Advertisement

Foundations of Scientific, Mathematical, and Technological Literacies—Common Themes and Theoretical Frameworks

Chapter

Abstract

The Pacific CRYSTAL Centre for Scientific and Technological Literacy was proposed knowing that many people in the academic and educational communities did not have or share common definitions of scientific literacy and mathematical literacy (also known as numeracy) and that the efforts to define and share technological, computer science, and engineering literacies were much more limited. However, Pacific CRYSTAL was designed on an interdisciplinary foundation involving (a) formal and informal environments for learning about science, mathematics, and technology; (b) scientists and engineers from these academic disciplines; and (c) educational researchers from counselling psychology, environmental education, indigenous studies, language and literacy, mathematics education, science education, and technology education.

Keywords

Engineering Education British Columbia Mathematical Literacy Information Communication Technology National Science Education Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. O., Chiu, M.-H., & Yore, L. D. (2010). First cycle of PISA (2000–2006)—International perspectives on successes and challenges: Research and policy directions [Special issue]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, T., Witten, I. H., Fellows, M., Adams, R., & McKenzie, J. (2006). Computer science unplugged. An enrichment and extension programme for primary-aged children (teacher ed.). Retrieved from http://www.csunplugged.org/
  5. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2000). Teaching relevant activities for concepts and skills (TRACS) [Series]. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.Google Scholar
  6. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (1995). Technology education 8 to 10: Integrated resource package 1995. Victoria, BC, Canada: Author.Google Scholar
  7. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (1996). Information technology K–7: Integrated resource package 1996. Victoria, BC, Canada: Author.Google Scholar
  8. Bybee, R. W. (2010). K–12 engineering education standards: Opportunities and barriers. In Committee on Standards for K–12 Engineering Education (Ed.), Standards for K–12 engineering education? (pp. 55–66). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  9. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes, K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.publications.cmec.ca/science/framework/
  10. Custer, R. L., Daugherty, J. L., & Meyer, J. P. (2010). Formulating the conceptual base for secondary level engineering education: A review and synthesis. In Committee on Standards for K–12 Engineering Education (Ed.), Standards for K–12 engineering education? (pp. 67–80). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ford, C. L., Yore, L. D., & Anthony, R. J. (1997, March). Reforms, visions, and standards: A cross-curricular view from an elementary school perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL, USA. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED406168)Google Scholar
  12. Good, R. G., Shymansky, J. A., & Yore, L. D. (1999). Censorship in science and science education. In E. H. Brinkley (Ed.), Caught off guard: Teachers rethinking censorship and controversy (pp. 101–121). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  13. Hand, B., Prain, V., & Yore, L. D. (2001). Sequential writing tasks’ influence on science learning. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & P. Tynjälä, L. Mason & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (Vol. 7 of Studies in Writing, pp. 105–129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer/Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13–16 & 52.Google Scholar
  15. Illinois State University Center for Mathematics, Science, and Technology. (n.d.). Integrated mathematics, science, and technology (IMaST) curriculum [Series]. Carrollton, TX: Hewell.Google Scholar
  16. International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  17. International Technology Education Association. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  18. International Technology Education Association. (2006). Technological literacy for all: A rationale and structure for the study of technology (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  19. International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  20. Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley. (2003). Full option science system (FOSS) [Series]. Hudson, NH: Delta Education.Google Scholar
  21. McEneaney, E. H. (2003). The worldwide cachet of scientific literacy. Comparative Education Review, 47(2), 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. National Science Resources Center. (2009). Science and technology concepts (STC) program [Series]. Burlington, NC: Carolina Biological Supply Company.Google Scholar
  24. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/14/33694881.pdf
  26. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004a). Homepage. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/
  27. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004b). ICT literacy maps. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=504&Itemid=185#ict
  28. 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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Rose, L. C., & Dugger, W. E., Jr. (2002). ITEA/Gallup poll reveals what Americans think about technology: A report of the survey conducted by the Gallup organization for the International Technology Education Association. The Technology Teacher, 61(6), (insert).Google Scholar
  30. Rose, L. C., Gallup, A. M., Dugger, W. E., Jr., & Starkweather, K. N. (2004). The second installment of the ITEA/Gallup poll and what it reveals as to how Americans think about technology: A report of the second survey conducted by the Gallup Organization for the International Technology Education Association. The Technology Teacher, 64(1), (insert).Google Scholar
  31. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.Google Scholar
  32. Shen, B. S. P. (1975). Science literacy: The public understanding of science. In S. B. Day (Ed.), Communication of scientific information (pp. 44–52). New York: S. Karger.Google Scholar
  33. Sneider, C. (2010). A vision of engineering standards in terms of big ideas. In Committee on Standards for K-12 Engineering Education (Ed.), Standards for K-12 engineering education? (pp. 136–141). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  34. United States National Academy of Engineering. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology (G. Pearson & A. T. Young, Eds.). Committee on Technological Literacy, National Academy of Engineeering, & National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  35. United States National Academy of Engineering. (2010). Standards for K–12 engineering education? Committee on Standards for K–12 Engineering Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  36. United States National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  37. United States National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  38. United States National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  39. United States National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning (S. Olson & S. Loucks-Horsley, Eds.). Committee on Development of an Addendum to the National Science Education Standards on Scientific Inquiry. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  40. United States National Research Council. (2010). A framework for science education (H. Quinn & H. A. Schweingruber, Eds.) [Preliminary public draft]. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education. (2006). The common curriculum framework for K–9 mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.wncp.ca/english/subjectarea/mathematics/ccf.aspx
  42. Woollacott, L. C. (2009). Taxonomies of engineering competencies and quality assurance in engineering education. In A. Patil & P. Gray (Eds.), Engineering education quality assurance (pp. 257–295). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Yore, L. D. (2008). Science literacy for all students: Language, culture, and knowledge about nature and naturally occurring events [Special issue]. L1—Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 8(1), 5–21. Retrieved from http://www.l1.publication-archive.com/show?repository=1&article=213
  44. Yore, L. D. (2009). Science literacy for all: More than a logo or rally flag! [Keynote address]. Proceedings of the international science education conference 2009 (pp. 2393–2427). Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.nsse.nie.edu.sg/isec2009/downloads/
  45. Yore, L. D. (2010, January 31). Technology literacy [Invited lecture]. Paper presented to the Academic Development Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.Google Scholar
  46. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yore, L. D., & Hand, B. (2010). Epilogue: Plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency [Special issue]. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yore, L. D., Hand, B., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H.-L. (Eds.). (2007). Language—An end and a means to mathematical literacy and scientific literacy [Special issue]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 557–769.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations