International Journal of Science Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

The role of affect in science literacy for all

David Fortus, Jing Lin, Knut Neumann & Troy D. Sadler

To cite this article: David Fortus, Jing Lin, Knut Neumann & Troy D. Sadler (2022) The role of
affect in science literacy for all, International Journal of Science Education, 44:4, 535-555, DOI:
10.1080/09500693.2022.2036384

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2036384

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 24 Feb 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3197

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsed20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION
2022, VOL. 44, NO. 4, 535–555
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2036384

The role of affect in science literacy for all

a b c d
David Fortus *†, Jing Lin , Knut Neumann and Troy D. Sadler
a
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel; bBeijing Normal University, Collaborative Innovation Center
of Assessment for Basic Education Quality, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; cIPN–Leibniz-Institute for
Science and Mathematics Education, Kiel, Germany; dUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of
Education, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The goal of science literacy for all underlies much of today’s K-12 Received 17 June 2021
science education (National Academies of Sciences [2016]. Science Accepted 27 January 2022
literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. National Academies
KEYWORDS
Press; Roberts, [2007]. Scientific literacy/science literacy. In Science literacy; science
S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on education standards;
science education (pp. 729–780). Lawrence Erlbaum). This goal motivation; self-efficacy;
assumes that the citizens of contemporary societies must be able lifelong learning
to appreciate the relevance of and draw upon scientific
knowledge and practices in a broad range of personal and social
issues. Many national science education standards, which aim to
promote science literacy for all, focus almost entirely on
prescribing the conceptual knowledge and practices that underlie
science literacy, with only little, if any, reference to the affective
characteristics that need to be fostered in parallel to conceptual
knowledge and skills. This position paper highlights why affect is
so important for the development of science literacy by critiquing
the arguments that underlie many national standards documents
and by considering the crucial role affect plays in becoming and
remaining a lifelong learner of science. We argue that there is a
discrepancy between the science education research literature
and many national science education standards in terms of the
latter not acknowledging the affective domain as an important
education outcome, and that this discrepancy is an obstacle to
the attainment of science literacy for all.

Introduction
Roberts distinguished in his 2007 handbook chapter between two visions of education for
science literacy that lie at different ends of a continuum of approaches to science edu-
cation (Roberts, 2007). Vision I begins from the canonical products and processes of
science and may then apply these products and processes to make sense of and solve
phenomena, problems and issues. Vision II starts from issues, problems and phenomena

CONTACT David Fortus david.fortus@weizmann.ac.il Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of

Science, 234 Herzl Street, Rehovot 7610001, Israel
*All authors are listed alphabetically.
†
The first author is the Chief Justice Bora Laskin Professorial Chair of Science Teaching.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
536 D. FORTUS ET AL.

in which science plays an important role, but which also involve non-scientific (econ-
omic, political, etc.) perspectives, and then reaches into science to find how it can help
make sense of these situations. These are situations which students are likely to encounter
and to view as important and relevant to themselves. One the one hand, many national
science education standards, for example in Germany (Sekretariat der Ständigen Konfer-
enz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [KMK], 2005a,
2005b, 2005c), China (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2011,
2017, 2020), Israel (Israel Ministry of Education, 2014), and the USA (NGSS Lead
States, 2013), adopt a Vision I perspective, specifying the products and the processes
of science and engineering, and leave it to curriculum developers and teachers to
design and present contexts in which to ground and apply these products and processes.1
On the other hand, many of these documents, such as the Framework for K-12 Science
Education (National Research Council, 2012), which in the USA provided the conceptual
underpinnings of the NGSS, used a Vision II perspective to justify why all students
should learn science:
The overarching goal of our framework for K-12 science education is to ensure that by the
end of 12th grade, all students have some appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science
[a cultural argument]; possess sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in
public discussions on related issues [a democratic argument]; Are careful consumers of
scientific and technological information related to their everyday lives [a utility argument];
are able to continue to learn about science outside school; and have the skills to enter careers
of their choice, including (but not limited to) careers in science, engineering, and technology
[an economic argument]. (National Research Council, 2012, p. 1)

Whether they draw upon a Vision I or a Vision II perspective, when closely reading many
national documents such as the NGSS or the Framework, it is apparent that the docu-
ments’ authors focused almost entirely on prescribing the core knowledge and practices
that underlie science literacy and that all students need to develop. Sorely missing is
attention to any affective characteristics that may need to be fostered in parallel to con-
ceptual knowledge and skills. For example, in the Framework there is a section titled Con-
necting to Students’ Interests and Experiences. This section describes the importance of
building off students’ prior interests. Fostering interest in science is undoubtedly impor-
tant in science education (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011). Indeed, since 2006, PISA has also
measured interest in these domains as an outcome variable (Drechsel et al., 2011).
However, the Framework includes no sections that address the importance of promoting
students’ interest in science. Since interest is described in the Framework only as an input
to science education rather than both a desired input and output, it is not surprising that
promoting interest in science is not an educational goal and is not mentioned anywhere
in the NGSS. Self-efficacy or self-concept are not mentioned a single time in the Frame-
work. Confidence is mentioned only twice in a passing manner in that document and
never in the NGSS. The situation is similar in the other national standards documents
with which we are familiar. Why then should teachers engage in instructional practices
that can encourage and support interest or self-efficacy in science unless they believe that
fostering interest or self-efficacy in science may lead to improved learning?
The aim of this position paper is to indicate why affect is so important for the devel-
opment of science literacy, to critique the assumptions underlying many national stan-
dards documents, and to highlight the importance of affect to the continuing learning
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 537

