Miha Lee



Miha Lee

Professor Rivas

SED 600

6 March 2007

The importance of involving high-school chemistry teachers in the process of defining the operational meaning of ‘chemical literacy’

By Yael Shwartz, Ruth Ben-Zvi, and Avi Hofstein

From International Journal of Science Education, 25 February 2005, vol.27, No.3, 323~344

Summary of the Research

This article was very interesting to me, for I have been in the same situation where the participants in this study were. The article reports the result of the workshop, which was held for high school chemistry teachers to help them develop the practical meaning of science literacy, especially chemical literacy. The workshop was designed by using the strategy known as ‘a study group’ by Loucks- Horsely et al. and took place during the academic year 2001, and consisted of 15 experienced high-school teachers of Israel who met for one day every second week for one year (a total of 112 hours). The researchers analyzed qualitative and quantitative data collected from the workshop: quantitative data from questionnaires administered during the workshop and qualitative data from careful and comprehensive documentation of all workshop activities. This research had two objectives to find out:

1. The workshop help ‘teachers as learners’ to construct their own meaning of the term science literacy.

2. The workshop help ‘teachers as practitioners in their classroom’ to obtain a clear understanding of the new teaching goals.

The workshop resulted in drawing a definition of ‘chemical literacy’ and pedagogical suggestions by the participating chemistry teachers.

Reflection on the implications of the research methodology

This research didn’t involve secondary students in its study, but had meaningful educational implications regarding science literacy because teachers are an important factor in promoting science literacy of students. Also, this research used theory-based methods, such as ‘teachers’ beliefs and practice’ and ‘a study group strategy’ suggested by Loucks-Horsely, and thus contributed both to the teachers (the participants) and researchers.

The development of the definition of science literacy provided the teachers with an opportunity to reflect on fundamental issues regarding chemistry teaching, and would actually function as a baseline for further discourse and deliberation among the chemistry teachers. Considering a fact that teachers’ beliefs, views and perceptions have a great influence on their practice, the success of this workshop would lead to the helpful change in the educational system, the more likelihood of success in educational reform, and finally the increased possibility of promoting students learning in regard to science literacy. The detailed explanation about the result will be discussed later in this paper.

For researcher, the process during which the teachers constructed their understanding of the goals of teaching chemistry in high school was observed and diagnosed in light of constructivism. This result showed pedagogical suggestion as to using ‘a study group’ as a teaching strategy. ‘Study group’ offers learners the opportunity to get together to solve problems. Learners can inquire and ask questions that matter to them, over time, in a cooperative and supportive environment. Actually, the researchers provided a wide variety of activities to help the teachers develop the meaning of science literacy and link the their understanding to pedagogical aspects in their practices. Lectures on various issues were conducted, relevant literatures were reviewed, contrasting opinions were delivered, and the goals for teaching science in high school in general, chemistry in particular were discussed. Furthermore, the teachers conducted qualitative mini-studies to establish a broad, external framework to support the needs of ‘chemical literacy’ for the public and to detect the impact and contribution of learning chemistry on students. This procedure implies what inservice teachers can do for their professional developments.

As data, the researchers collected the formal documentations and all the materials written and presented by the participants, and audiotapped their discussions. One lack thing is that they said they used quantitative method like questionnaire, but the result was not reported explicitly. However, they elaborated on the method used for analysis of the qualitative data they collected. ‘The grounded theory methodology’ was employed to make sense of the data. This procedure included several steps as followings:

1. Segmenting each document into units, and categorizing every unit by its content. Primary categories emerged from the collected data.

2. Developing more general domains, such as ‘ideas concerning chemical literacy’, ‘teaching goals’, ‘teaching strategies’, and ‘teachers’ difficulties’.

3. Mapping all documents according to the chosen domains.

4. Looking for the foci: reorganization of the data according to the chosen domains.

5. Proposing assertions based on the accumulated data, which will hopefully contribute to a better understanding of teachers’ perceptions.

This procedure seemed pretty helpful for my action research, so I’m going to study and use it.

Finally, the method of reporting the results appeared to be clear and organized. Using diagrams and tables made it easier to follow the intentions of the research and understand the results. What is more, quotes as well as generalized interpretations used in the discussion section brought further understanding of the results – the changes in the participants’ thoughts.

Overall, this article was systematic and well developed in regard to the research methodology and thus provided me a lot of useful information for my action research.

Reflection on the implications of the research’s discussion

Science literacy is an important teaching goal, but it is also a controversial issue among the science teachers as well as the public. Why are there so many debates upon science literacy? It’s because the perception of science literacy has a great influence on what science courses should focus on in secondary science education. Therefore, the defining of science literacy must precede any discussion related to the role of scientific literacy in secondary science education. In this article, science literacy consists of three components: knowledge, intellectual skills and disposition. However, in reviewing other literatures, I found that science literacy could be defined in two ways: narrowly and broadly, and in turn these two approaches to science literacy suggest its roles in deciding what to teach and how to teach in basic science courses of high school.

On one hand, the narrow meaning of science literacy is the knowledge of scientific terms and the understanding science concepts. It suggests the idea that science education should put an emphasis on the content knowledge so that students have sufficient knowledge for personal decision-making when they participate in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. Scientifically literate people also have the ability to read with understanding articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions.

However, the practical problem is how much knowledge is required to be a scientifically literate citizen. For example, scientists consistently complain that the public just doesn't know enough about science, and that this general lack of public understanding leads to dreadful consequences, jeopardizing everything from government financing of research to social progress. Recent controversies in the U.S. over stem cell research and GMOs (genetically modified organism) have brought fresh concerns to the scientific community. Many scientists assume that if the public knew more about genetic engineering, then any moral or religious reservations about cloning-for-medical-research might be tempered. Or, if the public better understood the science behind the genetic modification of crops, then few would take seriously the hyperbolized risks associated with the technology. (Nisbet, 2003)

In this article, the teachers were debating about whether they teach the basic chemistry for all 10th graders of high school students or not, and what contents they should teach in the basic chemistry at high school. At the beginning of the workshop, some of teachers insisted that the goal for teaching the basic chemistry was actually a preparatory one to help students who would take AP chemistry and eventually matriculation examination. However, over the workshop they developed the meaning of chemical literacy in the context of teaching science, and changed their perspectives on the goal of teaching basic chemistry for all 10th graders taking the course.

It is valuable to note the process and results of development of the teachers’ perception of ‘chemical literacy’. First, the chemistry teachers reached a general understanding that ‘chemistry explains phenomena in terms of the microscopic structure of matter.’ Second, they defined a chemically literate person as a graduate of the basic chemistry course (that is, 10th grader). Third, they reconsidered the general ideas as a core chemical content that was needed for ‘chemical literacy’. Finally, they broadened their perceptions of chemical literacy so that the context, skills, and affective aspects as well as conceptual knowledge were part of ‘chemical literacy’.

In particular, they analyzed the content of the basic chemistry course and concluded that it offered a relatively narrow understanding of ‘what chemistry is all about’ by focusing on mainly the structure and properties of matter. As a result, they recommended that the basic chemistry should introduce a wide range of chemical ideas, such as chemical reactions involving energy changes. They also recommended that ‘an appreciation of the chemical language is needed, but the domination of specific terms is not.’ This was suggested in order to minimize the preparatory character of the basic course, and to reduce the difficulties for non-science-oriented students to learn chemical symbols and chemical language. Clearly, it would be a good thing if students knew more about science. However, many students who won’t take science careers sacrifice their time and efforts while learning science in high school.

Actually, the central importance of knowledge in shaping public opinion about science has been questioned by some social scientists who argue that we should be more concerned with public engagement strategies that get citizens directly involved in science policy-making, and that enhance public trust in science-as-an-institution. (Nisbet, 2003)

On the other hand, science literacy can be broadly defined as having scientific attitudes and scientific reasoning skills. A scientifically literate citizen should be able to evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it. Scientific literacy also implies the capacity to pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately. In this perspective, the pedagogical strategies for promoting scientific reasoning skills, namely higher level thinking skills and critical thinking skills, should be emphasized in science education. However, it is not easy as it sounds to promote this kind of science literacy because the teaching practice for promoting it requires science teachers to have deep understanding of pedagogy as well as discipline. What is more, there are practical barriers for a change to promote science literacy for the public in teaching science at high school. In this sense, this research paper offers a valuable opportunity to reflect on the teaching chemistry in highschool classroom.

In particular, ‘the chemistry in context’ was considered deeply by the teachers. They learned that the second dimension of ‘chemical literacy’ was the ability to see the relevance and usability of chemistry in everyday life. Students should be able to use understanding of chemistry in decision-making, and in participating in a social debate regarding chemistry-related issues. A chemically literate student should understand the relation between innovations in chemistry and other applications such as medicine, agriculture, and environmental engineering. Thus, they came to want to introduce context-based approach in the chemistry curriculums, but it was out of their ability to change them. However, according to the article some of the teachers were participating in the syllabus committee to offer their opinions as a result of this workshop.

Additionally, many other pedagogical suggestions were made during the workshop. For example, the teachers came up with the idea that using newspaper articles for guided reading in the basic chemistry classroom would be helpful to promote their critical thinking skills. The teachers analyzed the ‘chemical literacy’ components represented in an article, composed questions for students, and discussed the way ‘critical reading’ could be developed during such an activity. Also, the teachers came up with the ideas that to help students understand the nature of science, it should be taught throughout the whole process of teaching chemistry; and the goal in laboratory work was to encourage our students to ask inquiry questions.

The most interesting part of this research to me was the analysis of practical barriers to a future change of practice. According to this study, many chemistry teachers wanted students to think of chemistry as the elitist discipline so that they had highly achieving students in their classrooms and they were recognized as competent teachers. It sounds silly, but actually is so powerful that it prevents many teachers from adopting a more literate approach in our educational settings. Nonetheless, the teachers in the workshop eventually changed their perceptions on the goals of teaching the basic chemistry in high school and decided to implement their new understanding of chemical literacy in their instructions. As I mentioned earlier, I have been in the same situation as the teachers were. I have been forced to focus my teaching on the increase of the students’ scores in their matriculation examinations. Nevertheless, I have been trying to promote science literacy for at least 10th grade students. In my conscience, I could not be egoistic enough to be a successful teacher at the expense of my students. If other teachers had this kind of opportunity to find out the practical meaning of science literacy, they also would be convinced that science literacy is the most important goal in basic science courses at high school.

Conclusion

Science literacy has two important roles in science education. One is in deciding what contents science courses should involve. The other is in suggesting pedagogy that helps students develop thinking skills and scientific attitudes. In this information age, we should take more responsibility for developing the ability of our students to think rationally and critically about chemistry-related issues, especially those who do not intend to take any more chemistry in the future. Although we science teachers have a variety of perceptions toward science literacy, it is obvious that attainment of science literacy for all students is the main goal of the current reform in science teaching. (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] 1993, National Research Council [NRC] 1996) Therefore, we should focus not only on content knowledge but also pedagogical strategies in our teaching practices to reach the goal of teaching science in the secondary educational settings.

Reference

Nisbet, M. (2003) Who's Getting It Right and Who's Getting It Wrong in the Debate About Science Literacy? Retrieved from

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download