faty
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
An examination of the underlying concepts of Science and Technology
As mentioned above, in attempting to explore some of the assortment of conceptions of scientific and technological literacy, the underlying concepts of science and technology will be examined. Indeed, a great deal of confusion reigns about scientific and technological literacy and this stems largely from the confusion that exists about science and technology. Sparkes (1996) asserts that science and technology are often equated, and this could be attributed to the fact that it is quite common for people to talk about science and technology as if it was one thing with a double-barreled name. The same author attributes this apparent haziness between science and technology to common features that the two terms share, but more importantly because of neglect and the repeated use of the term science and technology. The equating of science and technology is a universal trend. In South Africa, we have been swaying between making a clear distinction and conflating the two disciplines for the past six years. There were two distinct factions prior to the election of a democratic government in 1994. One of the groups wanted to confer subject or learning area status on each of the two entities while the other group, Kahn (1994), advocated for the two entities to be combined. With the advent of the outcomes based curriculum paradigm (C200S) in 1997, the government accorded technology the status of a learning area. However, Chisholm et al (2000) recommended that technology be subsumed under the umbrella of science once again. Unfortunately, the Minister of Education, together with the Council of Education Ministers and Cabinet, declined to incorporate technology under science (Potenza 2000).
The recommendation by Chisholm et al (2000) resonates with a finding of UNESCO (1983) where science and technology tended to be paired in the literature to such an extent as to imply some indissoluble bond between them, as though they connoted a single entity. The way in which UNESCO (1983) distinguishes between science and technology is to separate out the purposes of the two activities. « The purpose behind a scientific activity is to build up knowledge: to give an explanation for something; to provide a true description of some event, to diagnose the nature of some condition. The purpose behind a technological activity is to facilitate human aspiration: to solve some practical problem; to put knowledge to good use, to extend the boundaries of existing possibilities » (UNESCO 1983: 17). For example, the explanation of how an electrical circuit functions is a scientific activity but the use of such information to design a two-way switch is a technological activity. Stahl (1994:44), similar to UNESCO (1983), maintains that « technology addresses the desire for devices in the production of commercial products and appliances. It is much influenced by human demand but is also highly susceptible to the power of capital. .. On the other hand, science addresses the endless human quest for knowledge of self and the surroundings … Science serves our intellectual needs, not our material needs. In contrast to technology, the pursuit of science depends entirely on altruism through public and private resources. Any so called « pay-off’ – other than pure knowledge involves a conversion into technology, the passage from idea to device or product. » UNESCO (1983:18) contends that « science and technology are not identical. They are interdependent but contrasting activities. The role of science is to enlighten humanity. The role of technology is to use the existing knowledge to serve humanity. »
Scientific Literacy after the 2nd World War
Zuzovsky (1997:232) asserts that « after the 2nd World War, there was a demand for knowledge that
would enable citizens to become more aware of science-related issues, so that in a democratic society, they would have the power to affect public and technological policy. This demand often referred to as ‘civic literacy’ was defined by Benjamin Shen (1975). » Shen (1975, cited in Shamos 1995) referred to the civic literacy as the last cornerstone of IDformed public policy. Shen (1975, cited in Shamos 1995) believed that the aim of scientific literacy is to enable the citizen to become more aware of science and science-related issues so that he and his representatives can bring their common sense to bear upon these issues. Interestingly, this concept of civic literacy seems to have gained momentum again in the 1990s through the concept of « citizen science, i.e. science which relates in reflexive ways to the concerns, interests, and activities of citizens as they go about their everyday business » (Jenkins 1999:704).
As mentioned above, Bybee (1997) insisted that Conant was the first to use the concept of scientific
literacy in 1952. Bybee (1997) adds that in the early 1950s, the term scientific literacy was often associated with discussions of general education in SC1ence. Bybee (1997) states that Hurd was the first person to use the term scientific literacy as a major theme for science education in 1958. The Hurd interpretation of scientific literacy was an understanding of science and its applications to social experience, and science was integral to economic, political and personal issues. It is imperative to understand the context within which this resurgence in the interest in scientific literacy emerged in 1958. In 1957, the Russians launched Sputnik, the first ever earth satellite, and this caused much embarrassment for the Americans and compelled them to reform their curriculum. The reform of the curriculum in America entailed a strong, cognitive centered curriculum with science being a core subject to cultivate the mind. The American President’s Commission on National Goals (1960) « gave top priority to science, mathematics … » (Ornstein & Hunkins 1988:156) and the focus on subject matter was supported by legislation to provide training and resources in the associated subjects.