of and engagement with science after compulsory schooling has been completed – the
lifelong learning of science. By affect we mean the emotions and the expressions of
these emotions that influence the way we think about science and about ourselves in
relation to science, the ways in which we actively seek out (or ignore) opportunities to
engage with science. Following (Fortus, 2014), we focus in particular on the following
manifestations of affect: (a) interest in scientific ideas and phenomena, both situational
(Hidi et al., 1992) and individual (Hidi & Renninger, 2006), (b) attitudes towards
science (Osborne, Simon, et al., 2003) and attitudes towards life-long learning of
science (OECD, 2021), (c) self-efficacy (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006) and self-concept
(Coopersmith & Feldman, 1974) in relation to science, and (d) the motivation to
engage (or disengage) with science, which includes the initiation, direction and mainten-
ance of goal-oriented behaviour (Pintrich & Schunk, 1995). We recognise that there are
other additional manifestations of affect that likely play important roles in shaping the
lifelong learning of science, such as continuing motivation (Fortus & Vedder-Weiss,
2014). Their omission should not be interpreted as indicating their lesser importance,
just that in the arguments that follow they seemed to the authors to play a less prominent
role and so were omitted in order to keep the arguments streamlined.
We are not the first researchers to recognise the importance of affect in learning and
teaching. In a highly cited article, Pintrich, Marx and Boyle (1993) critiqued the ‘coldness’
of contemporary conceptual change models. Since then, researchers have written of the
importance of the ‘warming trend’ in conceptual change research (e.g. Alsop & Watts,
2003; Sinatra, 2005). In spite of these and other later efforts (e.g. Falk et al., 2016; Höft
& Bernholt, 2019), the national standards documents with which we are acquainted still
adopt a ‘cold’ perspective, focusing almost entirely on conceptual outcomes and ignoring
affective outcomes and the role they play in reaching the conceptual outcomes.
We believe that without explicit attention to the promotion of positive affective
characteristics towards science, in standards and in practice, the goal of science literacy
for all will remain unattainable. To do so, in Section I we revisit arguments that have been
presented in the past to justify why science literacy for all is important and demonstrate
how each argument actually suggests the importance of the explicit promotion of various
affective characteristics in relation to science. Then, in Section II, based on the con-
clusions we reach in Section I, we consider the crucial role affect plays in becoming
and remaining a lifelong learner of science.

Section I – the five arguments for science literacy for all

Why should science be taught to all students throughout their K-12 schooling? Several
researchers have presented arguments in favour of science literacy for all (e.g. Christen-
sen, 2001; Millar, 1996; Ryder, 2001; Sjøberg, 1997; Thomas & Durant, 1987). Thomas
and Durant (1987) presented nine reasons why it is important to promote the public
understanding of science – benefits to science, benefits to national economies, benefits
to national power and influence, benefits to individuals, benefits to democratic govern-
ment, benefits to society as a whole, intellectual benefits, aesthetic benefits, and moral
benefits. Millar (1996) took these nine reasons and grouped them into five arguments:
the economic argument, the utility argument, the democratic argument, the social argu-
ment, and the cultural argument. Other researchers (e.g. Kolstø, 2001; National
538 D. FORTUS ET AL.

Academies of Sciences, 2016; Osborne, Collins, et al., 2003; Ryder, 2001) have built off
these five arguments when justifying the importance of promoting science literacy.
The quotation from the Framework presented earlier shows that the authors of this docu-
ment were aware of these arguments when justifying the importance of science education
for all – see the square brackets in the quotation.
In this section we present each of the five arguments – the economic, the utility, the
democratic, the social, and the cultural argument – verbatim, and then consider which
conclusions can be reached from them about the importance of affect in developing
science literacy.

The economic argument

There is a connection between the level of public understanding of science and the nation’s
economic wealth. In addition, scientific and technical achievement is seen as a sign of a
nation’s international standing. Maintaining this depends on a steady supply of technically
and scientifically qualified personnel. (Millar, 1996, p. 9)

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) cautioned that
the lack of skilled scientists and engineers leads to a barrier towards innovation and that
basic levels of education are no longer sufficient in economies which involve continuous
change (OECD, 2000). Improving the leverage of public science, engineering, technology,
and mathematics (STEM) education and its quality are therefore often key concerns in
many countries. As a result, many countries have made the promotion of expertise in
STEM fields an immediate goal, initiating substantial reforms (e.g. National Research
Council, 2012) and investing significant amounts in the promotion of education in
STEM fields (National Science Board, 2018). To be able to monitor the effects of these
efforts, many countries participate in international large-scale assessments such as the
Trends in Science and Mathematics Study (TIMSS) or the Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA).
Since 2000, every three years, PISA evaluates 15-year-olds’ mathematics, science and
reading literacy across all OECD (and some non-OECD) countries. PISA reports stu-
dents’ performance on a scale defined such that the average across all countries is 500
points and the standard deviation is 100 points. The score is meant to represent the effec-
tiveness of the countries’ mathematics, science and reading education and, based on the
belief that economic success depends on a citizenship literate in these areas, predict the
countries’ future economic wellbeing (DeBoer, 2011). And indeed, as shown in Figure 1,2
there is a positive relationship between countries’ PISA scores and their Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) per capita. Taking PISA scores as a proxy for the general scientific knowl-
edge of the school-age population, we conclude that there is a significant correlation
between the scientific knowledge of nations’ adolescents and the nations’ economic
wealth. But is this correlation causal? If there is a causal connection between wealth
and PISA scores, is it not more likely that the wealthier a nation is, the more it invests
in education, better preparing their students to take standardised tests, resulting in
higher PISA scores?
In their book ‘The Knowledge Capital of Nations’, Eric Hanushek and Ludger Wöss-
mann presented a series of studies supporting the assumption that students’ mathematics
and science achievement is predictive of countries’ future economic prosperity
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 539

Figure 1. GDP per capita vs. science PISA scores for 2012.

(Hanushek & Wössmann, 2015). More specifically, Hanushek and Wössmann showed
that countries’ average score in large-scale assessments between the 1960s to 2000s
were significantly correlated with the countries’ average annual growth during that
period of time, even when controlling for countries’ initial GDP per capita. This
finding holds, even when considering students’ average scores between the 1960s and
1980s and annual growth between the 1980s and 2000s – suggesting that these students
have indeed actively contributed to the countries’ economic growth. A more differen-
tiated analyses also showed that this applied to both low and high achieving students.
The authors concluded that a 10 percent increase in all students’ mathematics and
science literacy scores predicted an increase in the annual growth in GDP by .3
percent, while an increase of 10 percent in the scores of the top-performing students pre-
dicted an additional 1.3% annual growth in GDP. This finding is supported by a strong
positive correlation between the number of scientists and engineers that are engaged in
research and development in a country and its economic wealth (The World Bank,
2016a, 2016b). Assuming that scientists and engineers are largely responsible for the gen-
eration of economic wealth (Hanushek & Wössmann, 2015), Figure 2 supports the
OECD’s alarm that the lack of scientists and engineers in many countries may be
leading to a barrier in innovation and economic growth, threatening future prosperity.
For increased test scores to translate into future economic wealth, it is necessary that
many of the students that participate in international large-scale assessments choose to
study STEM subjects at the postsecondary level. However, research shows that it is not
automatic that the students performing at the top-level in mathematics or science
choose to study a STEM subject (Taskinen et al., 2008, 2013). More specifically, there
is no significant effect of students’ science performance on their intent to choose a job
in this field (Taskinen et al., 2008), whereas factors such as students’ enjoyment of
science or self-concept in science have a substantial effect on students’ motivation to con-
tinue studying science (Taskinen et al., 2013). So, the economic argument is less about
how to (further) improve scores in STEM education and more about how to encourage
students to consider STEM professions and how provide them with the underlying
experiences that will allow them to reach sound judgments about the appropriateness
540 D. FORTUS ET AL.

