Evidence Summary
Students Think Science Literacy is Important and
Improves with Lifelong Learning
A Review of:
Holden, I. I. (2010) Science literacy and lifelong learning in
the classroom: A measure of attitudes among university students. Journal
of Library Administration, 50:3, 265-282.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01930821003635002
Reviewed by:
Heather MacDonald
Health and Biosciences Librarian
MacOdrum Library
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Email: heather.macdonald@carleton.ca
Received: 16 Feb. 2021 Accepted: 22 Mar. 2021
2021 MacDonald. This is an Open Access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip29926
Abstract
Objective – Investigate
student attitudes to science literacy and lifelong learning as outlined in
Standard Five of the Information Literacy Standards for Science and
Engineering/Technology (ILSTE): The information literate student understands
that information literacy is an ongoing process and an important component of
lifelong learning and recognizes the need to keep current regarding new
developments in his or her field (2006).
Design – Survey.
Setting – A large
public American R1 university.
Subjects – Undergraduate
students in two classes: Information Literacy in the Sciences (Science group)
and Information Literacy (Non-Science group).
Methods – A 13
question survey was administered to students by a colleague of the author. Three categories of questions were asked:
students' perceptions of the important of science literacy, students'
assessment of their own science literacy skills and students' perceptions of
lifelong learning in relation to Standard Five.
Conclusion – Students
think science literacy is an important part of being a responsible citizen.
They also believe being a life-long learner improves science literacy.
Commentary
This research article was written in 2010. Since that time the ACRL Framework for
Information Literacy in Higher Education (ACRL Framework, 2016) was established. There has been an explosion in new and
emerging communication application technologies. In addition, a considerable body of
literature has been published on science literacy in the intervening years.
This commentary uses the CAT critical appraisal tool
(Perryman & Rathbun-Grubb, 2014). The author, as an information literacy
instructor, has demonstrated expertise in the field. The objective and the rationale for the study
were clearly outlined and the literature review provided definitions and background
for science literacy, lifelong learning, and Standard Five of the ILSTE
(2006). The author stated that it was
mostly science librarians who were bringing attention to science literacy. In the intervening years, education
researchers and scientists in various disciplines have also published on the
topic of science literacy as evidenced by a quick search in the Scopus
database. This demonstrates an ongoing
interest in the topic.
Overall this was a very well conducted study. To address the research question, the author
chose a survey design. She received
ethics approval and had a colleague administer the survey and send letters of
consent to study participants, and only received the responses post grading. The survey questions were provided in the
results section of the article.
In the results, the author provided clear graphic,
tabular, and narrative summaries for the various questions. Figure 5 compared
student literacy before college and at present. It would have been interesting
to see the population broken down by Science and Non-Science students, similar
to the first four figures. Question 7
asked, “Studies at the university have helped me to increase my level of
science literacy,” with potential answers ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. Although this question
confirmed that students’ self-perceived science literacy improved since being
at university it did not specifically ask about the impact of the IL
course. A question getting at the impact
of the IL session itself could have been useful. Overall the survey questions
and the results helped provide a clear picture of students’ views. The author
also addressed the study’s limitations acknowledging the small sample size and
the reliance on self-assessment.
The author did an excellent job of making the
connection between lifelong learning and science literacy. It is clear from the
survey results that the students also saw this connection. In the conclusion
the author asks why the general standards for information literacy do not
include the same standard. Lifelong
learning is now incorporated in the ACRL Framework.
The Framework recognizes lifelong learning through the
ongoing development of skills and knowledge as learners progress from novice to
expert. The author was prescient in
asking the question in 2010. This study
remains relevant today. Recent articles
(Reed, Hiles & Tipton, 2019; Sharon & Baram-Tsabari, 2020; Vraga, Tully
& Bode, 2020) propose better information and science literacy skills can
help combat misinformation. For science
literacy instructors, these studies point to the need to make explicit the
connection between lifelong learning, information literacy, and science
literacy to help prepare their students to engage with the world. This study also provides an excellent example
of how to conduct research with student participants.
References
American Library Association, Association of College and Research
Libraries, and Science and Technology Section’s Task Force on Information
Literacy for Science and Technology. (2006). Information literacy competency
standards for science and engineering/technology. American Library
Association. http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/infolitscitech.cfm
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2016).
Framework for information literacy for higher education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
Perryman, C. & Rathbun-Grubb, S. (2014). The CAT: A
generic critical appraisal tool. In JotForm
– Form Builder. http://www.jotform.us/cp1757/TheCat
Reed, K., Hiles, S. S., & Tipton, P.
(2019). Sense and nonsense: Teaching journalism and science students to be advocates
for science and information literacy. Journalism and Mass Communication
Educator, 74(2), 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695819834415
Sharon, A. J., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2020).
Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life?
Science Education, 104(5), 873–894. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21581
Vraga, E. K., Tully,
M., & Bode, L. (2020). Empowering users to respond to misinformation about Covid-19.
Media and Communication, 8(2), 475–479. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.3200