Research Article
Developing and Validating a Contextualized Science Literacy Assessment for Adults: The Case of Parents of Hard of Hearing Children

Sophie Shauli , Ayelet Baram-Tsabari

64 200

Article Metrics

Views

 

64

Downloads

 

200

Citations

Crossref

0


Shauli S, Baram-Tsabari A. Developing and validating a contextualized science literacy assessment for adults: the case of parents of hard of hearing children. . 2023;4(1):29-47. doi: 10.12973/ejmse.4.1.29
Shauli, S., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2023). Developing and validating a contextualized science literacy assessment for adults: the case of parents of hard of hearing children. European Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 4(1), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmse.4.1.29
Shauli Sophie, and Ayelet Baram-Tsabari. "Developing and Validating a Contextualized Science Literacy Assessment for Adults: The Case of Parents of Hard of Hearing Children," European Journal of Mathematics and Science Education 4, no. 1 (2023): 29-47. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmse.4.1.29
Shauli, S & Baram-Tsabari, 2023, 'Developing and validating a contextualized science literacy assessment for adults: the case of parents of hard of hearing children', European Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 29-47. Shauli, Sophie, and Ayelet Baram-Tsabari. "Developing and Validating a Contextualized Science Literacy Assessment for Adults: The Case of Parents of Hard of Hearing Children." European Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, vol. 4, no. 1, 2023, pp. 29-47, https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmse.4.1.29.

Abstract

The diversity of definitions of science literacy has resulted in a diversity of measurement tools. However, adult science literacy is mainly assessed on short standardized and non-contextualized questions, thus making the study of adult science literacy more qualitative than quantitative. Here we describe the rationale, development, and validation of a questionnaire that associates the use of science in the specific science-related setting of parents of hard of hearing children with general and topic-specific science knowledge. The questionnaire went through four developmental steps: (1) gathering input from hearing rehabilitation experts and parents, (2) testing the close-ended questionnaire (n=10), (3) open-ended questionnaire (n=24), (4) online close-ended questionnaire (n=91). These all assessed general science knowledge, contextual science knowledge in the field of hearing and parents' advocacy knowledge and attitudes. These steps and the resulting assessment tool can thus inform the further development of measures of adult science literacy in context. The findings suggest that although general science knowledge enables the application of science to everyday science-related problems it only explained a small proportion of the variance in contextual science knowledge. Thus, the results strongly point to the importance of measuring adults' science literacy in a context that is relevant to the responders. The findings also underscored the disappointing outcomes of secondary science education, in that formal scientific background predicted general science knowledge but did not account for contextual science knowledge at all. This should elicit concern as to the ability of students to use science knowledge in future personally important science related contexts.

Keywords: Lifelong learning, measurement in the context, public engagement with science, science literacy.


References

Aderonmu, T. S., & Adolphus, T. (2021). Students’ level of scientific literacy and academic performance in physics concepts in rivers state, Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Applied Science, VI(1), 1–4. https://bit.ly/3JFVHHc

Baram-Tsabari, A. (2022). The relevancy of science education to public engagement with science. In M. Korfiatis & K., Grace (Eds.), Current research in biology education. contributions from biology education research (pp. 3–17). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89480-1_1

Bates, B. R. (2005). Public culture and public understanding of genetics: a focus group study. Public Understanding of Science, 14(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662505048409 

Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287

Besley, J. C. (2018). Audiences for science communication in the United States. Environmental Communication, 12(8), 1005–1022. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1457067

Bruckermann, T., Greving, H., Schumann, A., Stillfried, M., Börner, K., Kimmig, S. E., Hagen, R., Brandt, M., & Harms, U. (2021). To know about science is to love it? Unraveling cause–effect relationships between knowledge and attitudes toward science in citizen science on urban wildlife ecology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(8), 1179–1202. https://doi.org/10.1002/TEA.21697

Čavojová, V., Šrol, J., & Jurkovič, M. (2020). Why should we try to think like scientists? Scientific reasoning and susceptibility to epistemically suspect beliefs and cognitive biases. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/ACP.3595

Deboer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6%3C582::AID-TEA5%3E3.0.CO;2-L

Dillman, D. A., Sinclair, M. D., & Clark, J. R. (1993). Effects of questionnaire length, respondent-friendly design, and a difficult question on response rates for occupant-addressed census mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(3), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1086/269376

Duquette, C., Fullarton, S., Orders, S., & Robertson-Grewal, K. (2011). Insider, outsider, ally, or adversary: Parents of youth with learning disabilities engage in educational advocacy. International Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 124–141. https://bit.ly/3yK5wgR

Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340, 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/340011a0

European Commission. (2005). Europeans, science and technology: Eurobarometer 2005 . https://bit.ly/3YT3lSQ

Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., Swanger, L. P., Staus, N., Back, M., Barriault, C., Catalao, C., ChameErs, C., Chew, L., Dahl, S., Falla, S., Gorecki, B., Lau, T., Lloyd, A., Martin, J., Santer, J., Singer, S., Sollli, A., Trepanier, G., … Verheyden, P. (2016). Correlating science center use with adult science literacy: an international, cross-institutional study. Science Education, 100(5), 849–876. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21225

Fang, Z., & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383051

Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20414

Ferguson, M., Maidment, D., Henshaw, H., & Gomez, R. (2019). Knowledge is power: Improving outcomes for patients, partners, and professionals in the digital age. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 4(1), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_pers-sig7-2018-0006

Fitzpatrick, F. L. (Ed.). (1960). Policies for science education. Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Colombia University.

Fives, H., Huebner, W., Birnbaum, A. S., & Nicolich, M. (2014). Developing a measure of scientific literacy for middle school students. Science Education, 98(4), 549–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21115

Flores, C. (2018). Problem-based science, a constructionist approach to science literacy in middle school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 16, 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJCCI.2017.11.001 

Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press.

Glaze, A. L. (2018). Teaching and learning science in the 21st century: Challenging critical assumptions in post-secondary science. Education Sciences, 8(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI8010012

Golumbic, Y. N., Dalyot, K., Barel-Ben David, Y., & Keller, M. (2022). Establishing an everyday scientific reasoning scale to learn how non-scientists reason with science: Public Understanding of Science, 32(1), 40-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221098539

Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B., & Armstrong, N. (2009). Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030216 

Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for american schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13–16. https://bit.ly/3FueVgn

Jennings, L., Moran, R. M., & Pierce, B. (2021). Using fan fiction to bridge students’ understanding of science. In L. Haas & J. Tussey (Eds.), Disciplinary literacy connections to popular culture in K-12 settings (pp. 142–161). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4721-2.CH007

Kahan, D. M. (2014). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Advances in Political Psychology, 36(S1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12244

Kahan, D. M. (2017). ‘Ordinary science intelligence’: a science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change. Journal of Risk Research, 20(8), 995–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1148067

Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Friedel, J. M., Ammon, B. V., Blazevski, J., Bonney, C. R., De Groot, E., Gilbert, M. C., Musu, L., Kempler, T. M., & Kelly, K. L. (2007). Cognitive processing of self-report items in educational research: Do they think what we mean? Educational Psychologist, 42(3), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701416231

Kennedy, G., Coffrin, C., De Barba, P., & Corrin, L. (2015). Predicting success: How learners’ prior knowledge, skills and activities predict MOOC performance. In J. Baron, G. Lynch & N. Maziarz (Eds.), ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (pp. 136–140). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2723576.2723593

Kurup, P. M., Levinson, R., & Li, X. (2021). Informed-decision regarding global warming and climate change among high school students in the United Kingdom. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 21, 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-020-00123-5

Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/cnvrfz

Laugksch, R. C., & Spargo, P. E. (1996). Development of a pool of scientific literacy test-items based on selected AAAS literacy goals. Science Education, 80(2), 121–143. https://doi.org/b8g8z8

Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content vaiidity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x

Liu, J., Zhang, R., Geng, B., Zhang, T., Yuan, D., Otani, S., & Li, X. (2019). Interplay between prior knowledge and communication mode on teaching effectiveness: Interpersonal neural synchronization as a neural marker. NeuroImage, 193, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROIMAGE.2019.03.004

