This article was downloaded by:[Weizmann Institute of Science]On: 9 July 2008Access Details: [subscription number 791803091]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283

The importance of involving high-school chemistryteachers in the process of defining the operationalmeaning of 'chemical literacy'Yael Shwartz a; Ruth Ben-Zvi a; Avi Hofstein aa Department of Science Teaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot,Israel

Online Publication Date: 25 February 2005

To cite this Article: Shwartz, Yael, Ben-Zvi, Ruth and Hofstein, Avi (2005) 'Theimportance of involving high-school chemistry teachers in the process of defining

the operational meaning of 'chemical literacy'', International Journal of Science Education, 27:3, 323 — 344

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/0950069042000266191URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000266191

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 25 FEBRUARY 2005, VOL. 27, NO. 3, 323–344

International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950–0693 print/ISSN 1464–5289 online ©2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/0950069042000266191

RESEARCH REPORT

The importance of involving high-school chemistry teachers in the process of defining the operational meaning of ‘chemical literacy’

Yael Shwartz, Ruth Ben-Zvi, and Avi Hofstein; e-mail: Avi.Hofstein@weizmann.ac.il; Department of Science Teaching, The Weizmann Institute ofScience, Rehovot, 76100 Israel

Taylor and Francis LtdTSED100780.sgm10.1080/0950069042000266191International Journal of Science Education0000-0000 (print)/0000-0000 (online)Original Article2004Taylor & Francis Ltd00000000002004Professor AviHofsteinChemistry groupWeizmann Institute of Science76100RehovotIsraelavi.hofstein@weizmann.ac.ilThe ongoing reform in science education in many countries, including Israel, has attainment of scientific literacyfor all as one of its main goals. In this context, it is important to provide teachers with the opportunity toconstruct meaning for the term science literacy and by doing so to obtain a clear understanding of the new teach-ing goals. Here we report on a study in which teachers, as part of their professional development, were involvedin defining the term ‘chemical literacy’; they discussed the need for it, and suggested educational experiencesthat are necessary in order to attain it. The programme was conducted as part of a reform in the content, as wellas in the pedagogy, of chemistry education in Israel. The collected data provide some insights regarding theprocess by which the teachers’ perception of ‘chemical literacy’ developed and the way actual school practiceinfluences teachers’ perception of ‘chemical literacy’.

Background

Scientific literacy

Science literacy is a well-known, yet controversial term. It usually refers to specificknowledge, abilities, and values shared by the general public (Bybee 1997). However,it is important to keep in mind that ‘the public’ is not a homogeneous entity (Jenkins1999, Laugsksch 2000, Miller 1983). There is also another fundamental issueregarding the justifications for science literacy—is it for the benefit of individuals orfor the benefit of society? In this context, Prewitt (1983) distinguishes between a levelof personal science understanding (such as a farmer’s understanding of winds, rainand storm, insects, seeds, and soil) and science understanding that enables citizensto be involved in public decisions. These differences lead to dissimilar views regardingthe definition itself. The common dimensions usually associated with science literacyare: (a) understanding the nature of science—norms and methods of science, andthe nature of scientific knowledge; (b) understanding the key scientific concepts,principles, and theories (science content knowledge); (c) understanding how scienceand technology actually work together; (d) appreciating and understanding theimpact of science and technology on society; (e) communication competencies inscientific contexts—the ability to read, write, and understand systemized humanknowledge; and (f) applying some scientific knowledge and reasoning skills to dailylife (Agin 1974, Branscomb 1981, Miller 1983, Pella et al. 1966, Thomas and Durant

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

324 Y. SHWARTZ ET AL.

1987). The exact content and depth of each dimension and the desirable balancebetween knowledge, skills, and dispositions are constant barriers in forming a consen-sus (Champagne and Lovits 1989).

In spite of the differing opinions, the attainment of scientific literacy for allstudents is the main goal of the current reform in science teaching (American Asso-ciation for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] 1993, Millar and Osborne 1998,Ministry of Education for Israel 1992, National Research Council [NRC] 1996,Science Council of Canada 1984, UNESCO 1983). Critics of the reform claim thatefforts to achieve real or true science literacy by teaching high-school science are notrealistic. Jenkins (2000) claims that school science has little to do with effective func-tioning of adult citizens. Shamos (1995) refers to science literacy as a myth, claimingthat it is naive to think that students can learn to think like scientists; that socialissues interest most students, but have very little science associated with them, orthe science is too complex for students to cope with; and that empowering citizensto possess independent judgment of social-scientific issues is impractical. Therefore,he suggests ‘science appreciation’ and ‘science awareness’ as less ambitious goals.The efforts to set national standards in the US were also criticized:

The all-inclusive nature of these definitions has led some to conclude that the object ofreform is too vague and too imprecise. (DeBoer 2000: 594)

All recent educational initiatives have tried to establish a wide and multidimensionalmodel of science literacy. Most of these declare that science literacy is essential tothe well-being of society, as well as to the ability of individuals to function in thetwenty-first-century science and technology-dominated world. Therefore, a balancebetween different emphases is suggested (Roberts 1988), as well as sets of standardsand benchmarks for knowledge, skills, and ways of thinking that characterize ascientifically literate high-school graduate (AAAS 1993, NRC 1996).

School teachers are usually not aware or knowledgeable of the diversity ofperceptions, since reform goals are usually presented to them as actual facts. The in-service programme for chemistry teachers, which is presented here, introduced vari-ous views regarding science literacy and the current reform as background beforeattempting to define ‘chemical literacy’.

High-school chemistry and science literacy

School science education has been traditionally in line with academic science, withthe aim of facilitating the pre-professional basis of knowledge; the content of sciencecourses has been dominated by academia (Fensham 1992, 1993, Jenkins 2000,Koballa 1984, Menis et al. 1999, Yager 1992). The traditional format of coursesthus provided for the needs of only that small sample of students, who would even-tually embark on a scientific career. In the past 20 years, the science–technology–society movement has suggested that the social, technological, ethical, and personalaspects be assimilated into school science courses, in order to promote science liter-acy for the general public. In some cases this resulted in general science courses forthose students whose goal was not to specialize in science (Biological ScienceCurriculum Study [BSCS] 2000, De Vos and Reiding 1999, Millar and Hunt 2002,Ministry of Education for Israel 1992). In other cases, the structure of the disciplin-ary science courses was preserved, but re-designing the curriculum for generaleducation purposes took place (De Vos et al. 2002). Chemistry education around

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

INVOLVING TEACHERS IN DEFINING ‘CHEMICAL LITERACY’ 325

the world clearly demonstrates this trend: Westbroek et al. (2001) suggestconstructing an A-level chemistry course based on a philosophy that emphasizeschemistry as a human activity; a pedagogy based on situated learning, and a substan-tial structure that offers a chemical toolbox (concepts, skills, and attitudes) thatwould help students cope with complex social and scientific problems. The mostpopular approach that characterizes the changes in chemistry courses is the context-based approach. Conceptualized chemistry underscores the relevance of chemicalprinciples in everyday life, in industry, in technological applications, and with envi-ronmental issues (Bennet and Holman 2002). Some examples of conceptualizedchemistry curriculum are ‘Industrial Chemistry Case-studies’ in Israel (Kesner et al.1997), ‘Chemistry: The Salters Approach’ in England (Lazonby et al. 1992).‘Chimie in Context’ in Germany (Parchmann et al. 2003), and ‘Chemistry inContext’ in the US (Schwartz et al. 1994). Other approaches emphasize historicaland philosophical issues that aim at understanding the nature of science and thedevelopment of critical thinking skills among students (Erduran 2000, Wanderseeand Griffard 2002). What all these curricular initiatives have in common is the effortto introduce chemistry to the general public in such a way that it would be both moreinteresting and more beneficial to all.

In addition, specific efforts were made to define biological literacy (BSCS 1993)and chemical literacy. Holman (2002) suggested a definition of chemical literacythat consists of understanding key chemical ideas, a notion of what chemists do,essential skills, and chemical contexts. This definition is part of an alternative modelbeing developed and is trailed for the next curriculum revision in England (twenty-first-century science). The definition refers to key stage 4 in the national curriculum,aimed at 14-year-old to 16-year-old students.

Reforming chemistry education in Israel

In Israel, the reform efforts involved the nomination of a special committee by theMinistry of Education for Israel (1992)—‘Tomorrow 98’. The committee recom-mended that all high-school students (ages 15 years and older) should learn sciencein their first year of high school (10th grade) in disciplinary science (three basiccourses physics, biology, and chemistry, each for 3-weekly periods), or eight periodsa week of an interdisciplinary ‘science for all’ programme. The second option wasoriginally aimed at those who opted not to specialize in the disciplinary sciences. Inpractice, this latter programme is not available in most high schools, while moststudents (about 80%) who take the basic disciplinary courses do not continue withtheir study of chemistry.

This situation has challenged the chemistry education community to re-thinkthe goals for the basic course and to make a shift from a preparatory emphasis to ascientific and chemical literacy emphasis. This is important since surveys conductedshowed that the majority of students taking the advanced chemistry course eventu-ally do not embark on a career in chemistry. Therefore, emphasis on preparation fora future career is not so important in terms of high-school chemistry, and especiallynot at the basic level. Reforming the basic chemistry course took place in severalways simultaneously: A new syllabus for the basic chemistry course was published(Ministry of Education for Israel 2000); new textbooks and learning materials werein the process of being written and developed; and an in-service professional devel-opment programme was produced. The latter is the subject of the current study.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

326 Y. SHWARTZ ET AL.

Rationale and goals of the study

In recent years special attention has been given to the preparation and involvementof teachers in the process of reform. The need to support teachers during changeprocesses and to enhance their professional development has become one of themain concerns of policy-makers and the educational community (AAAS 2003,Hofstein et al. 2003, Loucks-Horsely et al. 1996, National Science Teachers Asso-ciation 2003, Tobin [NSTA] et al. 1994). There are many ways and models ofdesigning pre-service and in-service professional development programmes forteachers (Loucks-Horsely et al. 1998). This study presents an in-service programmethat involved chemistry teachers in the process of developing a theoretical definitionof ‘chemical literacy’ as well as in suggesting practical strategies that encourage theattainment of ‘chemical literacy’ (Shwartz 2004).

As teachers would have to support the development of ‘chemical literacy’, itseemed important to provide them with the opportunity to construct meaning to theterm scientific and chemical literacy, and by doing so to get a clear notion of the newteaching goals, as set by the policy reform.

The programme aimed at identifying teachers’ perceptions of ‘chemical liter-acy’, and the relationships between these perceptions and their actual practice in theclassroom. The programme attempted to challenge the situation described bySutman as follows:

…Scientific or science literacy raises issues that continue to be of concern to most scienceeducators and some scientists. Unfortunately, too few school-level teachers of science havethe time or are provided with the opportunity to engage in the reflective thought related tothe underlying meaning of what it is they actually do in the context of teaching science.(1996: 459)

Based on the literature regarding teachers’ beliefs and practice, the following wasassumed:

1. Teachers’ beliefs, views, and perceptions have a great influence on theirpractice, and therefore on the success of any change in the educationalsystems (Bell 1998, Eisenhart et al. 1988, Pajares 1992).

2. Teachers are likely to make a change when they become dissatisfied, for somereason, with their practice (Feldman 2000, Fullan 1993). The programmewas aimed at challenging teachers’ beliefs regarding their goals for teachingthe basic chemistry course, in order to create some dissatisfaction.

3. The teachers’ activities should involve pedagogical aspects (Shkedi 1996,Shulman 1986), which would therefore make reform policy more easilytranslated into operational terms.

Thus, the current study tried to address the following questions:

● What are teachers’ ideas regarding ‘chemical literacy’?● How can these ideas be explained in light of their actual practice?

Workshop design and operation

A one-year workshop was designed using the strategy suggested by Loucks-Horselyet al. as a study group.

Study groups offer teachers the opportunity to get together to address issues of teaching andlearning … study groups provide a forum in which teachers can inquire and ask questions

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

INVOLVING TEACHERS IN DEFINING ‘CHEMICAL LITERACY’ 327

that matter to them, over a period of time, and in a collaborative and supportive environ-ment. (Loucks-Horsely et al. 1998: 113–114)

The workshop took place during the academic year 2001 and consisted of 15experienced high-school teachers who met for one day every second week (a total of112 hours).

The objectives of the workshop were as follows.

● To provide the participating teachers with the opportunity to construct theirown meaning of the terms ‘scientific literacy for all’ and ‘chemical literacy forall’. Imparting meaning to these vague concepts needs time and the opportu-nity for constant reflection (Eylon and Bagno 1997). These conditions wereprovided in a long-term constructivist workshop.

● To provide the participating teachers with the opportunity to develop practi-cal meanings to theoretical ideas regarding ‘chemical literacy’.

● To analyse the contribution of various classroom activities in promotingstudents’ ‘chemical literacy’.

The rationale for linking the theoretical understanding regarding ‘chemical literacyto pedagogical aspects is provided by Champagne and Lovitz (1989). They mappedthree main categories in which elements of scientific literacy can be placed, asdescribed in figure 1. The workshop activities tried to relate to all aspects of thesebroad categories.Figure 1. A conceptual framework for science literacy ideology. Adapted from Champagne and Lovitz (1989).The issues and questions that were discussed in the workshop are presented intable 1.

Figure 1. A conceptual framework for science literacy ideology. Adapted from Champagne and Lovitz (1989).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

328 Y. SHWARTZ ET AL.

The workshop participants and tutors

Discussing scientific and chemical literacy requires a broad and rich perspective.Therefore, all 15 teachers who were invited to join the workshop had to meetspecific criteria, namely a minimum of 5 years experience in teaching chemistry,knowledge of chemistry, and a commitment for a long-term professional develop-ment process.

The workshop for chemistry teachers was coordinated by three tutors, allmembers of the chemistry group in the Science Teaching Department of the Weiz-mann Institute. All tutors had experience in teaching chemistry in high school, eachspecializing in different fields, such as science literacy, development of learningmaterials, leadership, and the professional development of teachers.

The tutors planned the activities for three or four meetings at a time. After everymeeting they discussed and analysed the current developments, and if necessarychanged future activities, in order to address the specific needs of the group. Duringthe workshop’s discussions, one of the tutors usually led the discussion, and anotherdocumented it. When working in small groups (four or five teachers), each tutoraccompanied one group.

The workshop activities

The participants’ role in the various activities can be divided into three categories:(1) teachers as learners, (2) teachers as researchers, and (3) teachers as practitionersin their own classrooms. This view provided the participants with a multi-dimen-sional approach in order to facilitate an authentic constructivist process. In thefollowing we present the different roles of the participating teachers.

