Science Curriculum Reform on ‘Scientific Literacy for All’ Across National Contexts: Case Studies of Curricula from England & Wales and Hong Kong

Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 8)

Abstract

In recent years, a wide range of international policy documents has highlighted the significance of scientific literacy for all students in secondary schooling. Curriculum reform efforts have concentrated on the teaching of science as a goal not only for the education of scientists but also for the broader public. In this sense, the ‘Scientific Literacy for All’ slogan has promoted diversity in the form of a range of students targeted for inclusion in scientific practices and ways of thinking. The key premise of these efforts is that in industrialised and democratic societies, the public needs to be better equipped with scientific reasoning skills for informed decision-making as part of active and informed citizenship. A particular aspect of the move for ‘Scientific Literacy for All’ is the inclusion of themes such the understanding of science in context and the nature of science. In this chapter, we will review the key arguments for including scientific literacy in science teaching and learning. We will then focus on case study analyses of secondary science curricula from England and Hong Kong to illustrate in more depth how the rhetoric of ‘Scientific Literacy for All’ is instantiated. The purpose of these analyses is to highlight effective approaches to policy and implementation of scientific literacy in school science. We will draw from classroom-based research projects such as the Mind the Gap and S-TEAM projects in England and the Learning Science series of research and teacher development projects which aim to enhance teacher understanding of NOS and pedagogical skills for teaching NOS in their classrooms in Hong Kong. We will conclude with a set of recommendations for bridging gaps in policy, research and practice, and achieving diversity through engagement in the ‘Scientific Literacy for All’ agenda.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performance. In J. N. Mangieri & C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  3. Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. Educational Researcher, 35, 463–482.Google Scholar
  4. Bray, M., & Kwok, P. (2003). Demand for private supplementary tutoring: conceptual considerations, and socio-economic patterns in Hong Kong. Economics of Education Review, 22, 611–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brickhouse, N. W. (2007, May 28–29). Scientific literates: what do they do? Who are they? In Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary 2008 symposium promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, B., Reveles, J., & Kelly, G. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science education. Science Education, 89, 779–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Towards an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Gräber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy. An international symposium (pp. 37–68). Kiel: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN).Google Scholar
  8. CDC [Curriculum Development Council]. (1998). Science syllabus for secondary 1–3. Hong Kong: CDC.Google Scholar
  9. CDC. (2002). Physics/Chemistry/Biology curriculum guide (Secondary 4–5). Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=2824&langno=1
  10. CDC-HKEAA. (2007). Physics/Chemistry/Biology/Integrated science curriculum guide and assessment guide (Secondary 4–6). Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council and Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.Google Scholar
  11. Department for Education. (1995). Science in the national curriculum. London: HMSO. ISBN 0 11 270884.Google Scholar
  12. Department for Education and Employment and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). Science. The National Curriculum for England. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  13. Department for Education and Science. (1988). Science for ages 5 to 16. London: HMSO. x-10-171984-0.Google Scholar
  14. Department for Education and Skills and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). Science. The National Curriculum for England. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  15. Department for Education and Skills and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2004). Science. The National Curriculum for England. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  16. Duschl, R., & Erduran, S. (1996). Modeling the growth of scientific knowledge. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 153–165). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  17. Education Commission. (2000). Learning for life, learning through life: Reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Education Commission.Google Scholar
  18. Erduran, S. (Ed.) (2007). Editorial: Argument, discourse and interactivity. Special Issue of School Science Review, 88(324), 29–30.Google Scholar
  19. Erduran, S. (2012). The role of dialogue and argumentation. In J. Oversby (Ed.), Guide to research in science education (pp. 106–116). Hatfield: Association for Science Education.Google Scholar
  20. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2012). Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe: Retrospective and prospective. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Erduran, S., & Yan, X. (2009). Minding gaps in argument: Continuous professional development in the teaching of inquiry. Bristol: University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  23. Erduran, S., & Yan, X. (2010). Salvar las brechas en la argumentacion: el desarrollo profesional en la ensenanza de la indagacion cientifica. Alambique, 63, 76–87.Google Scholar
  24. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Erduran, S., Yee, W. C., & Ingram, N. (2012). Assessment and practical inquiry in scientific argumentation. CPD Resource. Bristol: University of Bristol. (www.apisa.co.uk).
  26. Gitlin, A., & Margonis, F. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense. American Journal of Education, 103(4), 377–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gott, R., & Roberts, R. (2004). A written test for procedural understanding: a way forward for assessment in the UK science curriculum? Research in Science and Technological Education, 22(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.Google Scholar
  30. Jorde, D. (2009). Mind the gap: Learning, teaching, research and policy in inquiry-based science education (EU FP7, Science in Society, Project No. 217725). Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  31. La Velle, B. L., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argument and developments in the science curriculum. School Science Review, 88(324), 31–40.Google Scholar
  32. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 33–47). Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  34. Leung, F. K. S. (2008). In the books there are golden houses: Mathematics assessment in East Asia. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 983–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science Education, 17, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morris, P., McClelland, J. A. G., & Yeung, Y. M. (1994). Higher education in Hong Kong: The context of and rationale for rapid expansion. Higher Education, 27, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. National Curriculum Council. (1991). Science in the National Curriculum: A report to the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the statutory consultation for attainment targets and programmes of study in Science. London: NCC.Google Scholar
  38. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  39. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. OECD. (1999). Measuring student knowledge & skills: A new framework for assessment. Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  41. OECD. (2011). Education at a glance 2011: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Tang, L. F., Lam, C. C., & Ma, Y. P. (2010). Competition – A double-edged sword in educational change in Mainland China. Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 211–240.Google Scholar
  44. Tao, P. K. (2002). A study of students’ focal awareness when studying science stories designed for fostering understanding of the nature of science. Research in Science Education, 32, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tao, P. K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students’ understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tao, P. K., Yung, H. W., Wong, C. K., & Wong, A. (2000). Living science. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. University Grant Committee. (2010). Aspirations for the higher education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: UGC.Google Scholar
  48. Wong, S. L., Yung, B. H. W., Cheng, M. W., Lam, K. L., & Hodson, D. (2006). Setting the stage for developing pre-service teachers’ conceptions of good science teaching: The role of classroom video. International Journal of Science Education, 28(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wong, S. L., Hodson, D., Kwan, J., & Yung, B. H. W. (2008). Turning crisis into opportunity: Enhancing student teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry through a case study of the scientific research in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1417–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wong, S. L., Kwan, J., Hodson, D., & Yung, B. H. W. (2009). Turning crisis into opportunity: Nature of science and scientific inquiry as illustrated in the scientific research on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. Science Education, 18, 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wong, S. L., Yung, B. H. W., & Cheng, M. W. (2010). A blow to a decade of effort on promoting teaching of nature of science. In Y.-J. Lee (Ed.), The world of science education: Handbook of research in Asia (pp. 259–276). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Wong, S. L., Wan, Z., & Cheng, M. M. W. (2011). Learning nature of science through socioscientific issues. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: teaching, learning and research (pp. 245–269). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationThe University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations