Addressing emerging science and technology issues: Raising ... · level of scientific literacy is required if citizens are to be able to effectively engage in media and political

KAN08505 Harry Kanasa, Kim Nichols AARE Conference, Brisbane 2008 The University of Queensland, CRC-SIIB

1

Addressing emerging science and technology issues: Raising scientific literacy skills of middle years students in Queensland schools Harry Kanasa & Kim Nichols, The University of Queensland

Abstract

The current paper describes a portion of a larger project examining the effect of an inquiry-based science unit on the scientific literacy of Queensland middle years students and their parents (The unit was designed to lead students to come to a personal stance on the question, ‘Should Australia grow GM crops?’). Scientific literacy has been reconceptualised for the purposes of the project to consist of three domains: the affective, behavioural and cognitive. This model of scientific literacy will be known as the AB&C model of Scientific Literacy. Two cohorts of year 9 students from two schools were pre and post tested using a questionnaire designed to measure their scientific literacy according to the AB&C model. Like previous studies, scientific literacy within the cognitive domain improved, but unlike previous studies, so did scientific literacy within the affective domain. It will be argued that the AB&C model of scientific literacy is an effective means of conceptualising scientific literacy.

Introduction

Raising the scientific literacy of students is identified by many authors as a goal of contemporary science education (AAAS, 1989; BSCS, 1993; Bybee, 1995; Demastes & Wandersee, 1992; Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001). Paradoxically, while students are becoming less interested in science as a school subject (Garner, 1994) the need to have a basic understanding of scientific concepts is becoming of increasing importance (Venville, Gribble, & Donovan, 2005) as scientific knowledge increases exponentially (Glass, 1970), and with the development of a global knowledge economy which is closely tied to the increasing prominence of communication technologies (Rogers, 2001), the divide between knowledge ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ will become more apparent (NSF, 2006). A certain level of scientific literacy is required if citizens are to be able to effectively engage in media and political discussions of the societal implications of new technologies demonstrated by the Human Genome Project, therapeutic cloning, GM crops and livestock, and stem cell research – all advances in biotechnology that will more than likely have a direct impact on the lives of all citizens. The concern therefore is, without a firm grounding in the sciences, the ability of a nation’s citizens to make informed decisions surrounding civics and their personal health and wellbeing will be greatly reduced. The OECD PISA echoes this sentiment:

“Although specific knowledge acquisition is important in school learning, the application of the knowledge in adult life depends crucially on the acquisition of broader concepts and skills” (2001; see also Walberg, 1991)

This paper will describe a study that seeks to address the dearth of emerging sciences and technology (in this case biotechnology) as a topic of study in the middle years while at the same time raising the scientific literacy of the year 9 students within the study. As a result of this study, a new conceptualisation of scientific literacy will be tested for its utility in being able to guide science education reform and inform the measurement of scientific literacy.


2

Past attempts at raising scientific literacy

Attempts have been made by various governments to raise the scientific literacy of the populace with little to no success. For example, as a result of the 1985 Bodmer Report in the United Kingdom, scientists were encouraged to engage with the media, funds were made available for public education programs, speakers were made available and an annual popular science book prize was awarded (S. Miller, 2001). This was followed by Britain’s Research Councils instigating their own public understanding of science schemes. Both efforts proved fruitless (S. Miller, 2001). Similarly in the US, despite the best efforts of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), surveys consistently showed the level of scientific literacy of Americans remained largely unchanged since the 1970s (J. D. Miller, 1987; Shamos, 1995) and scientific knowledge remains low (Durant, Evans, & Thomas, 1989). Attempts such as these which rely on the deficit model, and assume the public simply need to know more knowledge to become more sympathetic towards science, have proved largely unsuccessful. What is urgently required is an adequate definition of scientific literacy. There are many parallels in the attempt to define scientific literacy and the attempts to define literacy and numeracy. As each author applies their viewpoint on the term based upon their particular sociohistorical context, scientific literacy has become increasingly nuanced and complex and at times, seemingly heading in contradictory definitional trajectories. What is required for this project is a coherent theoretical framework that can accommodate these different definitions producing a model which is intelligible, plausible and fruitful (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). The reconceptualised model of scientific literacy that will be adopted for this project will need to meet certain criteria. Firstly, it must be operationalisable in that changes in scientific literacy of the target populations must be observable and measurable. Secondly, the definition must encompass the cognitive, behavioural and affective domains as this is a common theme in many definitions and thirdly, each domain is observable and measurable in its own right.

Reconceptualising scientific literacy

The various definitions of scientific literacy in the literature reflect the various goals and objectives of the authors which in turn reflect the socio-political climate of that era. Dewey (1916) emphasised the utility of science for the individual. This was echoed by the National Education Association (1920 cited in DeBoer, 2000) who stressed the preparation of citizens for participation within a social world. The development of nuclear weapons and the launch of Sputnik saw the definition be expanded in the 1960s to include the need for a public who were scientifically knowledgeable enough to be able to assess the consequences posed by modern science, to engage in social structures that guide scientific enterprise (Brown, Reveles, & Kelly, 2005) and, to be sympathetic to the work of scientists while at the same time contributing to the scientific dominance of the United States (Brickhouse, Ebert-May, & Wier, 1989; DeBoer, 2000). These definitions emphasised the extrinsic value or utility of science. Other definitions were concerned with maintaining the purity of the pursuit of science. These definitions emphasised the importance of content (NRC, 1996) and focussed for example on the sociohistorical development of science (Hurd & Gallagher, 1966 cited in,


3

Bybee, 1995) or cognitive abilities such as reasoning scientifically (Ballenger, 1997; OECD PISA, 2006) or the analysis and interpretation of evidence (Jackson, Edwards, & Berger, 1993). Though some of these definitions were concerned with the use of this knowledge for deriving personal meaning from science, the majority were concerned with science for the world of work, in particular those that would ultimately lead to a career as a scientist. These definitions emphasised content knowledge, mental processes and the intrinsic value of science. The cognitive domain is the traditional concern of science education, i.e., the acquisition of knowledge, mental abilities and cognitive schemata used within the sciences. This is expressed by various authors in referring to individuals being able to know and understand various concepts (BSCS, 1993; Hurd, 1991; National Research Council, 1996; National Science Foundation, 2006), being able to think, formulate, reason, evaluate etc. (BSCS, Bingle & Gaskell, 1994; 1993; Hurd, 1998; OECD PISA, 2002; Oliver & Nichols, 2001; Schallies & Lembens, 2002) or the interpretation and production of scientific texts (e.g., Hand & Prain, 2006; Norris & Phillips, 2003). The affective domain is expressed when authors refer to concepts such as attitudes to science, whether it be science as a human endeavour, as a school subject (Oliver & Simpson, 1988; Simpson & Oliver, 1990; Simpson & Troost, 1982) or as a future career (Uno & Bybee, 1994). The behavioural domain is expressed when authors refer to individuals utilising science in their personal (e.g., making choices regarding health and wellbeing (OECD PISA, 2006)) or engaging in online scientific debate), work (e.g., entering a scientific career (Talton & Simpson, 1986) or choosing science subjects in the non-compulsory years (Fullarton, Walker, Ainley, & Hillman, 2003; Rennie, Goodrum, & Hackling, 2001)) or civic lives (e.g., supporting a piece of legislation (Hurd, 1991)). For the purposes of this study a reconceptualisation of scientific literacy has been developed. Rather than viewing the various definitions as competitors within a theoretical arena, it has been possible to categorise the aspects of the various definitions into three domains: the affective, behavioural and cognitive domains. This is necessary to address the concerns of authors as they emphasise different aspects of scientific literacy. This will be called the Affective, Behavioural and Cognitive (AB&C) model of Scientific Literacy. The AB&C model of Scientific Literacy also acknowledges and will in time allow the deeper exploration of the complex interaction between the three domains. This reconceptualisation is required due to current issues within the literature regarding the scientific literacy of biotechnology. It will come into play as new technologies require citizens to consider the use of these new technologies and their impact on society and the environment. Narrow conceptions of scientific literacy which only consider the cognitive domain of scientific literacy fail to address the need of citizens to develop attitudes (affective domain) and behaviours (behavioural domain) in relation to these new technologies. Not only does it provide a useful lens with which to re-examine the corpus of knowledge regarding the scientific literacy of biotechnology but it also provides new insights which the larger project aims to examine.

Scientific literacy regarding biotechnology

Cognitive scientific literacy regarding biotechnology is limited. A survey of the general public by the Pew Charitable Trust (Anon, 2001) found over half of the sample have heard ‘not much’ or ‘nothing’ about genetically modified foods. Surveys by Millward-Brown Australia (MBA) (2001, 2003) of Australian adults found similar findings with only 16% of the sample in 2001 feeling confident they ‘could explain biotechnology to others’ which remained at 16% in the 2003 follow up study. In an assessment of Australian 15-year-old students, Dawson and Schibeci (2003b) found a third had little or no understanding of


4

biotechnology as measured by the number of examples of biotechnology they were able to provide. Lock and Miles (1993) found half of their British sample of GCSE students could not define biotechnology and a third could not define genetic engineering. Gunter, Kinderlerer and Beyleveld (1998) found only half of their sample of 16 to 19 year old British students had heard of biotechnology. The affective scientific literacy regarding biotechnology is accessible when individuals express their opinions or attitudes. Eurobarometer 52.1 (INRA (Europe) - ECOSA, 2000) gauged attitudes of citizens of the EU’s 17 member states finding attitudes for a variety of biotechnologies had become more negative since the 1996 Eurobarometer 46.1 survey. Moon and Balasubramanian (2001) places public acceptance of the use of biotechnology in crop production in the USA at 32% and 38% in the UK. Attitudes towards the various applications of biotechnology receive differential support leading many authors to conclude attitudes towards biotechnological applications are context-dependent. For example, MBA (2001, 2003) found Australian adults were more likely to approve of biotechnology applied to microbes and plants as opposed to applications that involve animals and humans, a finding that is supported by work in the Netherlands (Klop & Severiens, 2007), Finland (Jallinoja & Aro, 2000) and the UK (Gunter et al., 1998). There is a clear gender-difference with males generally being more supportive of biotechnology than females (MBA, 2001; 2003). Fewer studies however have examined behavioural scientific literacy regarding biotechnology. Grobe and Raab (2004) examined the voting behaviour of 801 Oregonians voting on a measure to require mandatory labelling of foods containing GM crops. They found voter behaviour was determined by decisions which have a cognitive and affective component: cost of implementation, necessity of the measure given clearance by FDA safety assessments and the likely financial impact on farmers. In the absence of actual behaviours, Gunter et al. (1998) examined the behavioural intentions of 16 to 19 year old British students. They found 65% of the sample would eat genetically modified crops and a similar proportion (60%) would eat meat from animals fed with GM crops. This approval fell to 15% when asked if they would eat meat from GM animals. These studies hint at a causal relationship between the domains, and intuitively it makes sense that an individual who has negative attitudes towards GM crops is less likely to buy GM foods. This issue leads into a discussion of how the three domains of scientific literacy interact and how the AB&C model of scientific literacy serves as an explanatory framework to reconcile what at first appears to be contradictory findings in the literature.

