Chemical Literacy: What Does This Mean to Scientists and School

Research: Science and Education edited by

Chemical Education Research

Diane M. Bunce The Catholic University of America Washington, DC 20064

Amy J. Phelps Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN 37132

Chemical Literacy: What Does This Mean to Scientists and School Teachers?

W

Yael Shwartz, Ruth Ben-Zvi, and Avi Hofstein* Department of Science Teaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel; *[email protected]

The main goal of high-school science teaching has become scientific literacy for all students, evident by the release of new standards and benchmarks regarding content, pedagogy, and assessment (1–3), and by efforts to define biological literacy (4), and chemical literacy (5–6). This goal is in contrast to the traditional goal of qualifying future scientists and engineers (7). According to some critics, the new initiatives cannot promote science literacy for all students, and this type of literacy is not even necessary for people to function well in society (8). Fensham (9) claims that lack of a consensus among the experts led to compromises, which resulted in overloaded and traditionally structured curricula. Focusing on science literacy for all involves changing the paradigm regarding the goals and content of high school science studies. The Role of Teachers in Educational Reform The National Science Education Standards (1) and Benchmarks for Science Literacy (2) released during the 1990s in USA also suggest a different view of the teachers’ role in educational reforms. It has changed from the transition paradigm: the teacher as an agent of implementation (the “top-down” approach), to the collaboration paradigm (the “bottom-up” approach). There is growing evidence that involving teachers in the process of decision-making and curricular development is essential for fulfilling every educational reform (10–12). In Israel, as well as in other countries, science teachers are involved in syllabus committees, in the design and development of new curricula, and in guiding young teachers (pre- and in-service professional development), in addition to their classroom practice. However, in spite of this more collaborative approach, scientists still have a prominent role in making curricular decisions. Overview of This Study In Israel, committees that determine the syllabi for high school chemistry usually consist of mostly scientists with fewer science educators and chemistry teachers. It is therefore important to assess whether those in charge of planning and making educational changes are actually able to consider the needs of the general public, rather than the traditional needs of science freshman in universities. The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of teachers and scientists regarding chemical literacy, and to analyze the implications of these views relative to high school chemistry. Significant differences between the perceptions of scientists and teachers could result in arguments and miscomwww.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

munication. The two groups can hold totally different views, yet they might also be saying similar things, in very different ways, and arguing needlessly. Teachers’ and scientists’ perceptions of chemical literacy were examined as part of the efforts to construct a theoretical definition of chemical literacy. Such a definition could be a constructive step in reforming high school chemistry. Defining “chemical literacy” consisted of these stages: 1. Interviewing chemists and science teaching researchers. The different points of view revealed in these interviews triggered further deliberation. 2. Conducting a yearlong professional development program for chemistry teachers to discuss various issues regarding scientific literacy, chemical literacy, and chemistry teaching. 3. Testing the extent of agreement concerning the content of the definition that resulted from the previous stages.

Interviewing Scientists Eight in-depth interviews were held in order to study the scientists’ perceptions of chemical literacy. Three chemists, four science education researchers, and one philosopher expressed their views regarding scientific literacy, chemical literacy, and science education in high school. The interviews were individual and semi-structured, meaning that, in general, it was an open conversation guided by some leading questions (available in the Supplemental MaterialW ). Conducting the Teachers’ Workshop Acknowledging the value of teachers’ expertise, it was decided that chemistry teachers would be the main partners in defining the content of chemical literacy. A long-term workshop provided the framework for the collaboration between teachers and science education researchers. In order to establish a broad framework to support the need for “chemical literacy” for the general public, the participating teachers interviewed people from different groups: colleagues in school teaching nonscientific disciplines, who were asked whether it is important to teach science in general and chemistry in particular to all students; people whose profession requires chemical knowledge (for example, a dietician, hair dresser, and electrician) were questioned about the most important elements of “chemical literacy” needed for every citizen, in order to communicate with them. Finally, the teachers addressed their students regarding the contribution of chemistry studies, as students perceive them. In addition, the workshop also included various learning, research, and implementation activities (13).

Vol. 83 No. 10 October 2006

•

Journal of Chemical Education

1557

Research: Science and Education

The workshop products consisted of a detailed draft of the chemical literacy definition (briefly described in Textbox 1), a position paper intended for the syllabus committee, and a variety of learning materials.

