Michael Kahn
Scientific literacy and its place in the curriculum is a topic whose discussion is long overdue. It is thus appropriate to see the attention given to this by the Mail and Guardian (January 14 to 20 2000). What is not clear in the article, SA Students are scientifically illiterate, is what is meant by scientific literacy. For some it means knowing the facts about the physical and biological universe; to others it means displaying an understanding of scientific processes; to others seeing science in a social context; or is understood to mean the ability to cope with the demands of a science-based degree course. And there are those who expect scientific literacy to include a knowledge of the history and nature of science.
A helpful working definition is that scientific literacy means being comfortable, confident and competent with scientific and technical matters and artefacts. Such a definition includes both ”knowing why” (the facts) and something about ”knowing how” (the technologies). In my view then, division between science and technology is artificial.
With this definition in mind, a curriculum that seeks to enhance scientific literacy would develop learners able to engage with issues such as the use of genetically modified organisms, the problems around sustainable development, renewable energy; as part of the basis for informed decision- making. It would stimulate interest in science and also lay the foundations for careers in science. Outside the formal school curriculum scientific literacy would be enhanced through science weeks, clubs, the media, and science centres. But research has shown that schooling in science is still no guarantee that individuals will make life decisions on the basis of ”scientific” reasoning: other factors intrude.
Provided that we can agree on what we are measuring, it will be useful to obtain statistically valid and reliable information on aspects of scientific literacy that have previously been understood at the level of opinion or ”feel”. A case in point is the article by Elisabeth Lickendorf that reports on the Laugksch and Spargo study on scientific literacy. Unfortunately, the reader cannot know what view of scientific literacy is held by the researchers, so the reader does not know from what premise the questions were constructed. However, the research confirms what the Foundation for Research Development (FRD) used to tell us that, in general, South Africa displays low levels of scientific literacy. The FRD also noted the prevalence of views that would accord with creationist beliefs. The item on the questionnaire ”the earth is as old as the universe” is a way of testing for this.
Unsurprisingly, Laugksch and Spargo find a gender and racial stratification in performance on their test. Black students, females, even those holding identical grades to their white and other peers, score poorly. The test variables include race, gender and achievement in the Senior Certificate examinations. That, according to the study, around 50% of our school leavers are scientifically illiterate is unsurprising.
Another statistical work, recently awarded a masters degree by the University of Cape Town, while not concerned primarily with scientific literacy, looked at the relationship between school and university science performance. This latter study employed a range of statistical tools to confirm that school achievement was the best predictor of performance on science degree courses. And it too found the racial layering.
These findings are naturally of interest to education practitioners and decision-makers. However, in order to inform policy, one requires the assurance that the most important factors driving the phenomena have been unearthed. In both cases what was missing is consideration of socio-economic, cultural and language factors as important determinants of ”success” on the tests.
To illustrate: the matric pass rate by province varies according to their respective human development indices. The Western Cape is at the top, while Northern Province is at the bottom. A similar relationship prevails between pass rate and the proportion of English/Afrikaans first language speakers. High socio-economic status carries social capital along with it – one would expect enhanced ”whatever” as a result. Such consideration is absent from both studies.
What is absent from the Lickendorf article is discussion of the extent to which the present curriculum has contributed to the problem. The present physical science curriculum is a continuation of that which has been in force for the past two decades.
This curriculum is high on decontextualised content, low on the relationships among science, society and technology. It is therefore to be expected that today’s school leavers continue generally to display low levels of scientific literacy. Unfortunately, the Laugksch and Spargo study may give the impression that the present curriculum is sound.
So what to do? As things stand the new Curriculum 2005 framework counsels integration across all learning areas and seeks to introduce social context. But this quest may be undermined by the division between science and technology as evidenced in the two distinct learning areas of natural sciences and technology. The Senior Certificate remains as it was, and bears down upon teaching and learning at lower levels. Assessment, we know, is a strong driver of teaching. The curriculum as presently designed is insufficient as a basis for ensuring scientific literacy.
The Minister of Education has called for a review of OBE (outcomes based education) and the development of the Further Education and Training Certificate (FETC) in place of the Senior Certificate. There is thus an opportunity to create space in the curriculum for scientific literacy and technological fluency. As outlined above, scientific literacy (and technological fluency) is not just the ability to attain a place on a university science course, it is more than that. What may therefore be needed at FETC level are core courses that address scientific literacy and mathematical numeracy. Those seeking tertiary education would take additional courses in the sciences and/or mathematics.
More work is needed not only on probing the nature of scientific literacy, but also on determining the expectations of science competence held by different parties. There is evidence that the university science community has set the terms of engagement thus far. What about the views and needs of other players such as those who don’t study science beyond school, parents, workers, employers and the like? Research in these areas that can inform policy would be valuable indeed.
We in South Africa need to apprise ourselves as to what this thing called scientific literacy means in our situation. This includes the emerging debate concerning indigenous knowledge and its place in the curriculum. The reviews launched by the education ministry present an opportunity to do just that.
Professor Michael Kahn is chair of science, mathematics and technology education at the University of Cape Town, and adviser on science and technology to Minister of Education Professor Kader Asmal. He writes in his personal capacity