Teachers as learners

In order to broaden perspectives, the workshop tried to enrich teachers’ knowledgeregarding various topics. For example, the teachers were provided with opportuni-ties to enhance their knowledge regarding the problematic nature of science literacy.They reviewed the relevant literature, listened to lectures on various issues, posed

Table 1. Key issues discussed at the workshop

Number Item

1 Should we teach science to all high-school students? Why?2 Should we teach chemistry to all high-school students? Why?3 What are the main goals and strategies of the ongoing reform in science teaching?4 What are the main concepts in chemistry?5 What is the importance of the language of chemistry to ‘chemical literacy’?6 What skills should a literate person use in a chemical context?7 How can chemistry studies enhance general scientific literacy? What should be

emphasized?8 Is the public’s image of chemistry part of ‘chemical literacy’?9 How can ‘chemical literacy’ be assessed?

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

INVOLVING TEACHERS IN DEFINING ‘CHEMICAL LITERACY’ 329

contrasting opinions, and discussed the goals for teaching science in high school ingeneral, and chemistry in particular.

New science and chemistry curricula were introduced to the teachers and werediscussed in terms of the ‘chemical literacy’ components. The teachers reviewed thenew science curricula for junior high in Israel (Ministry of Education for Israel1996), Salters’ Chemistry (both for O-level and A-level) in England (Lazonby et al.1992), and drafts of the new materials for the basic chemistry course (10th grade),which were recently developed in Israel (Mamlok-Naaman et al. 2002, Zeltner et al.2002).

The teachers’ knowledge of chemistry was enriched, especially in the area ofinnovative issues in chemistry. For example, they listened to lectures concerningquantum mechanics, scanning tunnelling microscopy technology and its applica-tions for teaching, and also visited a scanning tunnelling microscopy laboratory.

Some aspects of the nature of science were introduced in a series of lectures,followed by discussions: the development of the atomic theory from Dalton to Bohr;what a chemically literate person should know regarding quantum theory; what thevalue of such knowledge is, and how ‘wrong’ paradigms, such as a non-mechanisticapproach to chemistry, promoted the development of the discipline. Also, the placeof serendipity—Pasteur’s discovery and its importance to stereochemistry; andfinally, what can be learned from a popular story for the kindergarten level regardingscientific inquiry (Shalev 1993).

Different pedagogical approaches were introduced and discussed; for example,teaching in context, the history and nature of chemistry as a way of developing anunderstanding of the nature of science, and students’ inquiry approaches.

In addition, the teachers were exposed to basic qualitative research andmethodologies, in order to perform those activities requiring qualitative inquiryskills.

Teachers as researchers

Each subject was introduced as an open question, a dilemma: for example, Shouldwe teach chemistry to all students and why? What is the importance of chemicallanguage to literacy? No clear answers were given by the tutors—the teachersdiscussed, analysed, and constructed their own opinions.

The teachers conducted qualitative mini-studies regarding two main issues. Thefirst was the need to establish a broad, external framework to support the needs of‘chemical literacy’ for the public. In order to establish such a framework, each of theparticipating teachers interviewed colleagues who teach non-scientific disciplines,and people whose profession requires chemical knowledge (e.g. a dietician, a physi-cian, a hairdresser, and an electrician). The impact of these interviews will bediscussed in the results section.

The second piece of mini-research tried to detect the impact and contributionof chemistry studies, as students perceive it. In this case, the teachers decided on aresearch issue, selected the appropriate methodology and research tools (interview,questionnaire, etc.), conducted the inquiry, analysed the results, and presented theprocess of inquiry and results to their colleagues in the workshop.

In order to define and assess the ‘chemical literacy’ components in existingcurricula, each participant analysed at least one of a given set of documents: ascience syllabus for junior high school, a chemistry syllabus for high school, a

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

330 Y. SHWARTZ ET AL.

relevant article, the new chemistry programme for the 10th grade, and the chemistrymatriculation examination. The documents were analysed according to specificcriteria. In some cases the categorization and analysis consisted of collaborativework in small groups (four or five people), and in some cases it was conducted byindividuals.

Teachers as practitioners in their classroom

Although the workshop had an academic and theoretical emphasis, the actual prac-tice was not overlooked. Part of the teachers’ motivation to participate in such aprogramme is its immediate application to the classroom (Ben-Peretz 1994). Thus,whenever possible, a practical product useful for classroom practice was prepared.For example, newspapers articles were adapted to 10th grade guided reading. Theteachers read an article, analysed the ‘chemical literacy’ components represented init, composed questions for the students, and discussed the way ‘critical reading’ canbe developed during such an activity.

The final project of the workshop was to design an instructional unit (10–15hours), collaboratively. The participants worked in small groups of three or fourteachers. The selected subject, chemical content, and teaching strategies had to bebased on the dimensions of ‘chemical literacy’, as perceived by the participants.

Methodology

Collection of data

The data collection involved the use of numerous sources; and thus had the poten-tial to increase the reliability of emerging assertions. Quantitative aspects wereprovided by administering a few questionnaires during the workshop. The question-naires were used mainly to measure the participants’ agreement regarding ideas thatwere suggested during discussions. The results emerging from these questionnaireshelped to form the ‘chemical literacy’ definition.

Collecting qualitative data consisted of careful and comprehensive documenta-tion of all workshop activities. Three types of qualitative data were collected.

(1) Formal documentation, namely the workshop schedule and syllabus, papersgiven to the participants, and written summaries of each of the meetings. (2) Allworkshop discussions were documented; some by writing the protocol, and some byaudio-recording. (3) All the materials written and presented by the participants werecollected, including homework, research reports, and notes that were taken by theparticipants.

Analysis of qualitative data

The qualitative data—namely, protocols, homework, research reports, notes writtenby the participants, and their reports on the collaborative work—were considered‘messy’ data (Chi 1997). Making sense of all the collected raw data was doneaccording to the grounded theory methodology (Strauss and Corbin 1994). Thisprocedure included several steps, as recommended by Shkedi (2003):

1. Segmenting each document into units, and categorizing every unit by itscontent. Primary categories emerged from the collected data.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

INVOLVING TEACHERS IN DEFINING ‘CHEMICAL LITERACY’ 331

2. Developing more general domains, such as ‘ideas concerning chemicalliteracy’, ‘teaching goals’, ‘teaching strategies’, and ‘teachers’ difficulties’.

3. Mapping all documents according to the chosen domains.4. Looking for the foci: reorganization of the data according to the chosen

domains.5. Proposing assertions based on the accumulated data, which will hopefully

contribute to a better understanding of teachers’ perceptions.

After analysing all the transcripts and protocols of the discussions, as well as thecollected materials, an edited and detailed version of the definition of ‘chemical liter-acy’ was sent to all the participants, who were asked to express their agreement ordisagreement, and to provide comments regarding its content. This step was takenin order to assure that the formal document defining ‘chemical literacy’ actuallyreflects the participants’ perception of it.