Interactions between the three domains in the AB&C model

There is a widely held view that the more knowledgeable (cognitive) an individual is regarding biotechnologies the more favourable (affective) they will be towards it and exhibit behaviours (behavioural) which demonstrate this (e.g., consumers purchasing GM foods). And indeed, this has been the underlying assumption in past attempts by governments and business interests to impact the scientific literacy of the populace. However, this relationship has been consistently shown not to exist in adult populations in a variety of countries including Germany (Hampel, Pfenning, & Peters, 2000), Australia (MBA, 2001, 2003), Finland (Verdurme & Viaene, 2003), Japan (Macer & Ng, 2000), Belgium (Klop & Severiens, 2007), the EU (Eurobarometer 52.1, 2000), the US (Sterling et al., 1993)) and also adolescent populations in Australia (Dawson, 2003; Dawson & Soames, 2007), the Netherlands (Jallinoja & Aro, 2000), and the UK (Lock & Miles, 1993)). The AB&C model postulates knowledges and mental skills, behaviours and, attitudes and opinions, reside in different domains within scientific literacy and may or may not


5

interact. It also postulates that to influence scientific literacy within a domain requires direct access to that domain. Dawson (2003) found understanding (i.e. cognitive domain) increased after 14 and 15 year old students took part in a ten-week biotechnology course but their attitudes did not change as a result. The AB&C model would predict that if the students were not required to access their attitudes towards biotechnology during the course, then attitudinal change would not occur. This is in contrast to Lock, Miles and Hughes (1995) who found British students’ approval of genetic engineering in all contexts surveyed increased. It is suspected the key difference in these two studies is the British curriculum emphasis on not only knowledge but also the requirement that students engage with the relevant social and ethical issue surrounding biotechnology. In regard to the outcome statement, Lock et al. (1995) noted:

“In work directed to such a statement, it is inevitable that knowledge, understanding and attitudes are involved. Here is a situation where it is vital that students have balanced and accurate information representing a range of viewpoints. By challenging students to use such knowledge and interact with their peers, they come to an understanding of the position that colours and influences their own opinion. The nature of this opinion is not important, that the fact that it has been gained through critical reflection and respect for evidence is” p. 47-48.

The AB&C model also correctly predicts the moderate attitudinal change found by Olsher and Dreyfus (1999) who exposed 15 year old Israeli students to an intervention which involved training students to think and question like scientists. The limited success would be explained as questioning which only seeks further knowledge or clarification remains within the cognitive domain and would therefore have little impact on attitudes in the affective domain. The AB&C model predicts questions which require students to examine their feelings about a biotechnology will have a greater impact on their affective scientific literacy. The AB&C model also explains why some applications of biotechnology are more acceptable than others. For example Dawson and Soames (2007) found, contrary to other studies which demonstrated more favourable attitudes in applying biotechnology to microbes and plants than to animals and humans, Western Australian students greatly supported biotechnology when ‘altering genes of human tissue cells to treat a genetic disease’ and ‘altering the genes in an embryo to treat a genetic disease’ (p. 65). The emotional component was evident in students who held negative opinions in their use of terms such as ‘unnatural’, ‘dangerous’ and, ‘unethical’ (Gunter et al., 1998). The AB&C model postulates individuals assess the benefits (good) and risks (bad), of individual applications and base their attitudes upon these assessments rather than some inherent schema which values human life over other life forms. In this study, the major prediction of the AB&C model of scientific literacy that will be tested is that to cause attitudinal change in the students as well as their parents, classroom and homework activities must be designed which require the individual to focus upon their attitudes towards the biotechnology. As highlighted by Lock et al. (1995), whether the opinion is positive or negative is irrelevant, more that it was derived from careful and thorough deliberation with a respect for scientific evidence.


6

A methodological review of attempts to raise scientific literacy in students

Within the literature surveyed, only five studies adopted an interventionist approach to raising the scientific literacy of students while the remainder merely surveyed students’ scientific literacy. Both these groups of studies have informed the methodology of the current study. Lock et al. (1995) measured the pre- and post-intervention knowledge and attitudes following a two-lesson intervention. The syllabus covered definitions and examples of biotechnology and genetic engineering, DNA structure, variation and selection, and an explanation of genetic engineering and how it works using two specific examples that had been reported in the media at the time of the study and ethical issues. They found that not only did students know more about biotechnology but the intervention also led to an increased approval of genetic engineering in all contexts surveyed. Even though they found knowledge had increased and attitudes became more favourable, the duration of the intervention and the length of the study are problematic. When compared to traditional units of work, two lessons is unlikely to provide sufficient time for students to fully internalise the content and depending on when the post-intervention survey was conducted, students may have been merely relying on the recency of the covered content to answer the questions of the survey. To overcome this issue the main study will, at the minimum, use a three week intervention but ideally a term-long intervention will be used. Olsher and Dreyfus (1999) used the ostension-teaching approach in an intervention, training 105 Year 9 (age 15 years) Israeli students in scientific epistemology in the context of biotechnology. Students were taught how to question more effectively and then use this technique to develop more reasoned attitudes on ethical issues surrounding biotechnology. They found the experimental group only experienced moderate attitudinal change in comparison to the control group. In this study, students will be required to firstly be cognisant of their attitude towards the issue being explored and secondly to evaluate the information derived from the issue to come to a new attitudinal stance.