Liu, T.-C., Lin, Y.-C., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of prior knowledge on learning from different compositions of representations in a mobile learning environment. Computers & Education, 72, 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2013.10.019

McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2021). The multidimensional knowledge in text comprehension framework. Educational Psychologist, 56(3), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379

Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024852

Ministry of Science. (2015, June 24). One should not be afraid to give science the place it deserves in the media. The Writers. https://www.the7eye.org.il/164097 [In Hebrew]

Molchanova, L. N., & Chekanova, A. V. (2018). Development of parental competence through psychological and pedagogical support for families in the upbringing of hearing-impaired children. Psychology in Russia, 11(4), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2018.0415 

Naganuma, S. (2017). An assessment of civic scientific literacy in Japan: development of a more authentic assessment task and scoring rubric. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(4), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1323131

National Science Board. (2018). 2018: Science and Engineering Indicators. https://bit.ly/40bm4Kv

Nivala, M., Paranko, J., Gruber, H., & Lehtinen, E. (2016). The role of prior knowledge and students’ perceptions in learning of biomedical sciences. Medical Science Educator, 26, 631–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0319-7

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066

Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University Students’ Interpretation of Media Reports of Science and its Relationship to Background Knowledge, Interest, and Reading Difficulty. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122001

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255425-en

Ravi, R., Gunjawate, D. R., Yerraguntla, K., Rajashekhar, B., & Lewis, L. E. (2016). Knowledge and attitude of parents/caregivers towards hearing loss and screening in newborns – a systematic review. International Journal of Audiology, 55(12), 715–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2016.1215560

Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 559–572). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267-38

Romine, W. L., Sadler, T. D., & Kinslow, A. T. (2017). Assessment of scientific literacy: Development and validation of the Quantitative Assessment of Socio-Scientific Reasoning (QuASSR). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 274–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21368

Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724

Sadabadi, A. A., & Rad, Z. R. (2022). Public Engagement Improvement in STI Policies: Challenges and Solutions. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 19(6), Article 2250013. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877022500134

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20327

Shauli, S., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2019). The usefulness of science knowledge for parents of hearing-impaired children. Public Understanding of Science, 28(1), 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518772503

Singh, S., & Singh, S. (2016). What is scientific literacy: A review paper. International Journal of Academic Research and Development, 1(2), 15–20. https://bit.ly/3yIHEKF

Sjøberg, S. (2018). The power and paradoxes of PISA: Should inquiry-based science education be sacrificed to climb on the rankings? Nordic Studies in Science Education, 14(2), 186–202. https://doi.org/10.5617/NORDINA.6185

Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science education based on the concept of bildung In Y. J. Dori, Z. R. Mevarech & D. R. Baker (Eds.), Innovations in science education and technology (Vol. 24, pp. 65–88). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66659-4_4

Snow, C. E., & Dinber, K. A. (Eds.). (2016). Science literacy : Concepts, contexts, and consequences. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23595

Tomas, L., & Ritchie, S. M. (2015). The challenge of evaluating students’ scientific literacy in a writing-to-learn context. Research in Science Education, 45(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9412-3

Trainor, A. A. (2010). Diverse approaches to parent advocacy during dpecial education home--school interactions: identification and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and Special Education, 31(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508324401

Trémolière, B., & Djeriouat, H. (2021). Exploring the roles of analytic cognitive style, climate science literacy, illusion of knowledge, and political orientation in climate change skepticism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, Article 101561. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2021.101561

Uğraş, M., Aydemir, S., Asiltürk, E., & Asiltürk, E. (2017). Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ level of associating their chemistry knowledge with daily life and the relationship between these levels and their attitudes towards teaching science. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(4), 4539-4545. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v14i4.5105

Vaccari, C., & Marschark, M. (1997). Communication between parents and deaf children: Implications for social-emotional development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(7), 793–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01597.x

Valladares, L. (2021). Scientific literacy and social transformation: critical perspectives about science participation and emancipation. Science and Education, 30, 557–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00205-2