Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship | Winter 2000 |
---|
DOI:10.5062/F48P5XH8 |
URLs in this document have been updated. Links enclosed in {curly brackets} have been changed. If a replacement link was located, the new URL was added and the link is active; if a new site could not be identified, the broken link was removed. |
Building a webliography on a scientific topic can be a daunting task. This paper seeks to simplify the process by suggesting straightforward guidelines for evaluating and organizing websites. The guidelines are developed from definitions of science literacy and science information literacy and illustrated by a sample webliography and a sample search strategy on the topic of acoustical oceanography.
Two definitions are relied on most strongly, that of "civic scientific literacy" (Miller 1998), and that of "science information literacy" (adapted from Shapiro and Hughes 1996). From these, we develop criteria for evaluating and organizing websites. Several acoustical oceanography sites are used to illustrate the process.
There seems to be broad agreement that science literacy is desirable and important. And, with few exceptions (Gould 1997), most also agree that non-scientists generally lack it (Ehlers 1998, Maienschein 1999). One of the best discussions is that of Jon Miller (1998) who concludes that, at least for regions for which sufficient data exist, "there can be little doubt that the current levels of civic scientific literacy are too low." Some point out that scientists themselves often fail to understand basic scientific principles outside their areas of specialization (Pool 1991). When we get past the hand wringing, however, and come to definitions and solutions, the agreement ends.
Many who have tried to define science literacy suggest lists of "basic facts" that the scientifically literate should know (Raymo 1998, Trefil 1996). Paul DeHart Hurd (1998) presents one of the farthest ranging discussions of "the cultural roots of scientific literacy," at the end of which he also suggests a list, but not of facts. Instead, Hurd presents a list of "behaviors that serve as guidelines for interpreting the functions of science/technology." Others focus on "successful information seeking behavior" (Sapp 1992), "scientific awareness" (Devlin 1998), or "scientific ways of knowing" (Maienschein 1999).
The Women's Studies Program and the Center for Science Education at Portland State University have tried to craft a definition by looking at what others have proposed and seeing which elements they agree with. A fascinating "Working Paper" discussing their process is available on the web at {http://www.horizons.pdx.edu/~fem-sci-lit/}. Another website that has tackled the topic of science literacy is the Project 2061 site from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.project2061.org/). This site appears less concerned with precise definitions and more concerned with providing resources for educators wishing to promote science literacy.
Jon Miller (1998) takes yet a different approach. Drawing on the work of Shen (1975) and on his own previous work (Miller 1983), he proposes a tripartite definition that emphasizes the need for an understanding of the vocabulary, concepts, and processes of science.
Another study that divides its topic into component parts as an aid to definition is that of Jeremy Shapiro and Shelley Hughes (1996). Not an inquiry into science literacy but into information literacy as it is broadly defined, their work explores seven aspects of the topic, ranging from tool literacy to critical literacy.
It is not the point of this paper to attempt any kind of synthesis of these disparate approaches. What we are concerned with is the help these discussions can offer in the sometimes daunting task of evaluating websites and organizing links. For this purpose, we found the last two articles mentioned above (Miller 1998; Shapiro and Hughes 1996) to be the most valuable. We'll take a closer look at them before turning to the subject of website evaluation.
But what exactly does this literacy consist of? According to Miller, civic scientific literacy requires "(1) a vocabulary of basic scientific constructs...(2) an understanding of the process or nature of scientific inquiry, and (3) some level of understanding of the impact of science and technology on individuals and on society." By measuring these three elements it is possible to estimate the level of civic scientific literacy in a given group.
As it turns out, these same three elements also prove to be useful tools in analyzing and categorizing science websites.
This is too broad for the purposes of this paper. We would like to propose a definition of science information literacy based on the above definition, but emphasizing the ability to access information of a scientific nature and to analyze it critically.
Shapiro and Hughes go on to define seven dimensions of information literacy (tool literacy, resource literacy, social-structural literacy, research literacy, publishing literacy, emerging technology literacy, and critical literacy). We follow their model but narrow it to include only information pertinent to the sciences. Furthermore, of their seven dimensions, we will concern ourselves with only the first three. These are:
As you may have guessed, these three dimensions of science information literacy will become three more tools in our website-evaluation toolbox. We now have sufficient resources to look at some actual websites.
One approach to the problem is to begin with the six tools developed in the previous section. For the purpose of website evaluation, they can be reformulated into six questions: (1) does the site help build vocabulary on the topic? (2) does the site help build an understanding of the scientific processes involved in the topic? (3) does the site help build an understanding of the impact the topic may have on society? (4) does the site discuss the tools (either hardware or software) that are used in researching the topic? (5) does the site help build an understanding of how the resources relevant to the topic are organized and accessed? (6) does the site help build an understanding of the social context in which the scientific work is done? Each of these questions may be given more weight or less weight depending on the webliography's intended audience.
We can now turn to a sample webliography and a sample search strategy that are informed by this kind of evaluation.
Websites designed for children can be excellent places to begin learning about a subject. They tend to emphasize basic concepts and to explain those concepts with a refreshing freedom from jargon. The Science Friday page that discusses acoustical oceanography has these advantages. It is also strong in two of our six areas of inquiry: by suggesting experiments that can be done easily and without equipment it helps build an understanding of basic scientific processes. And, in the audio file of the radio program, it gives listeners an understanding of the social context of the work being done in acoustical oceanography.
