What is scientific literacy for future science teachers? A comparative study of Türkiye and Sweden

Kardelen Azra Ates

doi:10.31129/LUMAT.14.2.2982

Authors

Kardelen Azra Ates Uppsala University, Sweden https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3210-6331

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.14.2.2982

Keywords:

scientific literacy, teacher education, comparative didactics, pre-service science teacher

Abstract

This study has two related aims; to investigate the perspectives of pre-service science teachers from Türkiye and Sweden on scientific literacy including what content is relevant and important and how these perspectives might be related to their future teaching practices. Utilizing the framework of Visions of Scientific Literacy and Curriculum Emphases by Roberts (1998, 2007), the research conducts a comparative analysis to give an overview of how pre-service teachers privilege specific contents that they attributed to science education in terms of “why to teach science” according to their perspectives. The findings reveal that participants from both countries referred to the curriculum emphases, Everyday Coping (EC) and Correct Explanation (CE), as the most important reasons to teach science, whereas Scientific Skills Development (SSD) and Science, Technology, and Decision (STD) were notably underemphasized in both contexts. However, the study also revealed differences in the perspectives of pre-service science teachers. For the pre-service teachers from Türkiye, teaching science was important to deal with daily life issues, whereas the ones from Sweden privileged more scientific facts and processes. Furthermore, participants from both countries problematized science teacher education but in different ways, including teaching evolution, having too few or too many subject courses in the teacher education. This cross-cultural comparison provides insights into how scientific literacy is promoted within diverse educational environments; the results help to reflect on what may be included and excluded in science teacher education and inform possible future improvements within science teacher education.

References

Aikenhead, G. S. (2007). Expanding the research agenda for scientific literacy. Promoting scientific literacy: Science Education Research in Transaction, p. 64.

Almqvist, J., Lidar, M., & Olin, A. (2023). Teaching Traditions in Classroom Practice–A Comparative Didactic Approach. In Didactics in a Changing World: European Perspectives on Teaching, Learning and the Curriculum (pp. 55-65). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20810-2_4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20810-2_4

Altun-Yalçın, S., Kılınç, A., & Akgün, A. (2011). Investigating scientific literacy levels of pre-service elementary school teachers. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3096–3100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.278 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.185

Ates, K.A., Lundqvist, E., & Almqvist, J. (2025). “Why Am I Going to Teach Science?”: Pre-Service Science Teachers` Perspectives on Science Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 36(6), 781–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2025.2452070 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2025.2452070

Avargil, S., Lavi, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2018). Students’ metacognition and metacognitive strategies in science education. Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education: Learning, Teaching and Assessment, 33–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66659-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66659-4_3

Åkerlund, A. (2020). A competition state perspective on the development of Swedish policies for internationalization of higher education and research 1960s–2010s. Nordic Journal of Educational History, 7(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.36368/njedh.v7i2.203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36368/njedh.v7i2.203

Block, T., Van Poeck, K., & Östman, L. (2019). Tackling wicked problems in teaching and learning. Sustainability issues as knowledge, ethical and political challenges. In Sustainable Development Teaching (pp. 28-39). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351124348-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351124348-3

Boz, Y., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2006). Turkish prospective chemistry teachers’ beliefs about chemistry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1647-1667. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500439132 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500439132

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, M. N. Coutanche, L. M. McMullen, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, europsychological, and biological (2nd ed., pp. 65-81). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000319-004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0000319-004

Butt, N., Lambrick, F., Menton, M. & Renwick, A. (2019). “The Supply Chain of Violence,” Nature Sustainability. 2. 742–47. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0349-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0349-4

Breiting, S., Hedegaard, K., Mogensen, F., Nielsen, K., & Schnack, K. (2009). Action competence, conflicting interests and environmental education the MUVIN programme. Research Programme for Environmental and Health Education, DPU (Danish School of Education). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/aul.77.71

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.

Chin, C. (2005). First-year pre-service teachers in Taiwan: Do they enter the teacher program with satisfactory scientific literacy and attitudes toward science? International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1549-1570. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500186401 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500186401

Ҫakıroğlu, E., & Ҫakıroğlu, J. (2003). Reflections on teacher education in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976032000088774 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976032000088774

Cinarbaş, H. I. (2018). A Comparative report on Swedish and Turkish education system and teacher education. Retrieved on 26 May 2024 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325065848_A_Comparative_Report_on_Swedish_and_Turkish_Education_System

Dani, D. (2009). Scientific Literacy and Purposes for Teaching Science: A Case Study of Lebanese Private School Teachers. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 289-299.

DeBoer, G. (2000). Scientific Literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L

DuBridge, L. (1946). Science and national policy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1(11), 12-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1946.12102541

Edling, S., & Simmie, G. (2018). Democracy and emancipation in teacher education: A summative content analysis of teacher educators’ democratic assignment expressed in policies for Teacher Education in Sweden and Ireland between 2000-2010. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 17(1), 20-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047173417743760 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2047173417743760

Edlund, J. (2006). Trust in the capability of the welfare state and general welfare state support: Sweden 1997-2002. Acta Sociologica, 49(4), 395-417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699306071681 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699306071681

Enander, H., Larson, S. R., Sandvik, G., Norman, L. T., Helmfrid, S., & Weibull, J. (2017, December 15). Sweden. Retrieved on 26 May 2024, from https://www.britannica.com/place/Sweden

Gill, A. M., & Nonnecke, B. (2012, October). Think aloud: Effects and validity. Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on Design of communication (pp. 31–36). https://doi.org/10.1145/2379057.2379065 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2379057.2379065

Goodson, I. F. (2014). Investigating the life and work of teachers. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education, 2(2), 28-47. https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2014.2.2.02b DOI: https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2014.2.2.02b

Hamza, K., & Lundqvist, E. (2023). Mangling didactic models for use in didactic analysis of classroom interaction. In Didactics in a changing world: European perspectives on teaching, learning and the curriculum (pp. 103-121). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20810-2_7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20810-2_7

Hauge, K. H., & Barwell, R. (2017). Post-normal science and mathematics education in uncertain times: Educating future citizens for extended peer communities. Futures, 91, 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.013

Heinz, J., Enghag, M., Stuchlikova, I., Cakmakci, G., Peleg, R., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). Impact of initiatives to implement science inquiry: A comparative study of the Turkish, Israeli, Swedish and Czech science education systems. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12, 677-708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9704-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9704-6

Hessels, L., Lente, H., & Smits, R. (2009). In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Science and Public Policy, 36(5), 387-401. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209x442034 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X442034

Horton, J., Macve, R., & Struyven, G. (2004). Qualitative research: Experiences in using semi-structured interviews. In The real life guide to accounting research (pp. 339-357). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043972-3/50022-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043972-3/50022-0

International Monetary Fund. (2017). Turkey and the IMF. Retrieved 26 May 2024 from http://www.imf.org/en/Countries/TUR#whatsnew

Lederman, J., Akerson, V., Bartels, S., & Schwartz, R. (2024). Attention science educators, we have a problem: lack of global functional scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2361934 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2361934

Lidar, M., Karlberg, M., Almqvist, J., Östman, L., & Lundqvist, E. (2018). Teaching traditions in science teachers’ practices and the introduction of national testing. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(5), 754-768. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1306802 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1306802

Liu, X. (2013). Expanding notions of scientific literacy: A reconceptualization of aims of science education in the knowledge society. Science Education for Diversity: Theory and Practice, 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4563-6_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4563-6_2

Lundqvist, E., Saljö, R., & Östman, L. (Eds). (2013). Scientific literacy – Teori och praktik.

Knekta, E., Almarlind, P., & Ottander, C. (2022). The purpose of science education: Guidance provided by Swedish science syllabuses. NorDiNa: Nordic Studies in Science Education, 18(1), 39-62. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.8224 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.8224

Kurtiç, E. (2022). Criminalizing environmental activism in Turkey. Middle East Briefs, 147, 33947.