Zohar and Nemet (2002) examined Israeli students’ argumentation ability using a standard experimental methodology using experimental and controls groups. The unit was taught over 3 academic hours while the control group received the same content using standard teaching methods. They found an increase in the proportion of students who were able to construct simple formal arguments increasing from 16.2% to 90% of the experimental group. A significantly greater proportion of the experimental group considered specific biological knowledge in their arguments. A similar approach will be adopted in the current study where students will be required to provide justification for their final attitudinal stance on the issue (i.e., Should Australia GM crops?). Dawson and Soames (2006) measured the pre- and post-intervention attitudes and understanding regarding biotechnology of 140 Western Australia Year 10 students (aged 14 to 15 years) in three separate schools. The three schools taught similar topics (e.g., DNA structure and function, genetic engineering, forensic DNA fingerprinting, GM foods, cloning) with the exception being school A specifically mentions ethical issues in it’s syllabus. Dawson and Soames (2006) found students knowledge increased but this did not translate into an increase in their approval for the applications of biotechnology that were surveyed. In accordance with the AB&C model of scientific literacy, students will be required in the current study to evaluate all incoming information and relate this to their current attitudinal stance on the issue under investigation.


7

Hypothesis

It is hypothesised that a biotechnology unit, which follows a discipline-integrated, inquiry-based approach, and incorporates activities which require students to access and evaluate their attitudes towards biotechnologies, and activities which explicitly require students to interact with their parents, will have a positive impact on all aspects of the scientific literacy (as defined by the AB&C model) of the students.

Method

The scientific literacy, as defined by the AB&C Model of Scientific Literacy, of year 9 students in two Queensland schools (one metropolitan (n=74) and one regional (n=40)) was measured pre and post the teaching of an integrated unit of work entitled “Should Australia grow GM crops?” The study used a design-based research methodology which meant the unit was not only tailored to each context but was also refined before the commencement of the next iteration.

School contexts and participants

Two schools were selected for participation in the study based upon key characteristics. Both schools had implemented key middle years reforms as defined by National Middle School Association (1999) and the participating teachers were well versed in middle years philosophy as determined by conversations with the researcher. Melaleuca High is a metropolitan private school within the Greater Brisbane Region while Acacia High is a regional state school within the state of Queensland. To achieve consistency in the delivery of the unit, the researcher taught the unit to both cohorts during term 4 of 2007 to Melaleuca High students and term 2 of 2008 to Acacia High students. The unit was taught to the entire Melaleuca High Year 9 cohort (N=243) but only 74 (30.5%) and 63 (25.9%) students completed the pre and post unit questionnaires respectively. This is in contrast to Acacia High where the unit was taught to only 2 classes (N=47) but 35 (74.5%) and 40 (88.8%) students completed the pre and post questionnaires respectively. Due to curriculum and timing constraints, the unit was taught over 3 weeks (12 hours in total) at Melaleuca High and 4 weeks (11 hours in total) at Acacia High.


8

Instrument

The affective, behavioural and cognitive domains were measured using a biotechnology questionnaire developed by drawing upon items and instruments developed by previous researchers (e.g., Dawson & Schibeci, 2003; Gunter, Kinderlerer & Beyleveld, 1998; Jallinoja & Aro, 2000; Klop & Severiens, 2007; Lock, 1994). Each domain of the AB&C model of scientific literacy was operationalised to consist of aspects to allow their measurement in the study (see Table 1).

Table 1: Aspects examined within each domain1. For the purposes of this paper, only the cognitive and affective domains will be described.

Domain Aspect Description Cognitive Ability to define key terms 2 terms Knowledge of various genetic concepts 14 items Awareness of biotechnology applications 17 options Awareness of GM crops 16 options Affective Attitudes towards…

GM Microbes GM Plants GM Animals Biotechnology in medicine (Humans) GM Algae

4 items 6 items 4 items 7 items 2 items

To link the current study to previous studies, the cognitive domain was conceptualised as consisting of four aspects. The ability to define key terms (in this case, biotechnology and genetic modification) is a popular method of measuring knowledge (cognitive domain) in previous studies (e.g., Chen & Raffan, 1999; Dawson, 2007; Dawson & Schibeci, 2003a; Lock, 1994; Lock et al., 1995). Verdurme and Viaene (2003) was the only study reviewed that sought to measure students’ knowledge of genetic concepts and was therefore employed in the current study using their methodology. Awareness (in this case, of biotechnology applications and GM crops) was of interest to previous researchers (Dawson, 2007; Dawson & Schibeci, 2003a; Dawson & Soames, 2006; Lock & Miles, 1993) and was subsequently used in the present study. Where these studies explored this aspect as an open-response item (i.e., list the biotechnology applications you have read or hear about), due to the age of the participants in this study, a closed-response item (i.e., tick the biotechnology applications you have heard or read about) was used. Attitudes towards biotechnology applications is an often explored aspect of the affective domain (e.g., Jallinoja & Aro, 2000; Klop & Severiens, 2007; Lock & Miles, 1993; Lock et al., 1995; Verdurme & Viaene, 2003). Dawson (2007) and Dawson & Soames (2006) raise interesting issues in their exploration of students’ attitudes to genetically modified organisms so their items, which were in turn an adaptation of items used by Lock & Miles (1993), have been used.