Figure 2. GDP per capita vs. number of scientists and engineers per million people.

of STEM careers for them. This means that until students reach the age at which they are
expected to choose which subject(s) they wish to emphasise in their studies, (for example,
the end of 9th grade in Israel or the beginning of college in the US), an important econ-
omically-driven goal of science education should be to increase students’ interest in
STEM,3 their self-efficacy towards STEM, and their motivation to learn more STEM,4
thus increasing the odds that they will choose to major in STEM and hopefully also con-
tinue on to a STEM-related profession. Before students choose their major, the focus on
conceptual knowledge, skill at engaging in scientific and engineering practices, and
awareness of scientific norms and culture, which lies at the heart of most present day
compulsory science education, has economic importance primarily if it is an engine
for boosting the number of students who choose to major in science; the economic
importance of this focus is much smaller if it has no significant impact on students’
choices. Once students have already chosen their majors, there is economic value in pro-
moting students’ understanding of science primarily if the students are potential STEM
professionals.5
To summarise, the economic goal of science literacy for all is chiefly to maximise the
number of students that choose to specialise in STEM. Therefore, the most important
economic outcome of science education, until the stage where students choose their
majors, are enhanced interest in STEM, a sense of self-efficacy in one’s ability to
engage with STEM, and motivation to continue studying STEM.

The utility argument

An understanding of science and technology is practically useful, especially to anyone living
in a scientifically and technologically sophisticated society. They are better equipped to
make decisions about diet, health, safety, and so on, to evaluate manufacturers’ claims
and make sensible consumer choices. (Millar, 1996, p. 9)

The end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century is often
described as a time when an understanding of science and technology was, and still is,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 541

especially important for utilitarian reasons, largely due to massive influx of computer-
based technologies into every aspect of life. It has been claimed that knowledge of
science and technology should allow us to make better decisions and choices on issues
related to our lives, for example: ‘Science, engineering, and the technologies they
influence permeate every aspect of modern life. Indeed, some knowledge of science
and engineering is required to … make informed everyday decisions, such as selecting
among alternative medical treatments or determining how to invest public funds for
water supply options’ (National Research Council, 2012, p. 7). Is this indeed the case?
We take up this question in two ways: first we consider how modern computer technol-
ogy has influenced the extent to which science is actually needed for navigating life in the
twenty-first century. Next we reflect on how people actually use knowledge relative to the
behavioural decisions they make.

The influence of modern technology

Modern computer technology has made the need for scientific knowledge smaller, not
larger. Modern apparatuses are designed to be as simple as possible for the lay person,
to black-box their internal mechanisms, to require no specialised knowledge to
operate. This was not always so. A car owner was once expected to be a tinkerer. The
first home computers were far from having ‘plug and play’ interfaces. They needed to
be programmed to do anything, sometimes in machine language. Today almost every-
thing is plug-and-play and requires little or no need for physical device configuration
or user interventions, and almost any child can, at some level, control them. Modern
technology is shrinking the breadth of situations in which scientific knowledge could
potentially be relevant. We are not arguing that scientific knowledge is irrelevant to
many situations in everyday life, just that modern computer technology is decreasing
the necessity of some scientific knowledge to cope with and to perform reasonably
well in everyday situations.
Of course the STEM professionals who develop new technologies and design appli-
cations of these technologies need in-depth knowledge of the science in their fields.
However, even STEM professionals, who are not developing new technologies or design-
ing applications of these technologies, but are the providers of support and maintenance
services for these technologies (like technicians or mechanics) seldom require specialised
scientific knowledge anymore. When a computer, automobile, washing machine, or
almost anything stops working properly, an external diagnostic programme identifies
the malfunctioning unit which is then replaced. Technicians and mechanics do not
necessarily need to understand what went wrong or why; they just need to know how
to use auto-diagnostic equipment and how to replace malfunctioning parts. They are
guided by practical knowledge, professional know-how, not by scientific knowledge.
The black-boxedness of modern technology has diminished the need for scientific knowl-
edge, even in the STEM professions.

The gap between knowledge and behavior

A UN agency reported that the livestock sector was globally ‘one of the largest sources of
greenhouse gases and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity, while in
developed and emerging countries it is perhaps the leading source of water pollution’
(Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] of the United Nations, 2006, p. 267).
542 D. FORTUS ET AL.

According to the American Dietetic Association, ‘appropriately planned vegetarian diets,

including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may
provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain disease’ (American
Dietetic Association, 2009, p. 1266). Many people are aware of these issues and would
pass a litmus test for science literacy, yet their knowledge does not appear to guide
their behaviour; they prefer omnivorous diets over vegetarian ones even though a
rational decision, based on the information available, would have been the opposite.
Paraphrasing a maxim attributed to Mark Twain (apparently erroneously), do people
who fail to use their scientific knowledge have any advantage over people who do not
have this knowledge6?
This is just one example, but there are plenty others. How many scientifically literate
people do not exercise, drive by themselves to work in large cars, smoke, have houses
much bigger than they need, do not recycle, and so on? In many, if not most areas of
life, we are more instinctive creatures than rational ones (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999).
People, including scientifically literate people, eat meat and engage in many other
‘unwise’ behaviours because these behaviours may bring them pleasure; they do not
engage in ‘wise’ activities because these are perceived as involving too much effort or
expense, even though they know the outcomes of their behaviours may not be all that
good for them or the environment.
On the other hand, can all physicists repair their cars (or even know what is wrong
with them)? There is a gap that separates theoretical knowledge and the ability to trans-
late this knowledge into practical ability at making existential changes in the world. Some
physicists may be able to understand, after the fact, what the mechanic did and how she
figured out what the problem was and how she repaired it, but doing this themselves is
another issue. So being scientifically literate, even having scientific expertise, does not
necessarily translate into practical ability.
It is not that our knowledge and reasoning skills do not influence our behaviour at all
– of course they do. But their overall impact on our behaviour and on our practical abil-
ities is smaller than we often like to admit. Is it fair of us to expect that the behaviour,
choices, and skills of our present-day students be driven by their scientific knowledge
more than we are? We believe we should be modest when using the utility argument
to justify the value of science literacy.

Lifelong learning as the key to utility

Research on transfer indicates that to enhance the odds that people will indeed draw
upon their knowledge when making choices and decisions, it is important that they
have detailed knowledge that is relevant to the specific situation under consideration,
not just general and superficial knowledge, and they need to be aware of the relevance
of the knowledge they have (e.g. Day & Goldstone, 2012; Hickey & Pellegrino, 2005).
For example, when a doctor recommends giving a child 26 vaccinations – the number
that used to be required in the USA (Miller & Goldman, 2011) – do parents follow
their doctor’s recommendation because she’s the doctor and knows best? Or do the
parents agree to vaccinate their child, regardless of what they think, because it is the
law? Or do the parents follow the doctor’s recommendation because the parents
know/think/feel that, in general, medical authorities can be trusted (maybe they
learned about the Nature of Science in school?) and because the medical authorities
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 543

think that vaccinations are safe and can prevent illnesses? Or, are the parents, using a
term coined by Noah Feinstein, competent outsiders (Feinstein, 2011), and do they
make their own informed decision? We hope/assume most readers’ opinions lie some-
where between the last two possibilities. In that case, what is the knowledge that the
parents need to be able to reach a reasonably informed choice? Clearly they need to
know about the characteristics of the various pathogens that are present in the environ-
ment, the probability that their child will be exposed to them, the odds that their child
will become sick if exposed, the workings of the immune system, whether their child’s
immune system is compromised and if so in what way, how the various vaccines work
and how they are tested, the potential dangerous side effects involved in taking
various vaccines, why vaccines are given according to certain schedules, possible herd
immunity effects on others, and so on … Many, if not most of these things will not be
taught in K-12 science education because there is not enough time to teach everything
and because new relevant knowledge is being created all the time.
Therefore, to increase the odds that people will draw upon their knowledge when
making decisions, it is crucial that they be lifelong learners, people who actively seek
out information related to the situations they face and try to make sense of it. To
enhance science education’s utilitarian value, it must promote the tendency of people
to become lifelong learners of science. Indeed, the OECD recognised attitudes toward
life-long learning of science as an important component of science literacy and included
items assessing this attitude in PISA (OECD, 2021).
This is reminiscent of the preparation for future learning (PFL) perspective of transfer
(Bransford & Schwartz, 1999), according to which an important measure of the quality of
prior learning is how well it prepares you for future learning. A study by Belenky and
Nokes-Malach (2012) showed that the more students were mastery-goals oriented,7
the more they were likely to engage in PFL-type transfer, meaning the more likely
they were to learn new necessary information and then use it to complete a task.
People who are mastery-goal oriented learn because they have an inner need to under-
stand and develop a sense of competence or of mastery (Vedder-Weiss & Fortus,
2012). Mastery-goal orientation for a topic is strongly related to self-efficacy towards
one’s ability to learn and make sense of the topic (Urdan, 1997). This is because if we
do not believe that we have the ability to understand something, it is unlikely that we
will begin to invest the time and energy needed to develop this understanding.
To summarise: We believe that we should have modest expectations regarding the uti-
litarian value of science literacy, and that to enhance this utilitarian value we need to
focus not only on promoting conceptual knowledge and skills, but also on promoting
students’ mastery orientation towards science, their self-efficacy for autodidactic learning
of science, and their attitudes towards life-long learning of science.

The democratic argument

An understanding of science is necessary if any individual is to participate in discussion,
debate and decision-making about issues which have a scientific component. Decisions
have to be made about transport, energy policy, testing of drugs and treatments, disposal
of wastes, and so on. There should be public accountability about the directions of some
scientific research, and public involvement in decisions about whether or not to apply
such knowledge. (Millar, 1996, p. 9)
544 D. FORTUS ET AL.

In democratic societies, it is the individual citizen’s right to participate in discussions,

debates and decision-making about scientific issues made locally and nationally, such
as whether or not obligate a vaccination regime, how to regulate the emission of green-
house gases, and where to store nuclear waste. This right exists regardless of the citizen’s
understanding of the topic being considered or their socio-cultural beliefs and, as has
been seen many times in the past years, often leads to behaviours and support of policies
that run contrary to accepted scientific knowledge (Scientific American Board of Editors,
2017). Indeed, Kahan et al. (2012) reported that people who leaned toward Republican
and conservative worldviews (in the US) were more likely to reject the risks associated
with climate change or with nuclear power as their education level increased. ‘For ordin-
ary citizens, the reward for acquiring greater scientific knowledge and more reliable tech-
nical-reasoning capacities is a greater facility to discover and use – or explain away –
evidence relating to their [peer] groups’ positions’ (Kahan et al., 2012, p. 734).
Assuming that the democratic goal of science literacy for all is not to develop a par-
ticular opinion on socio-scientific issues but to develop the ability to engage in public dis-
cussion on these issues, we need to ask: what level of understanding of science is
necessary for citizens to be able to participate individually and meaningfully in public
debates on science-related issues and not just accept/reject the recommendations of
the experts or the policies of the politicians of their choice? Is this level something
that is realistic to expect students to reach in K-12 education?
In a collection of ‘case studies of individuals not professionally involved with science
interacting with scientific knowledge and/or science professionals’, Ryder (2001, p. 3)
demonstrated that knowledge about science, with a particular emphasis on the epistem-
ology of science, appeared to have greater utility in the public domain than knowledge of
science, what is traditionally called content knowledge. For example, one area of knowl-
edge about science that was repeatedly identified by Ryder (2001) as significant for lay
citizens engaged in socio-scientific issues was ‘an understanding of the ways in which
knowledge claims in science are developed and justified. For example, individuals
needed to recognise that measurements include inherent variability, that empirical
data are gathered using a wide range of different methodologies, that providing justifica-
tion for a knowledge claim is different from proving that it is true, and that theoretical
models carry in-built assumptions’ (p. 35).
However, knowledge about science on its own is not as effective when thinking about
socio-scientific issues as it is when combined with knowledge of science (Sadler, 2004).
As mentioned before, research on transfer (e.g. Hickey & Pellegrino, 2005) has shown
that general and superficial content knowledge is not likely to be to drawn upon in relevant
situations; to enhance transfer one needs detailed knowledge that is clearly connected to
the situation under consideration. So, since much of the science content needed to be
able to fully make sense of many socio-scientific issues lies beyond the syllabus of the
typical elementary, middle and high school science education in many countries, for citi-
zens to be able to meaningfully engage in democratic debates about socio-scientific issues,
they will likely need to go beyond what they learned during their compulsory science edu-
cation; they will need to become competent outsiders (Feinstein, 2011), actively seeking out
scientific knowledge on the issues at hand, perhaps in the form of secondary reports or con-
sensus statements of a group of scientists, making sense of them, reaching their own per-
sonal conclusions and attempt to convince others of their conclusions.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 545