Marty, L., Venturini, P., & Almqvist, J. (2018). Teaching traditions in science education in Switzerland, Sweden and France: A comparative analysis of three curricula. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 51-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117698710 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117698710

Mashoko, D. (2022). Indigenous artefacts and physics curriculum: teaching science as a cultural way of knowing. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 17(3), 863-874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-021-10085-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-021-10085-1

Moore, F. M. (2007). Agency, identity, and social justice education: preservice teachers’ thoughts on becoming agents of change in urban elementary science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 38(5), 589-610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9065-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9065-6

Milli Egitim Bakanligi (M.E.B.) (2000). Ilkögretim Okulu Fen Bilgisi Dersi Öğretim Programı. M.E.B Tebliğler Dergisi, 63, 2518.

Norambuena-Meléndez, M., Guerrero, G. R., & González-Weil, C. (2023). What is meant by scientific literacy in the curriculum? A comparative analysis between Bolivia and Chile. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 18(3), 937-958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-023-10190-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-023-10190-3

Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305

Olander, C. (2013). Why am I learning evolution? Pointers towards enacted scientific literacy. Journal of Biological Education, 47(3), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.821750 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.821750

Osborne, J. (2023). Science, scientific literacy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367855758 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367855758

Özden, B., & Yenice, N. (2022). The relationship between scientific inquiry and communication skills with beliefs about the nature of science of pre-service science teachers. Participatory Educational Research, 9(1), 192-213. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.11.9.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.11.9.1

Rasmussen, J. and Rash-Christensen, A. (2015). How to improve the relationship between theory and practice in teacher education. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 14(3), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-015-9180-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-015-9180-5

Roberts , D. A. (1982) . Developing the concept of ‘curriculum emphases’ in science education . Science Education , 66 (2), 243–260 . https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660209 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660209

Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. Abell and N. G. Lederman (Eds), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 729-80. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203824696 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203824696

Rundgren, C. J. (2018). Implementation of inquiry-based science education in different countries: some reflections. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13, 607-615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9787-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9787-8

Rundgren, S. C., Sun, Y., & Jidesjö, A. (2019). Examining gender differences in students’ entrance into and persistence in STEM programs in Swedish higher education. The European Journal of Educational Sciences, 06(01). https://doi.org/10.19044/ejes.v6no1a5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.19044/ejes.v6no1a5

Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science education based on the concept of Bildung. Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education: Learning, teaching and assessment, 65-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66659-4_4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66659-4_4

Sjöström, J. (2024). Vision III of scientific literacy and science education: an alternative vision for science education emphasising the ethico-socio-political and relational-existential. Studies in Science Education, 61(2), 239-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2024.2405229 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2024.2405229

Skolinspektionen. (2011). Skolinspektionens rapport 2011:9. Fysik i mellanåren – bortgömt men inte bortglömt. Rapport om undervisningen i fysik i de mellersta skolåren. [Schools Inspectorate Report 2011: 9. Physics in the middle years – Hidden but not forgotten. Report on the teaching of physics in the middle school years.] Stockholm: Skolinspektionen.

Smith, K. V., Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Dimitrakopoulos, C. (2012). Developing scientific literacy in a primary school. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.565088 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.565088

Streller, S. & Bolte, C. (2018). Becoming a chemistry teacher – Expectations for chemistry education courses. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.6162 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.6162

Türk, N., Kalaycı, N., & Yamak, H. (2018). New trends in higher education in the globalizing world: STEM in teacher education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(6), pp. 1286-1304. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060620 DOI: https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060620

Velthuis, C., Fisser, P., & Pieters, J. (2014). Teacher training and pre-service primary teachers’ self-efficacy for science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(4), 445-464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9363-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9363-y

Yavuzkaya, M., Hasslöf, H., & Sjöström, J. (2025). Becoming a science teacher in the Anthropocene:Scientific knowledge as ‘matters of concern’. International Journal of Science Education, 47(12), 1496-1516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2367174 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2367174

YÖK (n.d.). Kurumsal Görev ve Yetkiler. Retrieved on 26 May 2024, from https://denetleme.yok.gov.tr/kurumsal/gorev-ve-yetkiler

Zhang, E. Y., Hundley, C., Watson, Z., Farah, F., Bunnell, S., & Kristensen, T. (2023). Learning by doing: A multi‐level analysis of the impact of citizen science education. Science Education, 107(5), 1324-1351. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21810 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21810