1 The larger study examined all three domains of the AB&C model. In the interest of space only the cognitive and affective are presented.


9

Results

Cognitive domain

Students’ definitions for the terms biotechnology and genetic modification were graded on a scale of 0, for no correct elements, to 5, for 5 correct elements and then averaged for each school (see Table 2). The only non-statistically significant result in this analysis was the ability of Acacia high students to define biotechnology. All other independent-samples t-tests were statistically significant

Table 2: Results of independent-samples t-tests conducted to assess the ability of students from each school to define biotechnology and genetic modification.

School Definition Time n Mean (SD) t score biotechnology pre 74 0.72 (1.08) Melaleuca

High post 63 1.11 (1.17) 0.164*

genetic modification pre 74 1.16 (1.30) post 63 2.27 (0.97)

0.001****

biotechnology pre 36 0.33 (0.86) Acacia High post 40 0.55 (0.88)

0.281†

genetic modification pre 36 0.17 (0.61) post 40 1.18 (1.28)

0.001****

NOTE: † – not significant, * - p < 0.05, ** - p < 0.01, *** - p < 0.005, **** - p < 0.001 To assess students’ knowledge of genetic concepts, a method used by Klop and Severiens (2007) was employed. Students responded to 14 True/False items and indicated on a 5-point scale how certain they were (0 – 100% guess, 5 – 100% positive). Students were then awarded 1 for a correct answer and a 0 for an incorrect answer and this was multiplied by a certainty factor (0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1) depending upon their response on the certainty scale for that item. This resulted in a knowledge score for that item, which was then averaged across the 14 items to derive a knowledge score for that student. This was then averaged across students from the school to derive a knowledge score for that school (see Table 3).

Table 3: Results of independent-samples t-tests to compare mean knowledge schools of students, before (pre) and after (post) the intervention (unit of work).

School Time n Mean (SD) t score pre 69 34.55 (17.37) Melaleuca

High post 62 44.27 (18.20) 0.164***

pre 35 24.34 (11.40) Acacia High post 40 40.22 (16.66)

0.281****

NOTE: † – not significant, * - p < 0.05, ** - p < 0.01, *** - p < 0.005, **** - p < 0.001 To assess whether students awareness of biotechnological applications or GM crops had changed as a result of the unit, students were given a list of 17 biotechnological applications and 16 GM crops from which they could choose. The mean number biotechnological applications and GM crops was then compared pre and post unit using an independent-samples t-test (see Table 4). On average, students from both schools were able to recall more biotechnology applications after the unit but not a greater number of GM crops. A chi square test for goodness of fit (of the awareness of individual GM crops) revealed that awareness did increase for six of the 16 GM crops presented to students (see Figure 1). The individual percentages, in descending order of post unit percentages, for


10

each item for GM crops and biotechnology applications are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively.

Table 4: Results of independent-samples t-tests to compare the mean number of biotechnology applications and GM crops students were aware of before (pre) and after (post) the intervention.

School Awareness of… Time N Mean (SD) t score biotechnology applications pre 65 4.42 (3.30) Melaleuca

High post 61 8.93 (3.46) 0.315****

GM crops pre 62 4.60 (4.48) post 61 5.85 (3.02)

1.800†

biotechnology applications pre 32 4.34 (3.16) Acacia High post 39 7.62 (3.17)

0.926****

GM crops pre 30 4.43 (4.13) post 39 6.13 (2.98)

0.520†

NOTE: † – not significant, * - p < 0.05, ** - p < 0.01, *** - p < 0.005, **** - p < 0.001

Figure 1: Percentage of year 9 students (n(pre)=92, n(post)=100) identifying their awareness of GM crops pre and post unit. Each item was analysed using a Chi square test for goodness of fit.† – not significant, * - p < 0.05, ** - p < 0.01, *** - p < 0.005, **** - p < 0.001


11

Figure 2: Percentage of year 9 students (n(pre)=97, n(post)=100) identifying their awareness of biotechnology applications pre and post unit. Each item was analysed using a Chi square test for goodness of fit. † – not significant, * - p < 0.05, ** - p < 0.01, *** - p < 0.005, **** - p < 0.001

Affective domain

Attitudes towards the application of biotechnology techniques to living things were gauged using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disapprove, disapprove, neutral, approve and strongly approve) with the addition of an “I don’t know enough to make a decision” category. Data for the two schools were collapsed. The strongly disagree and disagree categories were collapsed and similarly for the agree and strongly agree categories yielding four response types: ‘Don’t know enough’, Disapprove, Neutral and Approve. Chi-square tests for independence were then used to determine if there had been statistically significant changes in students’ attitudes as a result of the intervention. Figures 3 through to 7 show the clustered bar graphs for each item pre and post intervention. Of the 23 items, only two did not show statistically significant changes in attitudes in pre vs. post intervention testing (see Table 5).