Measuring Agreement Concerning “Chemical Literacy” The goal of this stage was to measure the degree of agreement of the chemistry community regarding the content of the chemical literacy definition, based on the teachers’ work in the workshop. A questionnaire was designed to measure the extent of agreement with the suggested definition for chemical literacy. The ideas expressed in the “chemical literacy” definition were formulated into separate items. The questionnaire consisted of four different parts: central ideas, specific concepts, context, and high-order learning skills. Regarding the central ideas, respondents were asked to rate these ideas according to their importance. It was decided that all ideas that were rated significantly higher than the theoretical median would be considered as essential to “chemical literacy” and that the ones rated lower than the theoretical median would be considered less important. The other parts of the questionnaire consisted of Likert-type scales that ranged from 1 (“unnecessary”) to 5 (“essential”). In addition, some specific chemical concepts that were controversial during the workshop discussions (such as reaction rate) were included in the questionnaire to provide a broader perspective of these concepts. This questionnaire was then sent to members of the Israeli Chemical Society and to a wide group of high school chemistry teachers (other than those who had partici-

pated in the workshop). We received responses from 78 teachers and 79 chemists practicing basic and applied research. The responding chemists represent about 20% of the members of the Israeli Chemical Society. Methodology Data collection and analyses were undertaken in these two different stages: 1. In the “definition stage” scientists were interviewed and the teachers’ workshop took place. In this phase, the data collection consisted mainly of qualitative methods. 2. In the “post-definition phase” the degree of agreement of a wide group of teachers and scientists was measured.

Analysis of Data All qualitative data (protocols of discussions, interviews) was analyzed according to the grounded theory methodologies (14–15). Based on this approach, no a priori theory is formulated and then tested. The assertions, and then a more generalized theory, evolve from the data during the analysis process. The quantitative analyses included differences between scientists and teachers, and the importance of specific items to chemical literacy. A multivariate analysis of variance test (MANOVA) measuring the statistical significance of the overall difference in every domain among the different groups was used. In addition, a t-test procedure provided data regarding specific items

Textbox 1. Defining Chemical Literacy through the Domains of Content, Context, Skills, and Attitudes Scientific and Chemical Content Knowledge

Chemistry in Context

Chemically Literate Individuals Understand:

Chemically Literate Individuals Are Able To:

• General scientific ideas

• Acknowledge the importance of chemical knowledge in explaining everyday phenomena.

• Chemistry is an experimental discipline. Chemists conduct scientific inquiries, make generalizations, and suggest theories to explain the natural world. • Chemistry provides knowledge used to explain phenomena in other areas, such as earth sciences and life sciences.

• Understand the relations between innovations in chemistry and sociological processes.

Characteristics of Chemistry • Chemistry tries to explain macroscopic phenomena in terms of the microscopic structure of matter. • Chemistry investigates the dynamics of processes and reactions. • Chemistry investigates the energy changes during a chemical reaction. • Chemistry aims to understand and explain life in terms of chemical structures and processes of living systems. • Chemists use a specific language. A chemically literate person does not have to use this language, but should appreciate its contribution to the development of the discipline.

1558


• Use their understandings of chemistry in their daily life, as consumers of new products and technologies, in decision-making, and in participating in a social debate regarding chemistry-related issues.

•

High-Order Learning Skills Chemically literate individuals are able to raise a question, look for information, and relate to it, when needed. They can analyze the advantages and disadvantages associated with a position in any debate. (A list of skills and the appropriate chemical context is given in the full document of defining chemical literacy.)

Affective Aspects Chemically literate individuals have impartial and realistic views of chemistry and its applications. Moreover, they express interest in chemical issues and topics, especially in non-formal frameworks, such as a television program.


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


in which scientists’ and teachers’ mean scores were significantly different. The relative importance of each item to chemical literacy was determined by a t-test procedure, in which the actual mean scores of every group were compared with the theoretical mid-scale, which was defined as “important”. Results In the following section the results regarding the views of scientists and teachers concerning the need for chemical literacy, the general framework, and specific components are presented. The detailed results of the statistical analyses comparing the perceptions of scientists to those of teachers is available as Supplemental Material.W

The Need for Chemical Literacy Scientists and chemistry teachers perceived chemical literacy as important. They gave practical reasons, (i.e., coping better with the scientific and technological world) democratic reasons (i.e., supportive attitudes toward science), and finally, cultural reasons (i.e., acknowledgment of science as a major intellectual activity of human beings). However, chemistry teachers referred to the direct benefit of the students, whereas the scientists focused more on society as their major objective, as these two quotes from teachers’ discussions demonstrate: The students should feel that chemistry is interesting, and that it is powerful in explaining a variety of phenomena in our world.

