44-52.

SITCO (Science, Industry and Technology Council) (1986) Education for science and technology. Perth: Western Australian Government.