12

Figure 3: Students' (n(pre)=100, n(post)=97) attitudes to the application of biotechnology techniques to living things grouped according to applications regarding microbes.

Figure 4: Students' (n(pre)=100, n(post)=97) attitudes to the application of biotechnology techniques to living things grouped according to applications regarding GM plants.


13

Figure 5: Students' (n(pre)=100, n(post)=97) attitudes to the application of biotechnology techniques to living things grouped according to applications regarding GM animals.

Figure 6: Students' (n(pre)=100, n(post)=97) attitudes to the application of biotechnology techniques to living things grouped according to applications regarding GM in medicine.


14

Figure 7: Students' (n(pre)=100, n(post)=97) attitudes to the application of biotechnology techniques to living things grouped according to applications regarding GM algae.


15

Table 5: Results of Chi-square tests for independence of the Likert scale items assessing the affective domain. (n=) Pearson !2 values shows the relationship between pre and post responses (i.e., ‘don’t know enough,’, disapprove, neutral and approve). Statistically significant results indicate a change of attitude (as a cohort) for that item. The " coefficient is the effect size (small=0.07, medium=0.21, large=0.35).

Item Pearson !2 "

Using yeast in the production of food and drink (e.g., wine, beer, bread, yoghurt, Vegemite etc.) 17.68*** 0.300 Growing yeast for animal food 24.69**** 0.354

Using genetically modified (GM) microbes to treat human sewage or animal waste (e.g., from pig and chicken farms) 18.01**** 0.302 Using GM microbes to produce human insulin 17.90**** 0.301 Genetically modifying crop plants so they will be more salinity and drought tolerant/resistant 21.66**** 0.332 Genetically modifying fruit and vegetables to make them healthier 24.16**** 0.350 Genetically modifying fruit and vegetables to make them tastier 19.91**** 0.318 Genetically modifying fruit and vegetables to make them last longer 22.84**** 0.340

Genetically modifying plants to rehabilitate (repair) land effected by dry land salinity 32.25**** 0.405 Genetically modifying crop plants to produce ethanol for fuel 6.25† 0.178 Genetically modifying farm animals to improve the quality of meat, milk or fibre (e.g., wool) 21.54**** 0.331 Using GM cows to produce medicines 17.556*** 0.299 Inserting genes from plants into animals 12.58** 0.253 Inserting genes from animals into plants 10.48* 0.231

Altering the genes of human tissue cells to treat genetic diseases (e.g., cystic fibrosis) 12.94** 0.256 Altering the genes of embryos to treat genetic diseases (e.g., cystic fibrosis) 17.427** 0.297 Genetically modifying animals to grow human organs 7.83* 0.199 Human cloning 2.61† 0.456 DNA fingerprinting for solving crimes 12.22** 0.249 Spray on SkinTM to treat burns 24.77**** 0.355

Genetic fingerprinting for paternity tests 12.52** 0.252 Genetically modifying algae to produce biodiesel 16.77*** 0.292 Genetically modifying algae to produce hydrogen for use as fuel 13.19*** 0.259

NOTE: † – not significant, * - p < 0.05, ** - p < 0.01, *** - p < 0.005, **** - p < 0.001


16

Discussion

Not surprisingly, students’ cognitive scientific literacy improved in most measures as a result of participating within the unit as this is seen as the traditional role of schooling – the imparting of knowledge to students. The one exception to this trend was the Acacia High’s students inability to better define biotechnology after the unit2. In contrast, students from both schools were able to better define genetic modification. In each school, the various examples of biotechnology were explored in the first week of the unit with the remainder of the unit being devoted to GM crops and answering the unit question “Should Australia grow GM crops?”. It is not surprising therefore that students were able to better define genetic modification after the unit. The opposite however is apparent in the awareness measures. Post unit, students overwhelmingly recalled a greater number of biotechnology applications compared to GM crops. A closer analysis reveals a more interesting picture. The GM crops for which there was a statistically significant difference were the crops that were featured in the unit (see Figure 1). This is also true for the biotechnology applications (see Figure 2). The applications for which students had direct exposure during the unit corresponds to the applications being recalled at statistically significant levels after the unit. It could be reasonably concluded that participating in the unit raises the awareness of students to biotechnology applications and GM crops. Students’ greater knowledge of genetic concepts was also not a surprise. It would be noted that students at Melaleuca high not only knew more before the unit but also after the unit (see Table 3). This could be attributed to the fact that participating students from Melaleuca High were drawn from the entire cohort of year 9 students at the school, while the participating classes from Acacia High were from the two academically supported classes. The statistically significant change in both cases however bodes well for the unit’s ability to raise the knowledge of genetic concepts for all students regardless of ability level. There are two issues apparent from the literature with regards to the affective domain. Firstly, previous research has not been able to consistently demonstrate that interventions within school settings had an impact upon students’ attitudes towards topical science issues, in this case biotechnology and genetically modified crops (e.g., Dawson & Soames, 2006; Lock, Miles and Hughes, 1995). Secondly, work by Dawson and Schibeci (2003), and others (e.g., Millward Brown Australia, 2001, 2003) showed peoples attitudes towards the application of biotechnology to various living things varied according to its relatedness to humans. Both these issues will be dealt with in turn. As can be seen in Table 5, statistically significant changes were apparent in the majority of items demonstrating the unit’s ability to affect attitudinal change in students. This may be attributed to a number of features of the unit. The purpose of the unit was for the students to come to a position on the question “Should Australia grow GM crops?”. This forces the student to not only access their knowledge (cognitive domain) but also their personal feelings (affective domain) on the issue. Students were given thinking tools to be able to access outside knowledge but also to organise and analyse the information. The analysis in this case consisted of students analysing the advantages and disadvantages of the new found piece of knowledge according to environmental, economic, social and human health

2 In the larger scheme, the inability to define biotechnology is still consistent with the findings of Dawson and Schibeci (2003b), Lock and Miles (1993) and Gunter et al (1998).


17

perspectives. Once again, students were encouraged to conduct this analysis from a personal level. Although it is not possible to pinpoint the aspect of the unit responsible for attitudinal change, this study is an important demonstration that it is possible, at least within the middle years schooling context, to influence the attitudes of students. This attitudinal change was not universal, that is, attitudes were not automatically favourable for all applications of biotechnology. Students’ attitudes towards the application of biotechnological techniques did follow patterns discovered by earlier research (Gunter et al., 1998; Lock & Miles, 1993; Millward Brown Australia, 2001, 2003) which included the findings that attitudes were favourable towards the genetic modification of microbes and plants, less so for animals and less so again for humans (See Table 5)3. What this study does provide is a more nuanced view of this position. It is speculated that the medical applications for which there is a clear advantage to utilisation, experienced a statistically significant change (eg. altering the genes of embryos to treat genetic diseases). The non-significant change in attitudes for human cloning reflect findings in previous studies. It is speculated that in this case, no clear advantage for human cloning could be identified by the students.

Conclusions

The main purpose of this study was to reconceptualise scientific literacy as a way forward of measuring and influencing students knowledge and attitudes about biotechnology. A review of the literature resulted in the AB&C model of scientific literacy which conceptualised scientific literacy as consisting of three domains: the affective, behavioural and cognitive domains. Doing so helped account for the fact that previous attempts to raise the scientific literacy of people resulted in more knowledgeable people but whose attitudes had not necessarily changed. The AB&C model posits that knowledge (cognitive domain) and attitudes (affective domain) are separate and to influence either requires direct access to that domain. This is also important as knowledge is filtered through frames and schemata which reside in the affective domain (Allum, Sturgis, Tabourazi, & Brunton-Smith, 2005). Consistent with this, an inquiry-based unit of work was designed which would not only increase knowledge and awareness about a topic, the traditional role of schooling, but also to influence attitudes by having students take a personal stance on a topic and analysing the advantages and disadvantages of new knowledge from different perspectives. This study builds and improves upon earlier work conducted by Dawson & Soames (2006) and Lock, Miles and Hughes (1995). As a result of participating within the unit, Queensland year 9 students showed statistically significant changes within their cognitive and affective scientific literacy domains.

Communication

Harry Kanasa can be contacted at [email protected] The website used in the intervention can be viewed at www.tinyurl.com/GMcrops

3 The stand out being attitudes to ‘growing GM crop plants for produce ethanol for fuel’. Maybe this is just not an important enough issue for the students as they do not drive cars.


18

References

Allum, N., Sturgis, P. J., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2005). A meta-analysis of science

knowledge and attitudes across cultures. Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans.

Retrieved 12 June, 2007, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm.

Anon. (2001). Public uncertain about GMOs, study reveals. Food Engineering, 73(5), 20. Ballenger, C. (1997). Social identities, moral narratives, scientific argumentation: Science

talk in a bilingual classroom. Language and Education, 11(1), 1-13. Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decisionmaking and the social

construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2), 185. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (1993). Developing Biological Literacy: Biological

Sciences Curriculum Study. Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity:

A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89(5), 779-802.

Bybee, R. W. (1995). Achieving scientific literacy. The Science Teacher, 62(7), 28. Chen, S.-Y., & Raffan, J. (1999). Biotechnology: Student's knowledge and attitudes in the

UK and Taiwan. Journal of Biological Education, 34(1), 17-23. Dawson, V. (2003). Effect of a forensic DNA testing module on adolescents' ethical

decision-making abilities. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 49(4), 12-17. Dawson, V. (2007). An exploration of High School (12-17 year old) students'

understandings of, and attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 59-73.

Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. A. (2003a). Western Australian high school students' attitudes

towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 7-12. Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. A. (2003b). Western Australian school students' understanding

of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 57-69. Dawson, V., & Soames, C. (2006). The effect of biotechnology education on Australian high

school students' understandings and attitudes about biotechnology processes. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(2), 183-198.

Dawson, V., & Soames, C. (2007). The effect of biotechnology education on Australian high

school students' understandings and attitudes about biotechnology processes. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(2), 183-198.


19

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, 37(6), 582-601.

Demastes, S., & Wandersee, J. H. (1992). Biological litereacy in a college biology classroom.

Bioscience, 42(1), 63-65. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.

New York, NY: The Macmillan Company. Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science.

Nature, 340(06 July), 11-14. Fullarton, S., Walker, M., Ainley, J., & Hillman, K. (2003). Patterns of participation in Year 12

(No. 33): Australian Council for Education Research. Garner, R. (1994). An update on HSC science subject statistics: 1986-1993. Science Education

News, 43(3), 21-22. Glass, B. (1970). The timely and the timeless: The interrelationships of science education and

society. New York, NY: Basic Books. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and

learning of science in Australian Schools. Retrieved. from http://www.dest.gov.au/default.htm.

Grobe, D., & Raab, C. (2004). Voters’ response to labelling genetically engineered foods:

Oregon’s experience. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 38(2), 320-331. Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J., & Beyleveld, D. (1998). Teenages and Biotechnology: A survey

of understanding and opinion in Britain. Studies in Science Education, 32, 81-11. Hampel, J., Pfenning, U., & Peters, H. P. (2000). Attitudes towards genetic engineering.

New Genetics and Society, 19(3), 233-249. Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2006). Moving from Border Crossing to Convergence of Perspectives

in Language and Science Literacy Research and Practice. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 101-107.

Hurd, P. d. (1991). Why we must transform science education. Educational Leadership, 49(2),

33-35. Hurd, P. d. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education,

82(3), 407-416. INRA (Europe) - ECOSA. (2000). Eurobarometer 52.1: The Europeans and biotechnology.

Retrieved 4th Febuary, 2007, from www.ec.europa.eu/research/pdf/eurobarometer-en.pdf

Jackson, D. F., Edwards, B. J., & Berger, C. F. (1993). Teaching the design and

interpretation of graphs through computer-aided graphical data analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 483-501.


20

Jallinoja, P., & Aro, A. R. (2000). Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests. Journal of Health Communication, 5, 29-23.

Klop, T., & Severiens, S. (2007). An exploration of attitudes towards modern

biotechnology: A study among Dutch secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 663-679.

Lock, R. (1994). What do 14 to 16-year-olds know and think about biotechnology?

Nutrition and Food Science, 3, 29-32. Lock, R., & Miles, C. (1993). Biotechnology and genetic engineering: Students' knowledge

and attitudes. Journal of Biological Education, 27(4), 13-23. Lock, R., Miles, C., & Hughes, S. (1995). The influence of teaching on knowledge and

attitudes in biotechnology and genetic engineering contexts: implications for teaching controversial issues and the public understanding of science. School Science Review, 76(276), 47-59.

Macer, D., & Ng, M. A. (2000). Changing attitudes to biotechnology in Japan. Nature

Biotechnology, 18, 945-947. Miller, J. D. (1987). Scientific literacy in the United States. In D. Evered & M. O'Connor

(Eds.), Communicating Science to the Public (pp. 14-19). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Miller, S. (2001). Public Understanding of Science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of

Science, 10(1), 115-120. Millward Brown Australia. (2001). Biotechnology public awareness survey: Final report.

Retrieved 10th January, 2007, from www.biotechnology.gov.au/assets/documents/bainternet/BA_Public%20awarnessreport_200120050401164151.pdf

Millward Brown Australia. (2003). Millward Brown study into public attitudes towards

biotechnology: Key findings. Retrieved 10th January, 2007, from www.affashop.gov.au/PdfFiles/ryan09july.pdf

Moon, W., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (2001). Public perceptions and willingness-to-pay a

premium for non-GM foods in the US and UK. AgBioForum, 4(3&4), 221-231. National Middle School Association. (1999). This we believe: Developmentally responsive

middle level schools (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC:

National Academy Press. National Science Foundation. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006 (No. 1):

National Science Board. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to

scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224.


21

OECD PISA. (2002). Sample tasks from the PISA 2000 Assessment: Reading, mathematical and scientific literacy. from http://oberon.sourceoecd.org.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/vl=3639306/cl=13/nw=1/rpsv/ij/oecdthemes/99980029/v2002n2/s1/p1l.

OECD PISA. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy. Retrieved 13

March, 2007, from http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9806031E.PDF. Oliver, J. S., & Nichols, B. K. (2001). The method of science in the middle of the century.

School Science and Mathematics, 101(7), 390-396. Olsher, G., & Dreyfus, A. (1999). The 'ostension-teaching' approach as a means to develop

junior-high students attitudes towards biotechnologies. Journal of Biological Education, 34(1), 25-31.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accomodation of a

scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.

Rennie, L. J., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in

Australian Schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 455-498.

Rogers, E., M. (2001). The digital divide. Convergence: The international journal of research

into new media technologies, 7(4), 96-111. Schallies, M., & Lembens, A. (2002). Student learning by research. Journal of Biological

Education, 37(1), 13-17. Shamos, M. (1995). The Myth of Scientific Literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University

Press. Talton, E. L., & Simpson, R. D. (1986). Relationships of attitudes toward self, family, and

school with attitude toward science among adolescents. Science Education, 70(4), 365-374.

Uno, G. E., & Bybee, R. W. (1994). Understanding the dimensions of biological literacy.

Bioscience, 44(8), 553-557. Venville, G., Gribble, S. J., & Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young childrens'

understandings of genetics concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Science Education, 89(4), 614-633.

Verdurme, A., & Viaene, J. (2003). Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically

modified food: Basis for segmentation and implications for communication. Agribusiness, 19(1), 91-113.

Walberg, H. J. (1991). Improving school science in advanced and developing countries.

Review of Educational Research, 61(1), 25-69. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills

through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.

Addressing emerging science and technology issues: Raising ... · level of scientific literacy is required if citizens are to be able to effectively engage in media and political

Documents