Are we teaching students to literally be science literate?
Evan Ramey and Jennifer Lockman
The enormous amount of pressure on so many teachers across the United States to improve test scores on end-of-course tests (EOTC) has produced conflicting standards and practices for teachers to implement in the classroom. Most states require students to take EOCTs in Algebra 1/Mathematics for the Technologies 2, English 1, United States History and the Constitution, and Biology 1/Applied Biology 2 which all consist of only multiple choice questions that do not require students to have a conceptual understanding of the material. State standards, on the other hand, require teachers to implement a conceptual understanding in conjunction with a performance indicator in all their lesson planning. A specific case of the discrepancy between state standards and EOCTs is given in the article “End of Course Test: A Testing Week That Shouldn’t Count,” Rebecca Leach (2014) in which she writes, “What makes this situation difficult to accept is that Tennessee teachers have been mandated to teach Common Core standards this year, but the End of Course tests are not aligned with the Common Core curriculum. That means that the standards we are teaching in the classroom are not the same ones being tested on the End of Course tests… Many parents, teachers and researchers have concluded that the TCAP is not a valid indicator of true student learning. There is a growing “opt out” movement for the Tennessee TCAP, but this is not an option for high school students taking End of Course tests because the test must count 25% of the student’s second semester grade in the tested subject. Students opting out would receive a grade of 0 for the exam.”
With most of the educational community clearly noticing the problems that end-of-course-testing imposes on teachers and students the effect it is having on the actual literacy of students has yet to be determined because it cannot be quantified and measured like the scores of an EOCT. In the article “Teaching Disciplinary Literacy to Adolescents: Rethinking Content-Area Literacy,” Shanahan-Shanahan (2008) the authors clearly highlight the importance of connecting certification standards to literacy by stating, “There is also a clear need for explicit literacy certification standards for teachers who teach in the disciplines, closer relationships between the faculties of education and the liberal arts and sciences (who too often separately prepare these teachers), and sufficient resources to allow pre-service teachers to practice their teaching in varied disciplinary situations and classroom contexts” (pg.57). When discussing literacy, outside of academia, there is a better understanding of its importance in relation to liberal arts fields but most probably don’t see its vast importance in the science field as well. This misconception is discussed in the book “Teaching Dilemmas and Solutions in Content-Area Literacy,” Smagorinsky (2014) when he writes, “The lack of focus on literacy in science education does not reflect the nature of scientific practices in real life…Literacy is not a term often discussed among science educators…And yet, new standards in both science and English/Language Arts call for teaching of literacy for scientific purposes within science classrooms” (pgs. 57–58). These new standards outline and emphasize the use of critical thinking and problem-solving in order for students to begin formulating their own understanding of material. Students have to use their “base” knowledge in order justify their thinking on problems or when presenting ideas. The “base” of the student’s knowledge is their conceptual understanding. An example of this conceptual understanding outlined in South Carolina State Standards for Science is: Conceptual Understanding: The linear motion of an object can be described by its displacement, velocity, and acceleration. (Standard H.P.2A.)
In the article “What Is Disciplinary Literacy and Why Does It Matter?” Shanahan-Shanahan (2008) the authors discuss the specific field of physics in relation to literacy when they write, “For example, studies of the reading of physicists (Bazerman, 1985) revealed that they tended to pay particular attention to information that they did not already know and information that violated their expectations. The physicists separated reading to learn from critical reading, reserving the latter for work that was directly applicable to their own work” (pg.13). The critical reading practices the aforementioned physicists were using can be compared to the South Carolina State Standards for Science in which a performance indicator for each lesson is required of teachers. An example of one such performance indicator is: Specific Performance Indicator: Develop and use models to represent an object’s displacement, velocity, and acceleration (including vector diagrams, data tables, motion graphs, dot motion diagrams, and mathematical formulas). (Standard H.P.2A.4) The development and use of models reiterates literacy practices that require students to use hands-on and open-ended exploration. Science literacy teaching combines the use of conceptual understandings with inquiry based applications. In our opinion science literacy is the comprehension and discernment of scientific concepts and practices necessary to partake in making decisions or offering ideas that lead to more stable and productive environments. This type of teaching promotes science literacy through the use of real-world problems that allow for multiple right answers and helps students reassess failure as an indispensable part of learning.
End of Course Test: A Testing Week That Shouldn’t Count. (2014). Retrieved July 15, 2016, from http://theeducatorsroom.com/2014/05/end-of-course-test-testing-week/
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What Is Disciplinary Literacy and Why Does It Matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching Disciplinary Literacy to Adolescents: Rethinking Content- Area Literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.
Smagorinsky, P., & Smagorinsky, P. (n.d.). Teaching dilemmas and solutions in content-area literacy, grades 6–12.