It is important to educate people to think and learn independently in different areas of interest.

One quote from a scientist’s interview was illustrative: Science, and that includes chemistry, should be perceived as a way to educate people, as part of human culture… The purpose should not be the attainment of chemical or biological knowledge, but how science studies can help in providing society with enlightened adults.

The reasons for the different viewpoints, and the implications of such differences are presented in the discussion section. However, neither scientists nor teachers perceived scientific and chemical literacy as essential for the functioning of adults. Important? Yes. Enriching? Yes, but not essential, as these quotes demonstrate: Scientist: I wonder if they [the public—Y. S.] need anything. I have friends who have a very poor background in science and have a perfectly adequate life… Teacher: “Necessary”? No, you can live without it…

The General Framework of Chemical Literacy The framework for a definition of chemical literacy that emerged both from scientists’ interviews and the teachers’ workshop included similar dimensions: chemical ideas (content), context, learning skills, and affective aspects. Textbox 2 provides examples of quotes for each dimension from both scientists and teachers that were used to establish such an assertion.

Textbox 2. Comparing Examples of Scientists’ and Teachers’ Definitions of Chemical Literacy, by Dimension Chemistry Content Knowledge Scientists: • “The concept of the molecule in different contexts is the most important one—inanimate matter and living systems, and also how materials can be changed.” Teachers: • “Literacy means understanding general ideas. Thus, the chemistry content of the basic course has to be at the general level.” • “We should present many ideas, in general, not in depth, not because students cannot cope with them, but because they create more interest, and provide a better idea of what chemistry is doing.”

Chemistry in Context Scientists: • “The curriculum seems fairly irrelevant for children... The particles theory, chemical reactions, and energy are chemistry... but the topics that you need to teach are human health, food, etc.” Teachers: • “Chemical knowledge should always be presented in a relevant context.” • “We should demonstrate how chemistry is connected to daily life.”

www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

• “Knowledge regarding fuels, and understanding what unleaded or low sulfur fuel means, is more important than Markovnikov’s rule, which we usually teach. We emphasize the wrong things.”

Learning Skills Scientists: • “Education is about providing people with the ability to think logically and rationally. Science studies can do that, since science is based on rationalism and logic.” Teachers: • “We have to provide the skills required for searching knowledge and understanding it.” • “A chemically literate person can ask the right questions, can make connections, and is curious about chemical topics.”

Attitudes Scientists: • “The image of chemistry as a smelly and polluting industry is a mistake and it should be corrected.” Teachers: • “Affective aspects encourage or prevent the development of chemical knowledge.”


•


1559


Agreement on Chemical Literacy Components In this phase we used a questionnaire to measure the degree of agreement of a wider group of chemists and chemistry teachers to specific items of the suggested definition. The data resulting from a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test indicate that teachers and scientists differ in their perceptions of the specific content of three out of four domains of the suggested definition for chemical literacy. To obtain a more specific picture of the items in which the two groups disagreed, a t-test was conducted. In some cases, the mean scores of scientists and teachers were found to be significantly different; nevertheless, items were rated as important to science literacy by both groups. For example, both scientists and teachers ranked the idea that “chemistry explains the properties of matter in terms of microscopic structure” as the most important one. However, the scientists’ mean score for this rating is 6.23 (SD = 2.72), the teachers’ mean score is 7.02 (SD = 2.30), and the difference was found to be significant (t value = 1.98; p = 0.05). Therefore, the relative importance of each component was measured by comparing the mean score of each group to the theoretical mid-scale.

