ABSTRACT
An educated citizenry is the only safe repository for democratic values. Thomas Jefferson
In his extensive review of literature regarding scientific literacy (SL), Roberts (2007) provides an important distinction between two generalized views of SL: Vision I emphasizes aspects of academic content related and aligned to the goals of science, while Vision II emphasizes an approach that is broader in scope, involving personal decision making about contextually embedded science and social issues. It is within Vision II that socioscientific issues (SSI) are embedded, although our investigations contain features of SSI reasoning that arguably surpass Vision II. The “heuristic device” (2007, p. 775) employed by Roberts works well to contrast the field’s perceptions often associated with the construct. Because we realize that it is necessary to parse out components of a construct (such as SL) in order to clarify its constituent parts, we acknowledge that any alternative heuristic we might invoke would undoubtedly frame the issue in a different orientation. Hence, our corresponding argument can best be located in a more comprehensive, and necessarily more inclusive stance of Vision II. In other publications, we have argued (Sadler & Zeidler, 2009; Zeidler, 1984; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler & Sadler, 2008a; Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, & Howes, 2005) that any conceptualization of the intention and significance of scientific literacy falls short of the mark, if moral reasoning, ethical considerations, and character development are not part of our understanding of SL. The socioscientific issues framework seeks to involve students in decision making regarding current social issues with moral or ethical implications embedded in scientific contexts (Sadler, 2004; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler et al., 2005). These issues provide students with opportunities for active reflection upon an issue and examining how the issue relates to their own lives, as well as the quality of life in their community (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Sadler, 2004; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). It is equally plausible that certain ethical issues can become the context of embedded scientific content and certain nature of science (NOS) tenets (Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004; Zeidler,
Sadler, Applebaum, & Callahan, 2009; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002). Hence, our central argument is that SSI can provide an epistemological context for students’ conceptual understanding of important scientific and social matters, thereby serving as a venue for the development of character and reflective judgment. In doing so, a more inclusive stance of Vision II SL becomes necessary. In a recent article (Sadler & Zeidler, 2009), we were asked to compare our philosophical and pedagogical perspective of scientific literacy with the underlying views of SL proposed by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). One of the notable features of PISA is the articulation of SL that serves as a conceptual underpinning for the project. In framing our analysis of the PISA project, we generated several important questions connected to the interaction between SSI and SL. Our goal in this chapter is to provide substance and meaning to the following questions whose origins are described below:
1. In what sense is the distinction between scientific literacy and functional scientific literacy meaningful?