Results and discussion: development of teachers’ perceptions of ‘chemical literacy’

The data analysis provided us with evidence supporting the existence of a develop-ment process regarding the teachers’ perception of ‘chemical literacy’. Analysing therhetoric of their discussions clearly reveals a change, from confused and non-coher-ent ideas, to a mid-stage more focused on ‘chemical knowledge’, and finally state-ments that provide a perception of a literate person, which goes beyond chemicalknowledge per se (see figure 2).Figure 2. Development of the teachers’ perception of ‘chemical literacy’.At the beginning, the teachers were not sure about the target population. Arechemically literate persons only experts in chemistry (and which level of chemicaleducation makes a person an expert?) or is ‘chemical literacy’ part of every person’sscientific literacy? (We generally referred to high-school graduates as every person.)Once they decided on the latter, they naturally focused on the core chemical ideas,which they perceived as important for ‘chemical literacy’. The discussion regardingthe core knowledge involved the question: Why should a person know a specificidea? The answer to this question usually involved personal or social needs. Duringthis phase each teacher interviewed a person whose profession requires chemicalknowledge (e.g. a dietician, a physician, a hairdresser, and an electrician.). Thesepeople were asked what are the most important elements of ‘chemical literacy’ thatare needed for every citizen, in order to communicate with them, in the context oftheir profession. Each of the respondents mentioned specific knowledge. For exam-ple, the dietician mentioned ‘knowing what proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and calo-ries, are’, whereas the electrician mentioned ‘understanding what is conductivity,isolating and conductive materials, and the mechanism that causes fires due to anelectrical failure’. In trying to bridge between many specific concepts, the participat-ing teachers concluded that ‘covering topics’ would never be enough in order toattain ‘chemical literacy’. Therefore, they ended up with a general understanding ofideas such as ‘chemistry explains phenomena in terms of the microscopic structureof matter’.

Some activities triggered the move toward a broader perception of chemicalliteracy. One of them was interviewing a colleague from school, teaching a non-scientific discipline, regarding the contribution of science studies in general, and

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

332 Y. SHWARTZ ET AL.

chemistry’s contribution in particular, to non-science-oriented students. Thoseteachers who taught non-scientific disciplines mentioned cognitive skills, rationalthinking, and interest, but hardly referred to scientific content knowledge. The factthat their teacher colleagues did not mention content knowledge as part of thecontribution of the science studies brought other aspects into the discussion, asshown in figure 2. The participating teachers came to the conclusion that knowledgeof chemistry itself is not sufficient as the only parameter defining ‘chemical literacy’.Other dimensions, such as interest, the ability to find knowledge, and learning skills,emerged as characteristics of a literate person.

Figure 2. Development of the teachers’ perception of ‘chemical literacy’.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

INVOLVING TEACHERS IN DEFINING ‘CHEMICAL LITERACY’ 333

The ‘chemical literacy’ definition as a call for a change in practice

As a result of the workshop, the definition of ‘chemical literacy’ now consists of fourdimensions: understanding chemical ideas, contextual aspects, cognitive aspects,and affective aspects (Shwartz 2004), as detailed in table 2.

We compared the teachers’ definition of ‘chemical literacy’ with the definitionsuggested by Holman (2002). The comparison revealed that there are differences inphrasing, but there is a lot in common regarding the essence of both definitions.Regarding chemical ideas, both present the key chemical ideas: ‘chemistry explainsmacroscopic properties in terms of the architecture of matter’ and ‘chemical changes’(dynamics). Some fundamental features presented in Holman’s definition such as‘everything is made of chemical substances’ appear in the teachers’ definition in the

Table 2. A definition of ‘chemical literacy’

A chemically literate person understands the main ideas in chemistry.

General scientific ideasChemistry is an experimental discipline. Chemists conduct scientific inquiries, make generalizations, and suggest theories to explain the natural worldChemistry provides knowledge used to explain phenomena in other areas, such as earth sciences and life sciences

Characteristics of ChemistryChemistry tries to explain macroscopic phenomena in terms of the microscopic structure of matterChemistry investigates the dynamics of processes and reactionsChemistry investigates the energy changes during a chemical reactionChemistry aims at understanding and explaining life in terms of chemical structures and the chemical processes of living systemsChemists use a specific language. A literate person does not have to use this language, but should appreciate its contribution to the development of the discipline

Chemistry in contextThe second dimension of ‘chemical literacy’ is the ability to see the relevance and usability of chemistry in many related contextsA chemically literate person acknowledges the importance of chemical knowledge in explaining everyday phenomenaA chemically literate person uses his/her understanding of chemistry in his daily life, as a consumer of new products and new technologies, in decision-making, and in participating in a social debate regarding chemistry-related issuesChemistry has a strong applicative aspect. A chemically literate person understands the relations between innovations in chemistry and sociological and cultural processes (the importance of applications such as medicines, fertilizers, and polymers)

High-order learning skillsA chemically literate person is able to raise a question, and look for information and relate to it, when needed. He/she can analyse the loss/benefit in any debate. (A list of skills and the appropriate chemical context is given in the full document of defining ‘chemical literacy’)

Affective aspectsA chemically literate person has impartial and realistic view of chemistry and its applications. Moreover, he/she expresses interest in chemical issues, especially in non-formal frameworks (such as a television programme and a consumer debate)

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

334 Y. SHWARTZ ET AL.

subtext of the main idea regarding the architecture of matter. Holman’s definitionlinks chemistry to living systems: ‘Everything is made up of building blocks … every-thing around you, including yourself …’ (2002: 13). In the Israeli teachers’ definitionthere is also a reference to this aspect. Both definitions suggest that understandingthe experimental nature of chemistry is important (i.e. ‘What chemists do’ inHolman’s suggestion) and chemical contexts are important features of ‘chemicalliteracy’. The authors of the English definition also referred to the problem of thechemical language, and agreed to ‘use language that would be meaningful to studentsand lay people’. The fact that other countries, with similar problems, came out witha similar approach actually reinforces the teachers’ suggestions.

The definition suggested by the teachers covers some particular curricularemphases, as suggested by Roberts (1988): the ‘chemical ideas’ dimension reflectsthe ‘structure of science’, and the ‘correct explanation’ emphasis; the ‘context’dimension reflects the ‘everyday coping’, and the ‘science, technology, and decision’emphasis; whereas the ‘high-order learning skills’ dimension reflects the ‘scientificskills development’ emphasis. The question is whether the alignment with Roberts’curricular emphases, which are well documented, reduces the importance of theteachers’ definition of ‘chemical literacy’. Not necessarily—the answer should begiven in terms of their actual practice, and the conceptual shift from that practice,as reflected in the definition. The ‘chemical literacy’ definition, produced by theteachers, is actually an educational document. It is a call to design the basic chem-istry course in such a way that it will encourage the attainment of scientific andchemical literacy for all students taking the course. A comparison of the ‘chemicalliteracy’ definition with the contents of the current basic chemistry course reveals theteachers’ deep dissatisfaction with the current situation, as will be described in thenext section.

In order to understand the difference between the teachers’ definition of‘chemical literacy’ and their actual practice, we feel that it is important to describethe current syllabus used for the basic chemistry course. This can be best describedin Roberts’ terms of ‘the solid foundation emphasis’. Its content and structure areactually a preparation for those students who choose to enrol in the advancedchemistry course. The emphasis in the basic course is on classification of materialsby their structure. The main subjects are elements and compounds, metallic, ionic,covalent and molecular structures, and their properties. There are also numerousexercises regarding elements of the language of chemistry. The aspect of dynamicsis represented by the fact that chemical reactions do occur (and some of them suchas electrolysis and combustion are presented), but other aspects of reactions suchas the mechanism, energy changes, energy of activation, equilibrium, or explana-tions regarding the spontaneity of reactions are not included. Those aspects, aswell as applicative aspects of chemical knowledge, are discussed only in theadvanced chemistry course. In the basic chemistry course, the relevance of chemi-cal knowledge was left to the end of the chapter; not all teachers discussed it withtheir students, and it is not at all an integral part of the formal syllabus of the basiccourse. The emphasis was on knowing facts, and not on developing students’skills.