Since the project is directly involved in research, it's not surprising that their website is especially strong in our second area of concern, building an understanding of the scientific processes behind the topic. One example of this is in the section on climate where the research is explained in non-technical terms. "The basic idea of ATOC is simple" the site explains. "Sound travels faster in warm water than in cold water. The travel time of a sound signal from a source near California to a receiver near Alaska...will decrease if the intervening ocean warms up, and will increase if the ocean cools down."
The site is also valuable in building an understanding of how relevant resources are organized and accessed. From the main page, the site offers links to "ATOC Publication Lists." On the pages, publications are broken down into publication types such as 'conference proceedings', 'research articles', 'unpublished reports', etc. This gives users an idea of the different formats in which research is presented in the area of acoustical oceanography.
Taking a closer look, we find this site is especially useful in addressing three of our six areas of concern: it helps build an understanding of scientific processes, an understanding of the impact of acoustical oceanography on society, and an understanding of the social context in which the research takes place.
To give an example of just one of these (the impact of the topic on society), we can look at the online version of a paper presented at a recent society meeting ({http://www.acoustics.org/137th/sagen.html}}. The paper begins, "Climate changes in the coming decades...pose serious economic constraints for further economic development in both industrial and developing countries....The overall objective of AMOC [Acoustic Monitoring of the Ocean Climate] is to...study long-term climate variability, and thus detect global warming."
If a comprehensive webliography is desired, more sites could be researched until all six areas were satisfied by several sites. For our purposes we only need enough examples to demonstrate the evaluation process. We can now turn to a sample webliography and a sample search strategy that are informed by this of evaluation.
In addition to aiding the creation of webliographies, this process can also be of value to the librarian wishing to add supporting material to a search strategy. The search strategy is a widely-used tool that, in many cases, can benefit from the inclusion of links leading students to appropriate websites.
The sample search strategy below consists of four parts: (1) choosing a topic in the area of acoustical oceanography, (2) finding background information on the topic, (3) finding books on the topic, and (4) finding journal articles on the topic. Each of these parts can be supported by websites with certain strengths. Of the six categories we discussed earlier, part one can be supported by sites strong in areas 1,2,4, and 5; part two can be supported by sites strong in areas 2,3, and 6; and parts three and four can be supported by sites strong in areas 4 and 5. The sample illustrates one way this could work.
|
|
Shapiro and Hughes (1996) take this a step further. They point out that as our society becomes increasingly dependent upon technology, science literacy becomes increasingly important to anyone who wants to be a participant in society. "[P]ublic issues and social life" they say, "increasingly are affected by information-technology issues -- from intellectual property to privacy and the structure of work to entertainment, art and fantasy life." They then go on to discuss the "conception of the link between knowledge, liberty and happiness -- a conception that is reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution."
At the dawn of a new century, science literacy is intimately connected to these and other issues that deeply affect all of us. Hopefully, the methods outlined in this paper will simplify the task of building webliographies and allow librarians more time for addressing concerns such as these in the research tools they create.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Project 2061. Science Literacy for a Changing Future. [Online.] Available: http://www.project2061.org/ [January 2000].
Devlin, Keith. 1998. Rather than scientific literacy, colleges should teach scientific awareness. American Journal of Physics 66(7):559-560.
Ehlers, Vernon J. 1998. The Importance of Science Literacy. Geotimes 43(4):5.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1997. Drink Deep, or Taste Not the Pierian Spring. (Musings on the Teaching and Learning of Science) Natural History 106(8):24-25.
Hurd, Paul DeHart. 1998. Scientific Literacy: New Minds for a Changing World. Science Education. 82(3):407-416.
Institute of Ocean Sciences. Acoustical Oceanography Research Group. [Online.] Available: { Maienschein, Jane et. al. 1998. Scientific Literacy. Science 281:917. [Online.] Available: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/281/5379/917 [January 2000]. Miller, J.D. 1998. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science 7 :203-223. Miller, J.D. 1983. Scientific Literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus 112: 29-48. NPR Online. Talk of the Nation. Science Kids Friday. June 26, 1998. [Online.] Available: {http://web.archive.org/web/20111115102843/http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/1998/Jun/hour2_062698.html} [January 2000]. Pool, Robert. 1991. Science Literacy: The Enemy is Us. Science 251:241-348. Raymo, Chet. 1998. Scientific literacy or scientific awareness? American Journal of Physics 66(9): 752. Sapp, George. 1991. Science Literacy through Popularization: Problems and Potential. Science and Technology Libraries 12(2):43-57. Scripps Institution of Oceanography. ATOC. Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) [Online.] Available: {http://atocdb.ucsd.edu/} [January 2000]. Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Strait of Gibraltar Acoustic Monitoring Experiment. [Online.] Available: {http://atocdb.ucsd.edu/gibraltar/} [January 2000]. Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Research Groups and Institutes. [Online.] Available: {http://www.sio.ucsd.edu/res_groups/} [January 2000]. Shapiro, Jeremy J. and Shelly K. Hughes. 1996. Information Literacy as a Liberal Art: Enlightenment proposals for a new curriculum. Educom Review 31(2). [Online.] Available: {http://net.educause.edu/apps/er/review/reviewArticles/31231.html} [January 2000]. Shen, Benjamin S.P. 1975. Science Literacy and the Public Understanding of Science. In: Communication of Scientific Information (ed. by Stacy B. Day), pp 44-52. (Karger, Basel). Trefil, James. 1996. Scientific Literacy. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 775:543-550. Women's Studies Program, and The Center for Science Education, Portland State University. Gender and Science: A Two Way Street. [Online.] Available: {http://horizons.sb2.pdx.edu/~fem-sci-lit/} [January 2000]. We welcome your comments about this article.