Abstract
The OECD “Programme for International Student Assessment” or (PISA) is one of the largest-scale international efforts that have been launched to assess students’ scientific literacy. Such an international assessment would likely exert a profound impact on the science education policies of the participating countries/regions, including Hong Kong. This paper sets out to examine critically how scientific literacy has been assessed by PISA through analyzing its assessment frameworks and released sample items. It was found that the PISA 2000 and 2003 assessments of science have used a narrower definition of scientific literacy, as compared to that of PISA 2006 and what scientific literacy was construed for science education. However, even PISA 2006 appears to be more valid in its assessment framework, its validity was also called into question when the sample items for the trial study were examined. Knowledge about science was found largely about the processes of science, rather than the nature of science as described in the assessment framework. Besides, it intertwined with knowledge of science in a hidden manner. The application of knowledge of science in novel, real-life situations was also jeopardized because of the issue of curricular relevance. Besides these major problems, the article has discussed the problems with the concept of scientifically investigable questions and identifying research question of an investigation. Overall, the findings raised concern over what the PISA’s measure of scientific literacy actually means.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1989). Project 2061–Science for all Americans. AAAS: Washington, DC.
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: from purposes to practices. Heinemann: Portsmouth, N.H.
Cheung, D. (2000). Analyzing the Hong Kong junior secondary science syllabus using the concepts of curriculum orientations. Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 69–94.
Deboer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.
HKPISA Centre (2003). The first HKPISA report: monitoring the quality of education in Hong Kong from an international perspective. Hong Kong: HKPISA Centre.
HKPISA Centre (2005). The second HKPISA report: PISA 2003. Monitoring the quality of education in Hong Kong from an international perspective. Hong Kong: HKPISA Centre.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: a conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.
Law, C. F. (2003). What Do the PISA Results Tell Us about the Education Quality & Equality in the Pacific Rim? Speech at PISA International Conference. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from http://www.emb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=134&langno=1&UID=821.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225–239.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Smith, T. A., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2000). TIMSS 1999 international science report: findings from IEA’s repeat of the third international mathematics and science study at the eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth and Fourth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Matthews, M. R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161–174.
McComas, W., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. (1998). The nature of science in science education: an introduction. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 3–39). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.
National Research Council [NRC] (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
OECD (2000). Measuring student knowledge and skills: The PISA 2000 assessment of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy. Paris: OECD Publications.
OECD (2002). PISA 2000 Technical report. Paris: OECD Publications.
OECD (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris: OECD Publications.
OECD (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: a framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD Publications.
OECD (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world (vol. 1). Paris: OECD Publications.
Pella, M. O., O’Hearn, G. T., & Gale, C. G. (1966). Referents to scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 199–208.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick (New Jersey): Rutgers University Press.
Showalter, V. M. (1974). What is united science education? Part 5. Program objectives and scientific literacy. Prism II, 2(34).
Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science? A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1101–1104.
Tsang, W. K. (2004) Evaluation on the Implementation of MOI Guidance for Secondary Schools: 1999–2002” commissioned by the Education and Manpower Bureau to the Hong Kong Institute of Education Research of The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Yip, D. Y. (2008). Hong Kong students’ performance in scientific literacy. HKPISA centre. Retrieved 26th June 2008 from http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/∼hkpisa/events/2006/events2006_20071210.htm.
Yip, D. Y., & Cheung, S. P. (2004). Scientific Literacy of Hong Kong Students and Instructional Activities in Science Classrooms. Education Journal. v. 32, 2
Yung, B. H. W. (2006). Learning from TIMSS: implications for teaching and learning science at the junior secondary level. 122 pp. Hong Kong: Education Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Zimmerman, C. (2005). The development of scientific reasoning skills : What psychologists contribute to an understanding of elementary science learning. Final draft of a report to the National Research Council, Committee on Science Learning Kindergarten through Eighth Grade.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lau, KC. A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PISA’S ASSESSMENT ON SCIENTIFIC LITERACY. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 7, 1061–1088 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9154-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9154-2