The participating teachers concluded that the content and structure of thebasic chemistry course does not contribute meaningfully to those students whochoose not to specialize in chemistry in the future (which are about 80% of thestudents that actually take the basic chemistry course). These students are left with

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

INVOLVING TEACHERS IN DEFINING ‘CHEMICAL LITERACY’ 335

a relatively narrow understanding of what chemistry is all about. Table 3 comparesthe emphases of the current chemistry syllabus with those suggested by the partici-pating teachers in their ‘chemical literacy’ definition.

Recommendations resulting from the workshop

The main recommendations of the participating teachers will be presented anddiscussed, in light of their actual practice in the classroom and as a result of theirparticipation in the various activities provided in the workshop. The definition of‘chemical literacy’ provides the theoretical component (see table 2), whereas thepedagogical suggestions refer to the practical meaning of the definition concerninghigh-school chemistry teaching. Regarding this aspect, the research exemplifies howteachers naturally combine theoretical and pedagogical knowledge (Shkedi 1996,Shulman 1986).

Recommendation 1: providing a wide range of chemical ideas. The inclusion of ‘acqua-intance with various chemical ideas’ in the ‘chemical literacy’ definition actuallyrepresents a desire to include these ideas (see table 2) in the content of the basicchemistry course, and not to focus on the structure of matter exclusively, whichprovides the students with a relatively narrow scope of chemistry. The teachers’recommendation was to introduce a variety of ideas and concepts. For example, thefact that chemical reactions involving energy changes are introduced only at the

Table 3. Comparing the current syllabus with the suggested ‘chemical literacy’ definition

Current emphasis in the syllabus of the basic chemistry course

Emphasis of the ‘chemical literacy’ definition

Purpose Preparatory: to prepare a basis of knowledge for those students who choose to take the advanced chemistry course

Attainment of ‘chemical literacy’ mainly for those not choosing chemistry in the future

Content Mainly the structure and properties of matter

Introducing various chemical ideas

The domination of the chemical language is an important part of the course’s emphasis

An appreciation of the chemical language is needed, but the domination of specific elements is not

Context of chemical knowledge

Not a formal requirement in the syllabus

An essential part of ‘chemical literacy’

Learning skills development

Not a formal requirement in the syllabus

An essential part of ‘chemical literacy’

Affective aspects No specific reference to them in the present curriculum

An essential part of ‘chemical literacy’

Main emphasis (Roberts’ terminology)

The solid foundation emphasis A variety of emphases should be expressed during the basic course

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

336 Y. SHWARTZ ET AL.

advanced level, followed by different ways of calculating enthalpy changes. Theyconcluded that the basic level course should introduce the aspect of energy changesand its implications (without calculating enthalpy changes, which should be left toadvanced levels). They also suggested introducing the concept ‘energy of activation’in order to enrich students’ understanding of chemical reactions, to allow them toexplain facts such as why fossil fuels do not react with oxygen at room temperatureand why we need to strike the head of a match against a rough surface in order tolight it. Another suggestion was that the basic course should provide the studentswith a wider vocabulary that would be relevant to their functioning as adults. Forexample, they suggested that students should have an idea of what an acid, a protein,or polymers are—concepts that are missing from the current syllabus. Every addi-tional concept added to the basic level of chemistry had to meet at least one of thefollowing criteria: it is common and useful in everybody’s daily life, and it has valuein explaining phenomena.

Recommendation 2: minimizing the domination of chemical language. This was sugg-ested in order to minimize the preparatory character of the basic course, and todiminish the difficulties that many non-science-oriented students have, regardingthe use of chemical symbols and chemical language. It was also suggested thatstudents be provided with symbols and representations, when necessary, and not beasked to produce these elements themselves. This should prevent an overload of theshort-term memory system, and allow students to practice other high-order learningskills. The following quotes demonstrate teachers’ views:

Teachers like to write chemical symbols and equations, but the students usually do notunderstand what they are doing. (Moses and Sharon)

The verbal explanation is much more important than symbols. (Orit)

We should emphasize the fact that the development of an agreed chemical language haspromoted the discipline. (Noga)

Recommendation 3: understanding the nature of science. This aspect is considered animportant component of students’ scientific literacy (AAAS 1993, NRC 1996).However, teachers admitted that they usually neglect it and focus on teaching chem-ical facts, as the following quotes demonstrate.

We do not emphasize the process of how scientific knowledge is actually acquired. If I askmy students what they studied regarding that aspect, their answers would be very gloomy.(Karen)

Understanding the nature of science is not part of the syllabus … and there is no referenceto it in our assessment. (Sharon and Orit)

As a result of the workshop activities and discussions (see the section Teachers aslearners), the teachers composed a draft containing some statements regardingdifferent aspects of the nature of science, aspects that should be part of scientific andchemical literacy, and they suggested pedagogical strategies:

We shouldn’t come to class and say—today we will discuss the nature of science, it shouldbe done throughout the whole process of learning. (Hila)

We suggest reading with the students articles demonstrating the scientific inquiry process,each article emphasizing a different aspect. (Karen and Avi)

Our goal in laboratory work is to encourage our students to ask inquiry questions. (Rachel)

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

INVOLVING TEACHERS IN DEFINING ‘CHEMICAL LITERACY’ 337

Recommendation 4: making chemistry studies more relevant. The contextual and learn-ing skills dimensions were included in the definition of ‘chemical literacy’ in orderto enable a move toward a more ‘student-centered’ approach. These aspects werenot regarded as different strategies for introducing chemical content. The function-ing of the students in future situations and the ability to utilize knowledge are consid-ered as essential characteristics of a literate person. However, the teachers directlyconnected these characteristics to pedagogical practice. They suggested focusing onthe relevance and importance of chemical knowledge to daily life and on developinglearning skills rather than the current emphasis on knowing chemical facts. In thiscontext, the inclusion of affective aspects seemed natural. In order to continue learn-ing independently and to participate in a social debate, a minimal level of interestand a realistic attitude are necessary.

From theory to practice

The ideas presented in the previous section are not new to the science educationcommunity. For the participating teachers, who were unfamiliar with the literatureand were used to introducing applications only at the end of the advanced course(‘after the theoretical knowledge is well established’), it was quite a challengingexperience. Analysing Salters’ Chemistry and a meeting with Professor DavidWaddington (personal communication, 2001), the coordinator of the developmen-tal team, strengthened the teachers’ feeling regarding the usability of such a strategyfor the basic level. As a result, all four instructional units developed by the teachersreflected these ideas: The chosen topics were ‘Driving the car—burning fuels andinfluencing air quality’, ‘Chemistry at home—students’ inquiry unit’, ‘NO—from anair polluting agent to the molecule of the year’, and ‘Water quality—a case study ofthe Kishon river’. These units suggested a totally different approach and differentteaching strategies from the current practice and content of the basic chemistrycourse.

To conclude this section, the process of defining ‘chemical literacy’ involvedseveral phases: confusion, focusing on chemical content and, finally, the addition ofother dimensions that were considered as important to ‘chemical literacy’—namely,context, skills, and affective aspects. It is obvious that constructing an understandingof ‘chemical literacy’ was tightly linked to teachers’ practice. The ‘chemical literacy’definition is intended for the students of the basic course. It is, in fact, a call aimedat curriculum developers and teachers, not ‘to cover’ the subject matter, but to takemore responsibility for the ability of the students to think rationally and critically onchemistry-related issues, especially those who do not intend to continue with theirchemistry studies.

