Building on two decades of national surveys in the United States and two Eurobarometer studies, the history, rationale, and structure of a measure of civic scientific literacy are described. Estimates of the proportion of adults who are very well informed or moderately well informed on the index of civic scientific literacy appear in the literature more frequently, and this paper provides the first comprehensive description and analysis of the civic scientific literacy measure. It is hoped that this analysis and discussion will encourage the inclusion and replication of the measure in a wider range of studies of the public understanding of and attitudes toward science and technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
M. Shortland , “Advocating Science: Literacy and Public Understanding,”Impact of Science on Society152 (1988): 305-316.
2.
[U.S.] National Science Board , Science and Engineering Indicators—1996 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1996).
3.
D. Harman , “Illiteracy: An Overview,”Harvard Educational Review40 (1970): 226-230.
4.
B. S. P.Shen, “Scientific Literacy and the Public Understanding of Science,” in Communication of Scientific Information, ed. S. Day (Basel: Karger, 1975), 44-52
5.
Shen , “Scientific Literacy and the Public Understanding of Science,” p. 49.
6.
D. Nelkin , Technological Decisions and Democracy: European Experiments in Public Participation (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1977).
7.
J. D. Miller , The American People and Science Policy (New York: Pergamon Press, 1983).
8.
A. Irwin and B. Wynne, eds., Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
9.
J. Durant , G. Evans, and G. Thomas, “Public Understanding of Science in Britain,”Public Understanding of Science1 (1992): 161-182.
10.
M. Shamos , The Myth of Scientific Literacy (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1995).
11.
J. D. Miller , “Scientific Literacy for Effective Citizenship,” in Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education, ed. R. E. Yager (New York: State University Press of New York, 1995).
12.
13.
J. D. Miller , R. Pardo, and F. Niwa, Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada (Madrid: BBV Foundation, 1997).
14.
G. A. Evans and J. R. Durant, “The Relationship between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain,”Public Understanding of Science4 (1995): 57-74.
15.
M. Bauer , J. R. Durant, and G. A. Evans, “European Public Perceptions of Science,”International Journal of Public Opinion Research6 (1994): 163-186.
16.
Miller, Pardo , and Niwa, Public Perceptions of Science and Technology.
17.
B. R.Moulton, “Bias in the Consumer Price Index: What is the Evidence?”Journal of Economic Perspectives10 (1996): 159-177.
18.
R. C. Davis , The Public Impact of Science in the Mass Media (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, 1958).
19.
J. M. Tanur , ed., Questions about Questions: Inquiries into the Cognitive Bases of Surveys (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1992).
20.
Miller, Pardo , and Niwa, Public Perceptions of Science and Technology.
21.
National Science Board , Science and Engineering Indicators—1996.
22.
Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science , Benchmarks for Science Literacy (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993).
23.
A confirmatory factor analysis is a technique for testing a hypothesis about the relationships among a set of items. In this case, it was hypothesized that civic scientific literacy was organized into two dimensions, reflecting construct understanding and process understanding. This technique examined the correlations among all of the items and identified two sets of items—factors—with high intercorrelations among the items on each dimension, but not necessarily with the items on the other dimension. In this case, the confirmatory factor analysis found that the two factors were positively correlated. This note will not be repeated on subsequent tables describing the results of other confirmatory factor analyses utilized in this analysis.
24.
M. F. Zimowski , E. Muraki, R. J. Mislevy, and R. D. Bock, BILOG-MG: Multiple-group IRT Analysis and Test Maintenance for Binary Items (Chicago: Scientific Software International, 1996).
25.
R. D. Bock and M. F. Zimowski, “Multiple-group IRT,” in Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory, ed. W. J. van der Linden and R. K. Hambleton (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997), 433-448.
26.
R. D. Bock and M. Aitkin, “Marginal Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Item Parameters: Application of an EM-algorithm,”Psychometrika46 (1981): 443-459.
27.
Miller, Pardo , and Niwa, Public Perceptions of Science and Technology.
28.
Miller, Pardo , and Niwa, Public Perceptions of Science and Technology.
29.
In a separate analysis of 14 industrial nations, Miller found the proportion of adults meeting this standard within the European Union ranged from 27.2 percent in the Netherlands to 6.6 percent in Greece. See Miller, “Public Understanding of Science and Technology in OECD Countries.”
30.
T. S. Kuhn , The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).
31.
K. R. Popper , The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Basic Books, 1969).
32.
Miller, Pardo , and Niwa, Public Perceptions of Science and Technology.
33.
and J. D. Miller, “Theory and Measurement in the Public Understanding of Science: A Rejoinder to Bauer and Schoon,”Public Understanding of Science2 (1993): 235-243.
34.
J. D. Miller and L. K. Pifer, The Public Understanding of Biomedical Science in the United States, 1993 (Chicago: Chicago Academy of Sciences, 1995).
35.
36.
F. M. Lord , Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980).
37.
J. A. Rosenau , Citizenship Between Elections (New York: Free Press, 1974).
38.
The Eurobarometer survey interviews at least 1000 respondents in each member country, except that only 500 respondents are interviewed in Luxembourg and Northern Ireland. Since some items are asked in a split-ballot format, the effective number of responses for some questions drops to 250 in these two areas. For reasons of statistical reliability, these two countries (areas) were omitted from the analysis.
39.
A. E. Beatonet al. , Science Achievement in the Middle School Years (Boston: Boston College, 1996).
40.
Miller , “Public Understanding of Science and Technology in OECD Countries.”
41.
Rosenau , Citizenship Between Elections.
42.
J. D. Miller , “The Challenger Accident and Public Opinion,”Space Policy3 (1987): 122-140.