Relationships that exist between the different Teaching and Learning experiences of the students
In order to establish possible relationships between the different teaching and learning experiences of the students, the chi-square test statistic was used. The test compared for example, whether a chalk and talk approach to teaching corresponds with a « memorizing of notes » learning experience, i.e. is there any dependence between the two variables. The null hypothesis for this chi-square test was that there was no dependence between the kinds of teaching and learning experiences of the students. However, if the probability value yielded was less than 0.05 then there was dependence between the teaching and learning experiences at a 5 percent level. Additionally, if the probability value yielded was less than 0.1 and greater than 0.05 then there was dependence between the teaching and learning experiences on a 10 percent level. The phi coefficient was a measure of the strength of the dependence in a table. The closer the phi coefficient was to 1 or -I, the stronger the relationship. The usefulness of the phi-coefficient in the comparison of probability values across tables is sununarized in Table 4.2. The phi coefficient is inversely proportional to the Chi-Squared probability value, i.c. as the probability value increases, the phicoefficient decreases proportionately.
The first challenge encountered at this level of analysis between the teaching and learning methods
related to the combination of the groups. As mentioned above, the frequency of the teaching and learning methods was categorized using the following frequency descriptors: always; most times; a
few times; and never. In order to establish whether dependence existed between a set of teaching and learning experiences, the chi square test statistic compared the frequency descriptors of the particular teaching and learning experience. However, the tests were not valid when the frequency descriptor groups were compared in their original state. The only alternative then was to combine the groups and then apply the chi-square test statistic. The frequency descriptors were combined as follows: (I) Always and Most Times were combined into the category titled Often; and (2) A Few Times and Never were combined into the category titled Seldom. Table 4.2 shows the level of dependence between teaching and learning methods. 107
Chapter One – Introduction
1.1. Orientation to the Chapter
1.2. Rationale and Background
1.3. The Purpose of this Study
1.4. Research Methodology
1.5. Literature Review
1.6. Orientation to Forthcoming Chapters
1.7. Conclusion
Chapter Two – Literature Review The Theoretical Underpinnings of Scientific and Technological Literacy
2.1. Orientation to the Chapter
2.2. An examination of the underlying concepts of Science and Technology
2.3. The Evolution of the concepts of Scientific and Technological Literacy
2.4. Is Scientific and Technological Literacy Necessary?
2.5. Conclusion
Chapter Three – Research Methodology A Pathway towards examining Scientific and Technological Literacy
3.1. Orientation to the Chapter
3,2. Critical Questions
3.3, The Mixed Methodology Research Approach
3.4. Discussion of Research Instruments and Approaches
3.5. The Sample
3.6. Methodology related to each Critical Question
3.7. Summary of Data Sources
3.8. Conclusion
Chapter Four – Science and Technology: Traditional versus Transformational Outcomes-Based Approaches
4.1. Orientation to the Chapter
4.2. Science and Technology: Traditional versus Transformational Outcomes-Based Approaches to Teaching and Learning
4.3. The Teaching and Learning Experiences of the Students who experienced a Traditional Science Curriculum
4.4. Conclusion
Chapter Five – An Analysis of Scientific Literacy Levels of Traditional Science Curriculum Students
5.1. Orientation to the Chapter
5.2. Preview to Data Analysis
5.3. Tests and Plots for Nonnality of Scientific Literacy Scores
5.4. Analysis of Scientific Literacy Levels of the Selected Cohort of Science Students
5.5. Conclusion
Chapter Six – An Analysis of Technological Literacy Levels of Traditional Science Curriculum Students
6.1 . Orientation to the Chapter
6.2. Preview to Data Analysis
6.3. Tests and Plots for Normality of Technological Literacy Scores
6.4. Analysis of Technological Literacy Levels of the Selected Cohort of Science Students
6.5. Conclusion
Chapter Seven – Synthesis, Recommendations and Conclusion
7.1. Orientation to the Chapter
7.2. Synthesis of Results Related to Critical Question One
7.3. Synthesis of Results Related to Critical Question Two
7.4. Synthesis of Results Related to Critical Question Three
7.5. Recommendations
7.6. Conclusion