Results and discussion: conceptual and practical barriers for a change

As was previously mentioned, compared with the current practice, the ‘chemicalliteracy’ definition suggests a rather radical change in teachers’ perceptions of thepurpose, content, and strategies of the basic chemistry course. However, it wouldbe naive not to mention the existence of a few elements that can act as barriers fora future change of practice. These barriers can be categorized into two main areas:conceptual barriers and practical barriers. Indications of the existence of such

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

338 Y. SHWARTZ ET AL.

barriers are based on the analysis of the protocols describing the activities of theworkshops.

Conceptual barriers were not shared equally by all the participants. Someexpressed strong internal conflicts, whereas others expressed a more definite atti-tude toward making a radical change. The main conceptual barriers that wereexpressed involved teachers’ beliefs that the goal for teaching the basic chemistrycourse is actually a preparatory one and a concern for the image of the discipline.

Some of the teachers who participated in this study strongly expressed theperception that each level of learning chemistry serves as a preparatory level for thenext one. According to this perception, high-school science curricula are generallydesigned to prepare students for science studies in college and the university, andthe goal of the basic course is to prepare a solid base for those opting to enrol in theadvanced course. These perceptions are reflected in the teachers’ dialogue concern-ing the future learning of their students, not only in the 11th and 12th grades butalso at the tertiary level. For example, several teachers suggested the following.

10th grade chemistry is the basis for further learning. (Karen)

We should give the right tools to those who are interested in further learning. (Rona)

10th grade chemistry should emphasize not only relevance to daily life, but also introducecareer possibilities. (Tali)

We shouldn’t think about the public all the time. We should talk to those who will have achance to make a career … (Shelly)

Our students should examine 1st year syllabi in universities. They would see that biotech-nology, medicine, and other disciplines have a lot to do with chemistry. (Tina)

The second internal conflict pertains to the image of chemistry. Here, there weretwo trends—two of the participants kept claiming that chemistry is a difficult disci-pline, and not everyone is able to cope with it at all. Their comments are as follows.

We should leave chemistry to those who can cope with it. (Sharon)

Chemistry is not for everybody. I don’t agree with that. (Karen)

Most of the participants were convinced that it is possible to introduce chemicalideas in such a way that most high-school graduates can understand them. However,they were concerned about the image of chemistry among students. Teachers’ expe-rience with students, and some of the results of their research in their classroomsrevealed that physics and chemistry are considered difficult topics by most students;therefore, only clever students choose to enrol in the advanced courses of thesesubjects. Teachers were concerned that introducing chemistry in such a way that itwould be accessible and understandable to everyone would damage the prestigiousimage of chemistry as a difficult discipline, as the following quotes demonstrate.

The only disadvantage of that (i.e. teaching chemistry in a way that encourages the literacyof all students) is that we will lose the bright students. Now chemistry is very prestigious; ifwe lose this image, smart students will choose to enrol in physics courses … (Tina)

Yes, I don’t want to make chemistry ‘cheap’. I do have this struggle between teaching it foreveryone’s benefit, or leaving it as an elitist discipline, for which you need some added valuein order to study it. (Tali)

I know that teaching in the context of a general approach with less detail is more ‘literate’and suits most students, but I am afraid it won’t attract strong students to choose chemistry.(Sharon)

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

INVOLVING TEACHERS IN DEFINING ‘CHEMICAL LITERACY’ 339

The fact that teachers’ beliefs influence the success of educational reform is wellknown and documented in the literature (De Jong et al. 1998, Carmi 2002, Davis2003, Hofstein et al. 2003). However, research usually refers to an actual change inthe curriculum that was imposed and suggested to teachers by some external author-ity (i.e. universities or governmental agents). For example, Davis (2003) investigatedthe process of implementing a new science curriculum, decided by the school districtadministration. The curriculum itself was developed by the local state university. Inthe current study, the manifestation of teachers’ beliefs was made in a differentcontext. The workshop provided evidence that, even when dissatisfaction with thecurrent practice exists, and the motivation for a change is expressed, resistant beliefsare also strongly expressed and consequently influenced the teachers’ discourse.

The main practical barrier for changing the emphasis of the basic chemistrycourse is also connected to teachers’ perceptions of the basic course as a preparatorycourse for the more advanced courses. At the end of the advanced course, thestudents are examined by an external and central matriculation examination inchemistry, constructed and administered by the Ministry of Education. However,the teachers’ commitment to their students’ achievements in the final matriculationexamination is so strong that it influences their practice already in the basic chemis-try course. In fact, they start to prepare students for that examination already duringthe basic course (although they are not supposed to do so), and by doing so theyneglect the needs of the other students, those who do not intend to take the exami-nation, as the following quote demonstrates.

The current matriculation format doesn’t allow us to adopt a more literate approach. Thisrequires adjustments in the examination. (Sharon)

We believe that the social importance of the matriculation examination encouragesthis situation. Indeed, school principals, parents, and formal policy-makers from theMinistry of Education refer to the grades in that examination as the only measure ofthe teachers’ success. This barrier can be reduced through systematic structuralchanges, and not only by a professional development process. Such structuralchanges can be disconnect the basic level curriculum from the advanced one, whichis not the case at present, since the 10th grade syllabus is defined as the first unit ofknowledge required for the advanced course. In addition, there is always the possi-bility of adopting a more literate approach regarding the goals and content of theadvanced course, and to have these changes reflected in the topics emphasized in thefinal matriculation examination. Finally, finding an alternative way to measureteachers’ success, rather than just their students’ success in the final examination,could also be helpful. In fact, the following year, the syllabus committee (with onetutor and one teacher from the workshop participating in it), decided to change thesyllabus of the advanced course as well. A draft of the new (and not yet approved)syllabus reveals an emphasis on chemical knowledge in context, and on students’inquiry and reading comprehension abilities. This approach is in alignment with theteachers’ perception of ‘chemical literacy’, and will probably be an important factorin initiating a process of change in high-school chemistry.

Thus, the traditional preparatory goal of the basic course, the perception ofchemistry as a difficult and prestigious discipline, and their commitment for thesuccess of their students in the matriculation examination, are strong elements in theteachers’ perception of high-school chemistry. In fact, these elements preventedthem from fully adopting ‘chemical literacy’ as the main goal for teaching chemistry

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

340 Y. SHWARTZ ET AL.

to all students, although the need for such a change was strongly expressed by thesame teachers.

Indications for a change in practice

Measuring the extent of actual change in teachers’ practice was beyond the aims ofthe current study. However, some indications that the workshop had a long-lastinginfluence were obtained by interviewing two of the participants, Rachel and Tali, atthe end of 2003, 2 years after the workshop was over.

Each of them had replaced the chemistry textbook of the basic course with newand experimental textbooks that utilized a more literate approach than previoustextbooks (Mamlok-Naaman et al. 2002, Viner and Frumer 2002). This step wasaccepted differently in their schools, since the schools differ in their ideology andteaching atmosphere. Rachel works in a regional high school in which developingscientific literacy for all students is an important goal. She reported that changingthe textbook, as well as the teaching strategies (inquiry-based approach, focusing onstudents’ self-learning and on skills development), were readily accepted by hercolleagues. Tali is the head of the chemistry department in a high-achievement-oriented school. She feels that in the past 2 years she had doubts regarding theschool policy. She believes that the students’ achievements in the matriculationexaminations are not the only important parameter in teaching. Tali was remindedof things she said during one of the workshop’s discussions:

Researcher: I would like to quote a statement you made two years ago, regarding the basicchemistry course: ‘We should think of the needs of those who will continuewith chemistry to the advanced course’. Can you please refer to it?

Tali: [smiled] Ah … I don’t think so anymore. Not exactly … I am afraid that schoolorientation is too practical. People refer to immediate success in the matricula-tion examination. I really do not like it. I think it is not right. The gain is toosmall. I think that 10th grade should not be taken in consideration in preparingstudents for the matriculation examination.

Often she found herself defending her ‘chemical literacy’ approach against others.For example, the following is what Tali said regarding her suggestion to change thechemistry textbook:

After reading the new materials, the staff discussed them. They voted for one of the new text-books, but most of them were convinced that there were not enough exercises in it, and thatwe should add more. I said that we do not need more exercises, and that it would be an extraburden for most students, but they argued with me saying: ‘No, no, no, it’s for the sake ofthe students that will continue with chemistry in 11th grade’.

The aforementioned interviews indicate that the workshop influenced the views andpractice of both teachers, especially Tali, but perhaps the most convincing evidenceis that both Tali and Hila are currently engaged in another professional developmentprogramme, aimed at implementing ‘chemical literacy’ components in the advancedcourse (11th grade). However, a more thorough research is needed in order toconfirm this assertion.

Summary and implications

The workshop resulted in a definition of ‘chemical literacy’ and the operationalnotion of it, as perceived by the participating chemistry teachers. The development

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

INVOLVING TEACHERS IN DEFINING ‘CHEMICAL LITERACY’ 341

of such a definition is important, because it actually functions as a baseline forfurther discourse and deliberation among the chemistry teachers. Such a baseline,reflecting a collective body of teachers’ professional knowledge, can act as a bridgebetween theory and practice. The main implication of the ‘chemical literacy’ defini-tion is in separating the goals for teaching the basic chemistry course (chemistry forall) from those of the advanced course. These topics, as well as the teachers’ sugges-tions for changes in practice, are actually being presented in different teachers’forums as part of introducing the reform in chemistry teaching. The definition of‘chemical literacy’ was also sent to the syllabus committee, as a basis for furtherdiscussion. The products of the workshops initiated a discourse regarding ‘chemicalliteracy’, its necessity, ways to achieve it, and ways to assess it.

The importance of such a workshop also lies in the ability to focus on theprocess itself. It provided an opportunity to observe and diagnose the way teachersconstruct their understanding of the goals of teaching chemistry in high school.The long reflective process allowed the emergence of prior beliefs, which confrontthe changes needed in order to shift the emphasis toward an approach heavilybased on ‘chemical literacy’. There are indications that the process also contrib-uted to a change in the teachers’ views. However, a more scholarly research isneeded in order to determine whether this change is long lasting, especially whenthere is evidence that a change in practice is a long and difficult process (Davis2003).

It is recommended that some of the workshop activities be implemented inpre-service programmes in order to enable novice teachers to construct theirunderstanding of scientific and chemical literacy. The workshop format can also beassimilated in other scientific disciplines, such as biology and physics, which facesimilar problems.

We conclude by suggesting that the process of defining ‘chemical literacy’ hadcontributed both to the teachers and researchers. More specifically, it provided theteachers with a unique and unusual opportunity to deliberate on fundamental issuesregarding chemistry teaching (rather than just adopting the new curriculum). Thewhole process reinforced the teachers’ awareness of the complexity associated withscience and chemical literacy for all students, and of the difficulties in balancingbetween these goals and preparatory goals for future learning. In the following years,some of the participants were involved in another programme, aimed at implement-ing features of ‘chemical literacy’ at the advanced level as well.

From a research point of view, it provided a body of knowledge regarding teach-ers’ perceptions of ‘chemical literacy, and the way they link theory to pedagogy. Italso indicated that a long-term professional process could influence teachers’ viewsregarding their goals. In addition, it is suggested that the process that the teachersunderwent is extremely important, especially at a time when high-school chemistryis being reformed, both in its content as well as in its pedagogy.

References

AGIN, M.L. (1974). Education for scientific literacy: a conceptual frame of reference and someapplications. Science Education, 58(3), 403–415.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (1993). Benchmarks for ScienceLiteracy (New York: Oxford Press).

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (2003). Blue Prints for Reform.Available online: http://www.project2061.org/tools/bfr/default.html

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

342 Y. SHWARTZ ET AL.

BELL, B. (1998). Teacher development in science education. In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.)International Handbook of Science Education (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

BENNET, J. and HOLMAN, J. (2002). Context-based approaches to the teaching of chemistry: whatare they and what are their effects? In J.K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust andJ.H. Van Driel (Eds.) Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice (Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers).

BEN-PERETZ, M. (1994) Teachers as curriculum makers. In T. Husen and N.T. Postlethwaite(Eds.) The International Encyclopedia of Education (Oxford: Pergamon).

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE CURRICULUM STUDY (1993). Developing Biological Literacy (Dubuque, IA:Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.).

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE CURRICULUM STUDY (2000). Making Sense of Integrated Science: A Guide forHigh Schools (Colorado Springs: BSCS).

BRANSCOMB, A.W. (1981). Knowing how to know. Science, Technology and Human Values, 6(36), 5.BYBEE, R.W. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practices (Portsmouth, NH:

Hieneman).CARMI, M. (2002). Assessing the change process of high-school chemistry teachers during and

after participating in a leadership programme. Doctoral dissertation, Department ofScience Teaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science.

CHAMPAGNE, A.B. and LOVITZ, B. (1989). Scientific literacy: a concept in search of definition. InThis Year in School Science (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancementof Science).

CHI, M. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. The Journal ofthe Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.

DAVIS, K.S. (2003). ‘Change is hard’: what science teachers are telling us about reform andteacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3–30.

DE JONG, O., KORTHAGEN, F. and WUBBELS, T. (1998). Research on science teacher education inEurope: teacher thinking and conceptual change. In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.)International Handbook of Science Education (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

DE VOS, W. and REIDING, J. (1999). Public understanding of science as a separate subject insecondary schools in The Netherlands. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7),711–719.

DE VOS, W., BULTE, A. and PILOT, A. (2002). Chemistry curricula for general education: analysisand elements of a design. In J.K Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust and J.H. VanDriel (Eds.) Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice (Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic Publishers).

DEBOER, G.E. (2000). Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary mean-ings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Educa-tion, 37(6), 582–601.

EISENHART, M.A., SHRUM, J.L., HARDING, J.R. and CUTHBERT, A.M. (1988). Teacher beliefs:definitions, findings and directions. Educational Policy, 2, 51–70.

ERDURAN, S. (2000). Emergence and application of philosophy of chemistry in chemistry educa-tion. School Science Review, 81(297), 85–87.

EYLON, B. and BAGNO, E. (1997). Professional development of physics teachers through long-term in-service programmes. In E.F. Redish and J.S. Rigden (Eds.) The Changing Role ofPhysics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of ICUPE (Woodbury, NY: TheAmerican Institute of Physics), 299–326.

FELDMAN, A. (2000). Decision making in the practical domain: a model of practical conceptualchange. Science Education, 84(5), 606–623.

FENSHAM, P.J. (1992). Science and technology. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.) Handbook of Research onCurriculum (New York: Maxwell Macmillan International).

FENSHAM, P.J. (1993). Academic influence on school science curricula. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 25, 53–64.

FULLAN, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depth of Educational Reform (London: FalmerPress).

HOFSTEIN, A., CARMI, M. and BEN-ZVI, R. (2003). The development of leadership among chem-istry teachers in Israel. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 39–65.

HOLMAN, J. (2002). What does it mean to be chemically literate? Education in Chemistry, 39(1),12–14.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

INVOLVING TEACHERS IN DEFINING ‘CHEMICAL LITERACY’ 343

JENKINS, E.W. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. Inter-national Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 703–710.

JENKINS, E.W. (2000). ‘Science for all’: time for a paradigm shift? In R. Millar, J. Leach and J.Osborne (Eds.) Improving Science Education: The Contribution of Research (Buckingham:Open University Press).

KESNER, M., HOFSTEIN, A. and BEN-ZVI, R. (1997). The development and implementation oftwo industrial chemistry case studies in the Israeli high school chemistry curriculum. Inter-national Journal of Science Education, 19(5), 565–576.

KOBALLA, T. (1984). Is there substantial agreement on the goals for science education? If so, whatare they? In D. Holdzkom and P. Lutz (Eds.) Research Within Reach: Science Education(Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association).

LAUGKSCH, R.C. (2000). Scientific literacy: a conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.

LAZONBY, J.N., NICOLSON, P.E. and WADDINGTON D.J. (1992). Teaching and learning the Salt-ers’ way. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(11), 899–902.

LOUCKS-HORSELY, S., BYBEE, R.W. and WILD, L.C. (1996). The role of community college inthe professional development of scince teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26,130–134.

LOUCKS-HORSELY, S., HEWSON P., LOVE, N. and STILES, K. (1998). Designing Professional Devel-opment for Teachers of Science and Mathematics (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press).

MAMLOK-NAAMAN, R., BEN-ZVI, R., MILNER, N., RAPAPORT, D., LEVI-NAHUM, T., KATSEVIZ, D.and SHANI, S. (2002). Chemistry Through a Time-tunnel (Rehovot: Department of ScienceTeaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science) (in Hebrew).

MENIS, I., MAMLOK, R. and HOFSTEIN, A. (1999). Development in science teaching in Israel. InR. Glubman and Y. Iram (Eds.) Israeli Instruction and Education (Tel-Aviv: Ramot Publish-ing) (in Hebrew).

MILLAR, R. and HUNT, A. (2002). Science for public understanding: a different way to teach andlearn science. School Science Review, 83(304), 35–42.

MILLAR, R. and OSBORNE J. (1998). Beyond 2000: science education for the future. Report of aseminar series funded by the Nuffield Foundation, London, UK. Available online:www.kcl.ac.uk/kis/schools/education

MILLER, J.D. (1983). American people and science policy. In The Role of Public Attitudes in thePolicy Process (New York: Pergamon Press).

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION FOR ISRAEL (1992). ‘Tomorrow 98’: A Report of Superior Committee forScience and Technology Education (Jerusalem: Ministry of Education for Israel) (Englishversion).

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION FOR ISRAEL (1996). A Syllabus for Science and Technology for 7–9th Grade(Junior-high) (Jerusalem: Ministry of Education for Israel) (in Hebrew).

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION FOR ISRAEL (2000). A Syllabus for 10th Grade Chemistry (Jerusalem:Ministry of Education for Israel) (in Hebrew).

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (1996). National Science Education Standards (Washington, DC:National Academy Press).

NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (2003). Standards for Science Teacher Preparation. AnInterim Report (Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association). Available online:http://www.nsta.org/main/pdfs/NSTAstandards2003.pdf

PAJARES, M.F. (1992). Teacher’s beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct.Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–322.

PARCHMANN, I., SCHMIDT, S. and OSSIETZKY, C. (2003). Students’ pre-conceptions as a tool toreflect and to design teaching and learning—a study from the project Chemie im Kontext.Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association Conference:‘Research and the Quality of Science Education’, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands 3–8August, 2003.

PELLA, O.M, O’HEARN, G.T. and GALE, C.W. (1966). Referents to scientific literacy. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 4(3), 199–208.

PREWITT, K. (1983). Scientific illiteracy and democratic theory. Deadalus: Journal of the Americanacademy of Arts and Sciences, 112(2), 49–64.

ROBERTS, D.A. (1988). What counts as science education? In P. Fensham (Ed.) Developments andDilemmas in Science Education (London: Falmer Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Wei

zman

n In

stitu

te o

f Sci

ence

] At:

12:2

9 9

July

200

8

344 INVOLVING TEACHERS IN DEFINING ‘CHEMICAL LITERACY’

SCHWARTZ, A.T., BUNCE, D.M., SILBERMAN, R.G., STANITSKY, C.L., STRATTON, W.J. and ZIPP,A.P. (1994). Chemistry in Context: Applying Chemistry to Society (Dubuque, IA: Wm. C.Brown Publishing).

SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA (1984). Science for Every Citizen: Educating Canadians for Tomor-row’s World (Ottawa: Supply and Service).

SHALEV, M. (1993). How Prehistoric Man Invented the Kebab (Tel-Aviv: Am-Oved Publishing) (inHebrew).

SHAMOS, M.H. (1995). The Myth of Scientific Literacy (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityPress).

SHKEDI, A. (1996). School-based workshops for teacher participation in curriculum development.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(6), 699–711.

SHKEDI, A. (2003). Words of Meaning: Qualitative Research Theory and Practice (Tel-Aviv: RamotPublishing) (in Hebrew).

SHULMAN, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. EducationalResearcher, 15(2), 4–14.

SHWARTZ, Y. (2004). Chemical literacy: defining it with teachers, and assessing its expression atthe high-school level. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Science Teaching, The Weiz-mann Institute of Science.

STRAUSS, A. and CORBIN, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln(Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).

SUTMAN, F.X. (1996). Science literacy: a functional definition. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 33(5), 459–460.

TOBIN, K., TIPPINS, D. and GALLARD, A. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for scienceteachers. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (NewYork: Macmillan).

THOMAS, G. and DURANT, (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science?In M. Shortland (Ed.) Scientific Literacy Papers (Oxford: Departments of External Studies,University of Oxford).

UNESCO (1983). Science for All (Bangkok: UNESCO office for education in Asia and thePasific).

VINER, A. and FRUMER, H. (2002). Never Ending Chemistry (Jerusalem: Department of ScienceTeaching, Hebrew University) (in Hebrew).

WANDERSEE, J.H. and GRIFFARD, P.B. (2002). The history of chemistry: potential and actualcontributions to chemical education. In J.K Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagustand J.H. Van Driel (Eds.) Chemical Education: Towards Research-based Practice (Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers).

WESTBROEK, H.B., BULTE, A. and PILOT A. (2001). Development of a prototype module: anexample of a new vision of A-level chemistry curriculum. In O. De Jong, E.R. Savelsberghand A. Alblas (Eds.) Teaching for Scientific Literacy. Context, Competency, and Curriculum.Proceedings of the 2nd International Utrecht/ICASE Symposium (Utrecht University: Utrecht).

YAGER, R.E. (1992). What we did not learn from the 60’s about science curriculum reform. Jour-nal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 905–910.

ZELTNER, M., ERNEST, N. and LIVNE, S. (2002). Chemistry and Life (Rehovot: Department ofScience Teaching, The Weizmann Institute of Science) (in Hebrew).