Advertisement

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF PERCEPTIONS ON THE GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC LITERACY WITH AUSTRALIAN, CHINESE, AND KOREAN MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS

  • Kongju Mun
  • Hyunju Lee
  • Sung-Won KimEmail author
  • Kyunghee Choi
  • Sung-Youn Choi
  • Joseph S. Krajcik
Article

Abstract

In this study, we explored the extent to which Australian, Chinese, and Korean middle school students perceived themselves to have scientific literacy as global citizens and attempted to identify differences and/or commonalities in their perceptions. A total of 655 middle school students (8th and 9th grades; 358 girls and 297 boys) from the three countries participated in the study. We used Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaires (GSLQ) as a survey instrument to assess the students’ perceptions. The GSLQ was developed based on a conceptual framework of Scientific Literacy suggested by Choi, Kim, Lee, Mun, Choi, Krajcik & Shin (2011) and Choi, Lee, Shin, Kim & Krajcik (Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670–697, 2011) for citizenship education in the 21st century. The results indicated that most of the students from the three countries showed a tendency toward higher scores for Science as human endeavor; the lowest scores were in Meta-cognition and self-direction. A pattern of gender difference was also examined among the three countries. We suggest future research questions based on a cross-cultural perspective in order to explore the reasons for the existence of these similarities and differences.

Key words

character and values citizenship education cross-cultural habits of mind meta-cognition and self-direction science as human endeavor scientific literacy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L. & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G. S. & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on Science–Technology–Society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldridge, J. M. & Fraser, B. J. (2000). A cross-cultural study of classroom learning environments in Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments Research, 3(2), 101–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (2007). Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
  5. Arnot, M., David, M. & Weiner, G. (1999). Closing the gender gap: Postwar educational and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, D. & Taylor, P. C. S. (1995). The effect of culture on the learning of science in non-western countries: The results of an integrated research review. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 695–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barak, M. (2006). Instructional principles for fostering learning with ICT: Teachers’ perspectives as learners and instructors. Education and Information Technologies, 11(2), 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berkowitz, M. W. & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 117–138). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyes, E., Skamp, K. & Stanistreet, M. (2009). Australian secondary students’ views about global warming: Beliefs about actions, and willingness to act. Research in Science Education, 39(5), 661–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carr, A. (2002). Grass roots and green tape: Principles and practices of environmental stewardship. Sydney: Federation Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chang, H. & Lee, H. (2010). College students’ decision-making tendencies in the context of socioscientific issues (SSI). Journal of Korean Association in Science Education, 30(7), 887–900.Google Scholar
  13. Cho, J., Yager, R. E., Park, D. & Seo, H. (1997). Changes in high school teachers’ constructivist philosophies. School Science and Mathematics, 97(8), 400–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Choi, K., Kim, S.-W., Lee, H., Mun, K., Choi, S., Krajcik, J. & Shin, N. (2011). Development and validation of instrument to measure scientific literacy for the 21st century. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Conference, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  15. Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S.-W. & Krajcik, J. (2011b). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670–697.Google Scholar
  16. Cobern, W. W. & Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Cultural aspects of learning science. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Connell, S., Fien, J., Lee, J., Sykes, H. & Yencken, D. (1999). ‘If it doesn’t directly affect you, you don’t think about it’: A qualitative study of young people’s environmental attitudes in two Australian cities. Environmental Education Research, 5(1), 96–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Curriculum Council [Australia] (1998). The Australian curriculum science. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/.
  19. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  20. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A. & Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  21. Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elmose, S. & Roth, W. M. (2005). Allgemeinbildung: Readiness for living in risk society. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Floyd, F. & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299.Google Scholar
  24. Gallagher, S., Sher, B. T., Stepien, W. J. & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing problem based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95(3), 136–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gao, L. & Watkins, D. A. (2002). Conceptions of teaching held by school science teachers in P. R. China: Identification and cross-cultural comparisons. International Journal of Science Education, 24(1), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoffman, B. & Spatariu, A. (2008). The influence of self-efficiency and metacognitive prompting on math problem-solving efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 875–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hofstein, A. & Yager, R. E. (1982). Societal issues as organizers for science education in the 80s. School Science and Mathematics, 82(7), 539–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaiser, F. C., Wolfing, S. & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S.-W., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C. & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079–2113.Google Scholar
  32. Liang, L. L. & Yuan, H. (2008). Examining the alignment of Chinese National Physics Curriculum Guidelines and 12th‐grade exit examinations: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1823–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Linder, C., Ostman, L., Roberts, D. A., Wickman, P., Erickson, G. & MacKinnon, A. (Eds.). (2007). Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2002). National high school physics syllabus. Beijing: The People’s Education Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ministry of Education Science Technology [Korea] (2011). The revised Korea national curriculum standards in 2009. Seoul: Ministry of Education Science Technology.Google Scholar
  38. National Research Council [NRC] (2010). Conceptual framework for new science education standards. Retrieved from National Academies website: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Standards_Framework_Homepage.html.
  39. National Research Council [NRC] (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ogawa, M. (1986). Toward a new rationale of science education in a non-Western society. European Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  42. Roberts, D. (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.Google Scholar
  43. Rubba, P. A. & Andersen, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shin, N., Jonassen, H. D. & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, G. A. & Williams, D. R. (1999). Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture, and the environment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sutherland, L. M., Shin, N. & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Exploring the relationship between 21st century competencies and core science content. Paper commissioned by the National Academies. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  47. Tyler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Camberwell: ACER Press, Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  48. UNESCO (2000). Science for the twenty-first century: A new commitment. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/index.htm.
  49. Wei, B. & Thomas, G. P. (2005). Rationale and approaches for embedding scientific literacy into the new junior secondary school chemistry curriculum in the People’s Republic of China. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1477–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yoo, Y. & Sohn, Y. (2001). A study on the analysis of actual conditions and reform measures in light of applying the 7th national curriculum. Journal of Science Education, 25, 11–30.Google Scholar
  51. Zeidler, D. L., Berkowitz, M. & Bennett, K. (2013). Thinking (scientifically) responsibly: The cultivation of character in a global science education community. In M. P. Mueller, D. J. Tippins & A. J. Steward (Eds.), Assessing schools for generation R (Responsibility): A guide to legislation and school policy in science education. Dordrecht: Springer. In press.Google Scholar
  52. Zhang, D. & Campbell, T. (2012). An exploration of the potential impact of the integrated experiential learning curriculum in Beijing, China. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 1093–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang, B., Krajcik, J. S., Sutherland, L., Wang, L., Wu, J. & Qian, Y. (2003). Opportunities and challenges of China’s inquiry-based education reform in middle and high schools: Perspectives of science teachers and teacher educators. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 477–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kongju Mun
    • 1
  • Hyunju Lee
    • 2
  • Sung-Won Kim
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kyunghee Choi
    • 2
  • Sung-Youn Choi
    • 1
  • Joseph S. Krajcik
    • 2
  1. 1.CREATE for STEM InstituteMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of Science EducationEwha Womans UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations