Informal Science Literacy and Games

Constance Steinkuehler

Thu., June 11, 11:00–12:30, Old Madison (3rd floor, East/Southeast)

Notions of science literacy are rooted in the enduring idea that a fundamental goal of science education is to teach not just basic facts but also the dispositions and practices of science (Maarschalk, 1988). Definitions of science literacy differ, but they share a common critique of the framing of science as a “rhetoric of conclusion” (Schwab, 1962, p. 24) and a common goal of creating a citizenry able to confront novel problems scientifically. National organizations (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council [NRC], 1996) currently define science literacy to include

• Thinking skills (e.g., computing and estimating, engaging in critical thinking)
• Inquiry skills (e.g., making observations, posing questions, gathering and interpreting data, evaluating claims based on evidence)
• Understanding of themes that are common across the sciences (e.g., constancy versus change)

Sociocultural definitions of science literacy emphasize an understanding of science as an ongoing cultural enterprise. Here, the emphasis is on understanding each step of the “observation, premise, conclusion” cycle in order to be able to make informed decisions about substantive science-related issues that have great impact on our everyday, personal lives (Shamos, 1995). Other definitions are more explicitly grounded in literacy (e.g., Holliday, Yore, & Alvermann, 1994, p. 877), while still others emphasize the multidisciplinary nature of science (e.g., Sullivan, 2008, p. 374).

Across all of these definitions, science literacy crucially entails not training for a career in science but rather an understanding of the dispositions and practices that characterize science as an approach to understanding the world around us. The critical issues confronting a globalized, technological society (from global warming to biotechnology) require at least a rudimentary understanding of how science operates. Yet, by some measures, it seems we have done a poor job of fostering such understanding in our schools. Currently, only one in five Americans is scientifically literate (Miller, 2004), despite mandatory instruction in science. In a recent study of contemporary classroom practice, Chinn and Malhotra (2002) found that standard inquiry activities not only failed to engender scientific habits of mind, but actually fostered epistemological beliefs directly antithetical to them. A recent assessment of high school laboratory activities by the NRC (Singer, Hilton, & Schweingruber, 2005) reached similar conclusions: Science labs, long heralded as the site for engaging students in science practice, fail. Meanwhile, the public seems to grow increasingly hostile to the scientific enterprise (Elsner, 2005), based not on the inability to recall established facts about the world but on gross ignorance about science as a habit of mind and cultural practice.

In this presentation, I discuss that potential for videogames for science learning — not just educational games overtly designed to teach but even commercial games with no educational goal. Drawing on my own research and the research of colleagues within the field, I argue for a view of science content as secondary to science practice and habits of mind and outline how videogame technologies and communities pattern in ways that foster those practices and dispositions in the form of knowledge production and critical consumption. While the conspicuous lack of science content in commercial games has left the most popular titles outside the interests of many traditional science educators, I argue that, in both science and games, content is a tool to solve problems (Gee, 2003; Squire, 2006). In the age of information smog (easy access to too much information, not too little) and Web 2.0 communities (which emphasize active knowledge production, not passive consumption), it’s time we resurrect more content agnostic definitions of what schools ought to teach (Collins & Halverson, in press). From this perspective, participation in gaming communities is one vital form of preparation for future learning (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999). After all, academic domains, like videogames, are in many ways better defined by what they let you do and how they help you see the world than the overt content they use to do it within.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford Press.

Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.

Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (in press) Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and the schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Elsner, A. (2005, October 28). Is US becoming hostile to science? CNN.com. Retrieved October 31, 2005, from http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/us_hostile_science.htm

Gee, J. P. (2003). What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877–893.

Maarschalk, J. (1988). Scientific literacy and informal science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(2), 135–146.

Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 273–294.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved July 10, 2006 from http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/

Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Singer, S. R., Hilton, M., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2005). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Squire, K. D. (2006). From content to context: Video games as designed experiences. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19–29.

Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394.