Central Ideas Nine statements reflecting the main ideas of chemistry were introduced to scientists and teachers. Comparing the mean ratings for every idea (statement) to the theoretical midscale revealed that teachers rated six ideas as especially important, whereas scientists rated only three ideas as such. Both groups agreed that the most important ideas are “chemistry explains the properties of matter in terms of microscopic structure”, and “chemistry characterizes changes and processes related to substances”. Both groups also agreed in considering the least important ideas to be: “chemistry has a unique language” and “chemical explanations combine scales of magnitudes”. Interestingly, the teachers’ responses included the items “chemistry supports other sciences”, and “chemistry explains living systems” as important, whereas scientists did not rate these ideas as significantly important. These findings suggest that teachers’ perception of the term “chemical literacy” is more comprehensive than that of the scientists. Teachers probably acknowledged the contribution of “applicative knowledge” to students’ interest and motivation in chemistry learning. Scientists tend to perceive only the core of chemistry as reflecting “chemical literacy”. All ideas that were rated as especially important by scientists can be considered as “pure chemistry” ideas. The teachers’ rating of the language of chemistry was found to be significantly different from the scientists’ rating (teachers’ mean = 5.08, SD = 2.32; scientists’ mean = 3.97, SD = 2.71; t-value = 4.52, p = 0.01). Scientists were much more definitive compared to teachers in deciding that the language of chemistry is not an important component of everyone’s “chemical literacy”. Scientists tend to view the language of chemistry mainly in terms of expertise in chemistry. This difference can be explained by the fact that teachers are more influenced by the actual practice in classroom. Getting students to have a minimal understanding of the language of chemistry takes a major part of classroom practice; therefore, 1560


•

teachers perceive it as “practicing real chemistry”. It is also pedagogically easier to practice techniques and do exercises (such as finding the empirical formula of a compound, or balancing an equation of a chemical reaction) than to achieve a profound understanding of abstract chemical concepts.

Specific Concepts A list of specific chemical concepts was provided, and the respondents were asked to rate the importance of each item to chemical literacy. The results revealed an overall agreement between the scientists and teachers regarding the inclusion of most of the suggested chemical concepts in the definition of “chemical literacy”. The concepts that were considered as important are atom, molecule, element, compound, chemical reaction, law of conservation, energy, structure, chemical bonding, and chemical formula. The concepts that were considered as not important were reaction rate, entropy, and equilibrium. This situation reflects the structure of the present curriculum, in which the latter concepts are discussed only in advanced chemistry courses, and not at all at the basic level. This finding is in contrast with the high rating of the ideas “chemistry characterizes changes and processes” (dynamics) and “chemistry looks for regularity in explaining the occurrence of chemical reactions”. How can we discuss these ideas without referring qualitatively (as was mentioned specifically in the questionnaire) to the meaning of concepts such as entropy and kinetics? This case demonstrates the problematic relations between general statements and the specific concepts relating to those statements. The general public should know that chemistry explains how chemical reactions occur, yet somehow entropy is considered to be “too professional”, and “too difficult” for the general public to understand. The qualitative approaches to these topics, as well as findings about the ability of a heterogeneous population of students to understand these concepts, should be presented to those deciding which concepts should be used to demonstrate and explain each main idea (16). Chemical Knowledge In Context The mean scores of both groups—scientists and teachers—regarding most items of the context domain were similar. The most important items were as follows: “Give examples of the importance of chemistry to daily life and of chemical processes in natural systems”; “Explain chemistry’s contribution in various areas”; “Explain daily life phenomena in chemical terms”; “Critically relate to articles and advertisements in daily news”; “Explain how scientific and technological knowledge influences sociological changes”. The context domain is the only domain in which no significant differences between scientists’ means and teachers’ means were observed. Thus, the relevance of chemistry to “real life” is considered to be an important aspect by both groups. Some of the recently published curricula for highschool level chemistry do reflect the importance of context, although scientists and teachers generally still hesitate to make a substantial change in curricula or classroom practice. Higher-Order Learning Skills The skills that were considered as important to chemical literacy by both groups were: “Literacy abilities (reading