Once again, as with the utility argument, we see that the democratic value of K-12
science education is enhanced if it helps students develop into lifelong learners of
science. Earlier we mentioned the importance of a mastery goal orientation towards
science, of self-efficacy regarding one’s ability to learn new things in science on one’s
own and of positive attitudes towards the lifelong learning of science; we will further
discuss later what we believe is required to be a lifelong learner of science.
To summarise, the democratic argument in favour of science literacy for all leads to
two conclusions: One of the goals of K-12 science education should be to help students
develop knowledge about science alongside their knowledge of science, and a second goal
of K-12 science education should be to develop lifelong learners of science (just like the
utilitarian argument), meaning that it needs to promote a mastery-goal orientation
toward science, self-efficacy for the autodidactic learning of science, and positive atti-
tudes towards lifelong learning.

The social argument

It is important to maintain links between science and the wider culture. Specialization and
the increasingly technical nature of modern science is seen as a social problem, leading to
incipient fragmentation – and the alienation of much of the public from science and tech-
nology. A related argument is advanced from the science side: that improved public under-
standing will lead to more sympathy with, and hence greater support for, science and
technology itself. (Millar, 1996, p. 9)

Our discussion of this argument and of the next one (the cultural argument) is very brief
because the arguments quite clearly align with the point that has already been made –
they are about the need to foster and maintain positive attitudes toward science, not
about the need to develop conceptual understanding of science. The question is
whether it is possible and feasible to promote positive attitudes towards science
without fostering knowledge of and about science.

The cultural argument

Science is a major, indeed, the major achievement of our culture and that all young people
should be enabled to understand and to appreciate it. We should celebrate science as a cul-
tural product. (Millar, 1996, p. 9)

Whether science is the major achievement of our culture is open to debate. Whose/which
culture are we talking about? But regardless of the outcome of this debate, we doubt that
anyone would argue against science as a major cultural achievement and that everyone
should be able to understand it and appreciate it. We argue that the same is true for
music, art, drama, and many other achievements. Should everybody be required to
learn music, literature and drama throughout K-12 education? Absolutely. Yet in how
many schools, districts and countries are these subjects elective rather than compulsory
like science?
If the goal is to celebrate science as a cultural product, is it important that all students
reach pre-determined levels of competence? Isn’t it just as important to emphasise the
aesthetic side of science, the achievements of science, and the stories of the heroes of
science as it is to help student develop competence at doing science? We believe that
the cultural argument, like the social argument, is about promoting positive attitudes,
546 D. FORTUS ET AL.

sensitivity to the aesthetic side of science, and an awareness of the achievements of

science; if they also promote knowledge of and about science, they do so only because
these are needed to develop a social and cultural appreciation of science.

Interim summary
A summary of the main conclusions reached in our analysis of the five arguments for
science literacy for all is presented in Table 1: (a) the economic argument – until students
choose in which field to major, the central economic goal of science education is to
encourage students to major in science fields by enhancing their interest in STEM, by
enhancing their self-efficacy towards STEM, and by enhancing their motivation to con-
tinue studying STEM; (b) the utility argument – we should have modest expectations
regarding the utilitarian value of K-12 science education. To enhance its utilitarian
value, K-12 science education should foster the development of the characteristics that
promote lifelong learning – mastery-goal orientation, self-efficacy towards autodidactic
learning, and positive attitudes towards lifelong learning; (c) the democratic argument
– K-12 science education should promote self-efficacy, mastery-goal orientation and
positive attitudes towards lifelong learning; (d) the social argument – promote positive
attitudes towards science and an awareness of the ways in which science has changed
and is changing our lives for the better; and (e) the cultural argument – foster appreci-
ation of science and positive attitudes toward science by emphasising the beauty in
science, the achievements of science, and also the human stories in science.
Note that none of these conclusions address what knowledge and skills students
should have at the end of high school or if it is important that students reach a certain
level of proficiency in science by the end of high school. We do not claim that learning
the products and processes of science is not important, just that we need to expand the
goals that direct our teaching of science to include more than just knowledge and skills.
Since high-stakes testing drives so much of science education in many countries, it is
crucial that national standards and other national policy documents that specify what
is expected of all students, focus not only on desired conceptual outcomes but also expli-
citly specify the desired affective characteristics as well. While knowledge of and about
science are important, the economic, utilitarian, democratic, social and cultural argu-
ments indicate that if (a) a desire to learn about science, (b) a sense of self-efficacy in
one’s ability to learn more science on one’s own and to use this knowledge to make
sense of the world, (c) a mastery orientation towards science, (d) positive attitudes

Table 1. Arguments for science literacy and the affective goals they promote.
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3
Economic Interest in science Science self-efficacy Motivation to continue
studying science
Utility Mastery-goal orientation Self-efficacy towards autodidactic Positive attitudes towards
toward science learning of science lifelong learning
Democratic Science self-efficacy Mastery-goal orientation towards Positive attitudes towards
science lifelong learning
Social Positive attitudes towards Awareness of the ways in which science
science improves lives
Cultural Positive attitudes toward
science
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 547

towards lifelong learning, and (e) positive attitudes toward the scientific enterprise are
not fostered during K-12 schooling, it is unlikely that students will become scientifically
literate and lifelong learners of science.
In section II we now present self-initiated intentional learning (the basis of lifelong
learning) and discuss why the affective characteristics mentioned above are crucial for
the self-initiated intentional learning of science to occur.

Section II – intentional self-Initiated learning of science (lifelong learning)

When do we learn things unintentionally? All the time. We learn on the path of life,
without a conscious goal, often without being aware that we are learning. The second
traffic light is always red when the first one is green. The dog always barks when
someone knocks on the door. The cellphone’s battery needs less than one hour to be
fully recharged. Salomon and Perkins (1989) called this kind of learning ‘low-road’
and claimed that it developed following extensive practice and occurred automatically,
without having to be consciously initiated. We are often unaware of this low-road learn-
ing until something unexpected occurs: Both lights are green. That is strange … why one
is always red when the other is green but now they are green at the same time? The unex-
pected creates an opportunity for learning of a different kind, for learning of underlying
causes. Salomon and Perkins called this kind of learning ‘high road’ and claimed that it
involved intentionally mindful abstractions. Not everybody grasps these opportunities to
intentionally initiate high-road learning. Some of us notice that an association to which
we have grown accustomed has been disrupted but just shrug it off, glad we do not have
to stop at the second traffic light; some spend a second or two thinking about the coinci-
dence and then drop it as unimportant. A few of us will consciously check, the next time
we reach the intersection, whether the lights are both green or not. It is rare that one of us
will investigate this any further.
Here is a more science-oriented scenario: in the area where one of the authors lives,
the wind almost always comes from the west. Every now and then, it comes from the
east, carrying lots of dust with it. People who live there know that this occasionally
happens, curse the dust, and are grateful when it is over. For most people, their knowl-
edge about the eastern wind is associative (unintentional low-road learning): it usually
occurs in spring, lasts a day or two, is warm and carries a lot of dust. Not a good time
to hang out the laundry. That is about it. Few people use the appearance of an eastern
wind, even though it is an unusual occurrence, as an opportunity to initiate learning
about winds, to understand what causes them.
The intentional self-initiated learning about winds, which can come in response to an
occasional eastern wind, is an example of intentional self-initiated learning of science in
response to a situation that we may encounter in our daily lives. It is this kind of inten-
tional self-initiated learning that is one of the goals of science literacy. This is what we
meant when we spoke of lifelong learning of science. It is reminiscent of the description
of ‘scientifically literate people’ given by Noah Feinstein: ‘people who can connect science
with their own curiosities and crises in ways that are satisfying to them’ (Feinstein, 2011,
p. 177). Lifelong learners typically have certain attitudes, such as a ‘willingness to learn,
openness to different perspectives and perseverance.’ They are ‘committed to making
space for learning, and approach everyday activities with the aim of improving their
548 D. FORTUS ET AL.

skills and accumulating knowledge’ (OECD, 2021, p. 25). Yet most people often do not
engage in self-initiated learning, but instead frequently let these opportunities slip by.
Why? We hypothesise that three conditions must be met for intentionally self-initiated
learning to occur: (a) a situation must trigger one’s awareness that something was or
is not as expected, creating an internal sense of disequilibrium. This can be an eastern
wind in a place where the wind usually comes from the west, a medical test result indi-
cating that your child suffers from cystic fibrosis, or a report by a UN agency that eating
meat is one of the main causes of global pollution; (b) one must feel an inner need to
resolve the disequilibrium created by the discrepant information by understanding
what is going on rather than by ignoring it. As we mentioned earlier, this inner need
is usually ascribed to a mindset referred to as mastery-goal orientation (Ames, 1992;
Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2012) or as positive attitudes towards life-long learning
(OECD, 2021); and (c) one should feel efficacious regarding one’s ability to find relevant
new information, make sense of it, and then act on one’s new understandings. These
three conditions are reminiscent of the attitudes that the OECD (2021) identified as
being typical of individuals who tend to engage in lifelong learning: (a) motivation to
gain new knowledge, (b) a sense of personal efficacy, and (c) the ability to research
and evaluate information (Candy, 1991).
A science education that strives to promote intentional self-initiated learning should
therefore focus on helping learners notice discrepant events and information, develop the
inner need to resolve cognitive disequilibria by constructing new learning rather than by
ignoring them, and develop the belief in their ability to find, learn, and make sense of new
information. We claim that the explicit expectations regarding the ways science should be
taught, as reflected by national standards, is off track in many nations because it is not
helping students develop into intentionally self-initiated learners.
We once again refer to the Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research
Council, 2012) and the NGSS (NGSS Lead States, 2013) from the USA as examples. Both
are policy documents that specify what is important in science education and what stu-
dents should be able to do at the end of different grades. The promotion of self-initiated
lifelong learning of science is clearly a central aim of these documents. Yet, while they
emphasise three conceptual and epistemic forms of knowledge – (A) disciplinary core
ideas, (B) scientific practices, and (C) cross-cutting concepts – not one of the affective
conditions for lifelong learning is explicitly addressed.
While we would be surprised if the authors of these documents objected to the impor-
tance of self-efficacy in science, mastery goal orientation or positive attitudes towards
lifelong learning, we believe that things that are important have to be foregrounded,
one cannot assume that they will develop on their own. That is why policy documents
are written.
Research on self-efficacy (e.g. Bandura, 1982; Dorfman & Fortus, 2019; Usher &
Pajares, 2008) indicates that its development is dependent on four factors: (i) past experi-
ences of success or failure, (ii) vicarious experiences of success or failure through other
individuals, (iii) encouragement or discouragement provided by significant others, and
(iv) psychological states. Past experiences of success or failure in science, that is, the
person’s interpretation of their previous performance on science-related tasks and in
science-related situations, has been repeatedly shown to be the most important contribu-
tor to the development of science self-efficacy (Dorfman & Fortus, 2019). Past science-
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 549

related experiences seen by the individual as successful experiences tend to raise one’s
science self-efficacy, while unsuccessful ones lower it (Usher & Pajares, 2008). Thus,
we need to provide students with plentiful opportunities to experience success in learning
science on their own and in using their new science knowledge to make sense of situ-
ations. The development of science self-efficacy appears to be dependent upon the way
science is taught, not on which or how much science content is taught.
Mastery-goal oriented people tend to accept challenges, persist, exert effort, self-regu-
late their learning processes, and retain information over the long term. Mastery orien-
tation in science develops (for better or for worse) as students interpret what they
perceive to be the intentions and goals of their surroundings and adapt their own
goals to be more in line with those of their environment (Fortus & Touitou, 2021),
with different environmental factors, such as parents and teachers, having different
levels of influence on the students’ mastery goal orientations at different stages in their
lives (Vedder-Weiss & Fortus, 2013). Like self-efficacy, the development of a mastery
orientation appears also to be less dependent on which specific content knowledge
and practices are being taught and more on the way science is taught, and the individual’s
interpretation of the expectations of their parents, teachers, peers and school (Vedder-
Weiss & Fortus, 2013).
One of the authors recently went on a hike with a friend who is an earth science edu-
cator. The science educator kept on pointing out things that the author had seen, but not
noticed, such as unusual rock formations and fossilised mollusks. The ability to notice
discrepant events or patterns is dependent on prior knowledge and experiences (Brans-
ford & Schwartz, 1999; Broudy, 1977). Therefore, the learning of science content and
practices should have a positive effect on people’s ability to notice and identify situations
that can become triggers for further learning.
The NGSS and the other national standards documents with which we are acquainted
promote only one of the three conditions for self-initiated learning (i.e. the propensity to
recognise new opportunities to learn). If the affective conditions are not supported as
well, it is unlikely that the present generation of students will become lifelong learners
of science. There is a broad research base that demonstrates the importance of the
affective domain, but many national standards have ignored this research base.
Without promoting affect towards science, it is unlikely that students will develop the
capacity for lifelong learning of science, and without this capacity, the ability of citizens
to use science in reaching decisions and guiding their lives and in being active partici-
pants in public debates on socio-scientific issues, two of the main reasons given for
the importance of science literacy for all, will be too under-developed to be useful.
Some readers may have reached the impression that we think that the learning of
science content and practices in K-12 classes is inconsequential and unnecessary. That
is not at all the case. The learning of science and about science in K-12 classes is impor-
tant. But when knowledge of science is not combined with affective characteristics such
as a mastery orientation towards science, interest in science, self-efficacy regarding one’s
ability to learn science, and positive attitudes towards life-long learning of science, it is
not used and re-used and will likely fade away (Healy & Sinclair, 1996). It will not
lead to science literacy. We think that a new balance between cognitive outcomes and
affective outcomes needs to be struck (Fortus, 2014), with more recognition by the stan-
dards documents of the broad research base indicating the importance of the affective
550 D. FORTUS ET AL.

domain (e.g. Alsop & Watts, 2003; Fortus, 2014; Kayumova & Tippins, 2016; Krapp &
Prenzel, 2011; OECD, 2021; Osborne, Simon, et al., 2003; Taskinen et al., 2013),
leading to a greater emphasis on the affective aspects of learning science than they
have traditionally received in classroom instruction and in policy documents. We are
not the first researchers who have identified the need to integrate conceptual and
affective goals in science education and the challenges of including affective elements
in assessments of science learning (e.g. Falk et al., 2016; Höft & Bernholt, 2019; Kayu-
mova & Tippins, 2016; Krapp & Prenzel, 2011; Shepard et al., 2018).
We are well aware that the development and revision of standards are complex pro-
cesses involving numerous stakeholders. The policy documents that emerge from these
processes are consensus documents and, as such, will never represent perfect solutions.
We recognise these limitations and are not suggesting that the incorporation of affective
goals into science education policy will create a quick fix for widespread scientific lit-
eracy. However, by omitting affective goals, the current wave of policy documents
creates significant barriers to enacting a vision of science education that has any
chance advancing lifelong learning and scientific literacy. There will come a time, we
would argue in the not-too-distant future, when the policy documents guiding current
science teaching, learning, and assessment will be seriously reconsidered, revised, or
replaced. With this position paper, we are calling on the community of science educators
and researchers to be prepared for this moment through the necessary incorporation of
affective goals in science education.
Affective characteristics are not just things that instruction can and should build on;
they (or the lack of them) are also outcomes of instruction. As Plutarch wrote, ‘for the
mind is not a vessel that needs filling, but wood that needs igniting’ (Waterfield,
1992). Until affective goals are explicitly highlighted and delineated by standards docu-
ments as one of the expected outcomes of science education, it is unlikely that they will be
emphasised in many science teachers’ practice.

Notes
1. From here onwards we will use USA documents (the Next Generation Science Standards
[NGSS], the Framework for K-12 Science Education) for all our examples, primarily
because they are in English, although in principle documents from other countries could
have been used as well.
2. Three outliers were removed from the graph – Qatar, Norway and Liechtenstein – having
extremely high GDP per capita as a result of natural resources (Qatar and Norway) or a
very low population (Liechtenstein).
3. As mentioned earlier, recognising interest as a component of science literacy, PISA began
assessing students’ interest in 2006 (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011) by embedding interest items
in the conceptual sections of the test (Drechsel et al., 2011).
4. ‘Interest refers to either (a) the psychological state of being engaged or the inclination to
reengage with particular classes of objects, events, or ideas over time (Hidi & Renninger,
2006), which is often called individual interest or (b) situational interest which is a state
of heightened awareness that is prompted by particular features of the environment (Hidi
et al., 1992) … Self-efficacy is a competence belief. Self-efficacy is an expectancy about
one’s capabilities to learn or perform a given task (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006) … Motiv-
ation is the process that initiates, directs and maintains goal-oriented behaviours (Pintrich
& Schunk, 1995). Interest pulls you or is the state of being pulled toward an object, idea, or
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 551

event; it influences the direction in which you may act. On the other hand, motivation is
what pushes you away from where you are and causes you to act, though it too can
influence direction’ (Fortus, 2014).
5. A possible indirect economic justification for teaching science to non-STEM majors is that
enhancing their appreciation for science may bolster their support for continued STEM
research and development – see the section on the social argument for STEM for all.
6. ‘A man who doesn’t read has no advantage over a man who can’t read’ (Ward & Duncan,
2001).
7. ‘Goal orientation theory focuses on … the reasons why individuals engage in learning activi-
ties. The theory distinguishes between two main goal orientations: mastery goals orientation
and performance goals orientation. Mastery-oriented individuals strive to develop compe-
tence in order to achieve a sense of mastery; they learn because they want to understand …
Performance-oriented individuals strive to demonstrate competence and are therefore con-
cerned with others’ perceptions of their competence and with their ability relative to others’
(Fortus, 2015).

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Alliance for Improving Scientific Literacy for all (AISL) at Beijing
Normal University for bringing the authors together and providing us with an environment that
supported the preparation of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
The preparation of this manuscript was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China [grant number 62077008].

ORCID
David Fortus http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6157-4505
Jing Lin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3721-710X
Knut Neumann http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4391-7308
Troy D. Sadler http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9401-0300

References
Alsop, S., & Watts, M. (2003). Science education and affect. International Journal of Science
Education, 25(9), 1043–1047. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052180
American Dietetic Association. (2009). Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian
diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(7), 1266–1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jada.2009.05.027
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–
147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American
Psychologist, 54(7), 462–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.462
552 D. FORTUS ET AL.

Belenky, D. M., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2012). Motivation and transfer: The role of mastery-
approach goals in preparation for future learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(3),
399–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.651232
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple
implications. Review of Research in Education 24(1), 61–100. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0091732X024001061
Broudy, H. S. (1977). Types of knowledge and purposes of education. In R. C. Anderson, R. J.
Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 1–17).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. A comprehensive guide to theory and prac-
tice. ERIC.
Christensen, C. (2001). Scientific literacy for a risky society. In P. Singh, & E. McWilliam. (Eds.),
Designing educational research: Theories, methods and practices (pp. 141–154). Post Pressed.
Coopersmith, S., & Feldman, R. (1974). Fostering positive self-concept and high self-esteem in the
classroom. In R. H. Coop, & K. P. White (Eds.), Psychological concepts in the classroom (pp. 192–
225). Harper & Row.
Day, S. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012). The import of knowledge export: Connecting findings and
theories of transfer of learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00461520.2012.696438
DeBoer, G. E. (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
DeBoer, G. E. (2011). The globalization of science education. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 48(6), 567–591. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20421
Dorfman, B. S., & Fortus, D. (2019). Students’ self-efficacy for science in different school systems.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(8), 1037–1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21542
Drechsel, B., Carstensen, C., & Prenzel, M. (2011). The role of content and context in PISA interest
scales: A study of the embedded interest items in the PISA 2006 science assessment.
International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.
2010.518646
Falk, J. H., Staus, N., Dierking, L. D., Penuel, W. R., Wyld, J., & Bailey, D. (2016). Understanding
youth STEM interest pathways within a single community: The Synergies project. International
Journal of Science Education, Part B, 6(4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.
1093670
Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168–185. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sce.20414
Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] of the United Nations. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow:
Environmental issues and options.
Fortus, D. (2014). Attending to affect. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 821–835.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21155
Fortus, D. (2015). Motivation and the learning of science. In R. F. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
science education (pp. 665–667). Springer.
Fortus, D., & Touitou, I. (2021). Changes to students’ motivation to learn science. Disciplinary and
Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-020-
00029-0
Fortus, D., & Vedder-Weiss, D. (2014). Measuring students continuing motivation for science
learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(4), 497–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.
21136
Hanushek, E. A., & Wössmann, L. (2015). The knowledge capital of nations. MIT press.
Healy, A. F., & Sinclair, G. P.(1996). The long-term retention of training and instruction. In E.
Bjork & R. Bjork (Eds.), Memory: Handbook of perception and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 525–
564). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hickey, D. T., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2005). Theory, level, and function: Three dimensions for under-
standing the connections between transfer and student assessment. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.),
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 553

Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 251–253). Information Age
Publishing.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (1992). The present state of interest research. In K. A.
Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp.
433–446). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Höft, L., & Bernholt, S. (2019). Longitudinal couplings between interest and conceptual under-
standing in secondary school chemistry: An activity-based perspective. International Journal
of Science Education, 41(5), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1571650
Israel Ministry of Education. (2014). The science and technology curriculum. http://motnet.proj.ac.
il/Apps/WW/page.aspx?ws=5dd54bfd-f1b8-4c5d-834a-1ddecb1c789b&page=b37cd78e-a8c2-
4103-9526-5f053defe42d&fol=66ba5c58-e2c0-4fb1-8499-0d4903194599&code=66ba5c58-
e2c0-4fb1-8499-0d4903194599
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012).
The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks.
Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
Kayumova, S., & Tippins, D. (2016). Toward re-thinking science education in terms of affective
practices: Reflections from the field. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(3), 567–575.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9695-3
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of
controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings.
International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.
2010.518645
Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review,
77(280), 7–18.
Miller, N. Z., & Goldman, G. S. (2011). Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine
doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Human & Experimental
Toxicology, 30(9), 1420–1428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0960327111407644
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2011). Middle school science curriculum
standards. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/201112/t20111228_167340.html
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2017). Elementary school science curri-
culum standards. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/201702/t20170215_296305.html
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2020). High school physics/chemistry/
biology/geography curriculum standards. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/202006/
t20200603_462199.html
National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine. (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and
consequences. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
National Science Board. (2018). Science and engineering indicators 2018. Alexandria, VA: National
Science Foundation.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National
Academies Press.
OECD. (2000). Science, technology and innovation in the new economy: Policy brief. http://www.
oecd.org/science/sci-tech/1918259.pdf
OECD. (2021). OECD Skills Outlook 2021
Osborne, J. A., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. A. (2003). What ? Ideas-about-
science? Should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
Osborne, J. A., Simon, S. B., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the litera-
ture and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199
554 D. FORTUS ET AL.

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of
motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change.
Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063002167
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1995). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and appli-
cations. Prentice-Hall.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy / science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in
Science Education, 36(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260108560166
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of
research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.
20009
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanism of a neg-
lected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep2402_1
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Competence and control beliefs: Distinguishing the
means and ends. In P. A. Alexander, & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology
(2nd ed., pp. 349–368). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scientific American Board of Editors. (2017, February). A letter to Washington. Scientific
American, 7.
Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland [KMK]. (2005a). Bildungsstandards für den Mittleren Schulabschluss im Fach
Biologie. Luchterhand.
Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland [KMK]. (2005b). Bildungsstandards für den Mittleren Schulabschluss im Fach
Chemie. Luchterhand.
Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland [KMK]. (2005c). Bildungsstandards für den Mittleren Schulabschluss im Fach
Physik. Luchterhand.
Shepard, L. A., Penuel, W. R., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2018). Using learning and motivation theories to
coherently link formative assessment, grading practices, and large-scale assessment. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12189
Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The “warming trend” in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul
R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep4002_5
Sjøberg, S. (1997). Science, Technology and Citizenship: The Public Understanding of Science and
Technology in Science Education and Research Policy. NIFU, Norsk institutt for studier av for-
skning og utdanning.
Taskinen, P., Asseburg, R., & Walter, O. (2009). Who would like to choose natural science related
or technical profession? Skills, self-concept and motivation as predictors of professional expec-
tations in PISA 2006. In M. Prenzel & J. Baumert (Eds.), In-Depth Analyses of PISA 2006 (pp.
79–105). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-531-91815-0_5
Taskinen, P. H., Schütte, K., & Prenzel, M. (2013). Adolescents’ motivation to select an academic
science-related career: The role of school factors, individual interest, and science self-concept.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(8), 717–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.
853620
The World Bank. (2016a). GDP per capita (current US$). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.
GDP.PCAP.CD
The World Bank. (2016b). Researchers in R&D (per million people). http://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/SP.POP.SCIE.RD.P6
Thomas, G., & J. Durant (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science?
Scientific Literacy Papers, 1, 1–14.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 555

Urdan, T. C. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. Advances in
Motivation and Achievement, 10, 99–141.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature
and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751–796. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654308321456
Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2012). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: A
follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1057–1095. https://doi.org/
10.1002/tea.21049
Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2013). School, teacher, peers and parents’ goals emphases and
adolescents’ motivation to learn science in and out of school. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 50(8), 952–988. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21103
Ward, G. C. & Duncan D. (2001). Mark Twain. New York, NY: Knopf.
Waterfield, R. (1992). Essays by Plutarch on listening. Penguin Classics.