•

www.JCE.DivCHED.org


and writing)”; “Looking for information”; “Formulating questions”; “Organizing knowledge”; “Classifying”; “Relating to various representations”; and “Noticing regularity”. Neither group considered “Initiating hypotheses” and “Conducting an inquiry” as important. This means that chemistry education for the general public should be responsible not only for acquiring chemical content, but also for the ability of graduates to use and express various high-order learning skills in a chemistry-related context. However, conducting an inquiry is a more complex ability that may not be necessarily important to the general public. Discussion and Summary This study was undertaken to examine what scientists and high school chemistry teachers mean when they use the term “chemical literacy”. Measuring the mutual conceptual basis of the two groups is needed, since different views can lead to totally different perceptions of chemistry by the general public. The current study reveals a mixed trend. Although both groups agreed that chemical literacy is important, they used different rhetoric in justifying the need for it: teachers focus on the benefit to individual students, whereas scientists are concerned with the benefits to society. A partial explanation is that teachers are generally more in touch with individuals learning chemistry than scientists, and therefore see the individual in front of them when thinking in terms of “science for all”. In contrast, scientists have a more general overview. The difference in the approaches can be illustrated in chemical terms: teachers exhibit a microscopic view; scientists demonstrate a macroscopic view. Nevertheless, teachers and scientists perceived the general framework for defining chemical literacy similarly. However, their perceptions of the relative importance of the central ideas that should be reflected in such a definition differed. Teachers perceive the links between chemistry and other disciplines, such as medicine and biology, as relatively important, while scientists tend to underrate this aspect and to emphasize pure chemical ideas. The importance of other aspects of chemical literacy was measured by comparing the mean score of each item to the theoretical mid-scale. This analysis revealed nearly a consensus of opinion, especially for the context and learning skills domains. Components considered as important by teachers were also considered as important by scientists, and vice versa. The results of the current study can be discussed in light of Fensham’s (9) claim regarding the ability (or lack of it) of scientists and science education researchers to make the needed paradigm shift in order to design a science curriculum that would suit the needs of the general public. In the current study, scientists did focus on the needs of the general public, and not of future chemists. The scientists acknowledged the responsibility of chemistry educators in developing learning skills. The inclusion of the context and learning skills domain indicates the direct shift from chemical content per se, to a more comprehensive framework. Concepts and ideas that are naturally perceived as important to future scientists, such as “Chemical language”, “Initiating hypotheses”, and “Conducting an inquiry” were not specified as important for the general public. However, the narrow perspective—reflected by the www.JCE.DivCHED.org

•

low means of all ideas regarding application of chemical knowledge—cannot be ignored. This implies that the future design of curricula, based on scientists’ perceptions could result (again) in an overly theoretical approach to chemistry. Clearly, implementing a conceptual change is a difficult and time-consuming process. Scientists and teachers should be provided with the opportunity to change their conceptions regarding the goals and content of high-school chemistry in general, and those of the basic level in particular. This study indicates that the seeds of a new approach exist and a thorough and in-depth process is still needed to stabilize that approach. Scientists and teachers who participate in curricular decisions regarding high school science should have some background on worldwide past and present reforms and their results, as well as research findings regarding students’ needs, fields of interest, and learning difficulties. W

Supplemental Material

A description of the analytic methods used, additional statistical results, and the interview questions for scientists are all available in this issue of JCE Online. Literature Cited 1. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996. 2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Benchmarks for Science Literacy; Oxford University Press: New York, 1993. 3. Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future, Report of a seminar series funded by the Nuffield Foundation, Millar, R., Osborne, J., Eds.; King’s College: London, UK, 1998. 4. Biological Science Curriculum Studies (BSCS). Developing Biological Literacy; Kendall Hunt Publishing Company: Dubuque, Iowa, 1993; pp 1–25. 5. Yfrach, M. Definition of Chemical Literacy and Assessment of Its Attainment in High School Chemistry. MSc. Thesis, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, 1999; in Hebrew. 6. Holman, J. Educ. Chem. 2002, 39 (1), 12–14. 7. Fensham, P. J. J. Curric. Stud. 1993, 25, 53–64. 8. Shamos, M.H. The Myth of Scientific Literacy; Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, 1995. 3. Yager, R. E. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1992, 29, 905–910. 9. Fensham, P. J. Canadian J. Sci. Math. Tech. Educ. 2002, 2 (1), 9–24. 10. Tobin, K.; Tippins, D.; Gallard, A. Research on Instructional Strategies for Science Teachers. In Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, Gabel, D., Ed.; Macmillan: New York, 1994. 11. National Science Teachers Association. Standards for Science Teacher Preparation, Interim Version; Washington, DC, 2003. 12. Hofstein, A.; Carmi, M.; Ben-Zvi, R. Inter. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2003, 1 (1), 39–65. 13. Shwartz, Y.; Ben-Zvi, R.; Hofstein, A. Inter. J. Sci. Teach. 2005, 27 (3), 345–365. 14. Strauss, A.; Corbin, J. Grounded Theory Methodology. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. S., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994; pp 273–285. 15. Shkedi, A. Words of Meaning: Qualitative Research Theory and Practice; Ramot Publishing: Tel-Aviv, Israel, 2003; in Hebrew. 16. Ben-Zvi, R. Inter. J. Sc. Educ. 1999, 21 (12), 1251–1267.


•


1561

Chemical Literacy: What Does This Mean to Scientists and School

Recommend Documents