Korean Secondary Students' Perception of Scientific Literacy As Global CitizensUsing Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/278370343
Korean Secondary Students’ Perception of Scientific Literacy as Global

Citizens:Using Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire
Article in International Journal of Science Education · June 2015

DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1045956
CITATIONS READS
18 835
7 authors, including:
Hyunju Lee Kongju Mun

Ewha Womans University Dongduk Women's University
86 PUBLICATIONS 1,045 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 263 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Sung-Won Kim Sung Choi

Ewha Womans University dongguk
179 PUBLICATIONS 2,059 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Development of Philosophical/Theoretical Understanding of Aesthetic Experience in Science Education and Application of Aesthetic Experience on Science-Art
Convergence Education. View project
Fostering Worldviews of Socioscientific Issues View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sung-Won Kim on 11 July 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Ewha Womens University]
On: 15 June 2015, At: 08:52
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Korean Secondary Students’ Perception

of Scientific Literacy as Global Citizens:
Using Global Scientific Literacy
Questionnaire
a b a a
Kongju Mun , Namsoo Shin , Hyunju Lee , Sung-Won Kim ,
a c c
Kyunghee Choi , Sung-Youn Choi & Joseph S. Krajcik
a
Department of Science Education, Ewha Womans University,
Seoul, South Korea
b
Click for updates Department of Science Education, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI, USA
c
Department of Science Education, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI, USA
Published online: 15 Jun 2015.
To cite this article: Kongju Mun, Namsoo Shin, Hyunju Lee, Sung-Won Kim, Kyunghee Choi, Sung-
Youn Choi & Joseph S. Krajcik (2015): Korean Secondary Students’ Perception of Scientific Literacy
as Global Citizens: Using Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire, International Journal of Science
Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1045956
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1045956
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Ewha Womens University] at 08:52 15 June 2015
International Journal of Science Education, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1045956
Korean Secondary Students’

Perception of Scientific Literacy as
Global Citizens: Using Global
Scientific Literacy Questionnaire
Kongju Muna, Namsoo Shinb, Hyunju Leea,

Sung-Won Kima∗ , Kyunghee Choia, Sung-Youn Choic
and Joseph S. Krajcikc
a
Department of Science Education, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea;
b
Department of Science Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;
c
Department of Science Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
We re-conceptualized the meaning of scientific literacy and developed an instrument, which we call
the Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire (GSLQ) based on a new conceptual framework for
scientific literacy in the twenty-first century. We identified five dimensions, each with key
elements. The five dimensions are (1) content knowledge (core ideas of science), (2) habits of
mind (science practices), (3) character and values, (4) science as human endeavor, and (5)
metacognition and self-direction. In this study, we attempted to diagnose the extent to which
South Korean secondary students perceive themselves as global citizens having such capabilities
using GSLQ with 3,202 students (7th–12th grades). Validity and reliability were examined using
various statistical techniques including the Cronbach’s α coefficient, exploratory factor analysis,
and confirmatory factor analysis. The use and value of the instrument were discussed by
examining the Korean secondary students’ overall scientific literacy as well as their views on each
dimension across gender and grade levels. We recommend that teachers and researchers use the
GSLQ to assess students’ global scientific literacy and provide comments on its usefulness as a
research tool and the practical use of its inventory of items.
Keywords: Scientific literacy; Development instrument; Twenty-first-century capacities;

Habits of mind; Character and values; Science as human endeavor; Metacognition;
Self-direction
∗
Corresponding author. Department of Science Education, Ewha Womans University, 52,
Ewhayeodae-gil, Seoul 120-750, South Korea. Email: sungwon@ewha.ac.kr
© 2015 Taylor & Francis

2 K. Mun et al.
Introduction
The recent explosion at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan exemplifies how
technology advancement affects the global welfare of human beings and the environ-
ment. In the case of Fukushima explosion, residents living in the area and people in
different places of the world were threatened by the release of radioactive matter.
The far-reaching repercussions of the explosion indicate that contemporary society
requires individuals to have ‘collective social consciousness’ as global citizens
(Zeidler & Nichols, 2009, p. 6). In other words, the accident is not merely a local
concern, but requires global communities to take responsibility to resolve related
issues. Many other countries and global organizations dispatched rescuers and volun-
teers to help the injured and provided economic aid for recovery. Moreover, individ-
uals in different places of the world expressed sympathy for the victims and their loss
and joined in fund-raising campaigns to support their recovery.

In a globalized society, therefore, our highest aim as science educators is to
prepare students to lead fulfilled responsible lives as global citizens. Global citizens
should participate in discourse on socio-scientific issues (SSI) (e.g. global warming,
genetically modified organism, stem-cell research, nanotechnologies, oil spills, etc.),
make a thoughtful decision using evidence with scientific ideas, and take socio-pol-
itical actions to resolve issues for the larger good of the global society (Boyes,
Skamp, & Stanistreet, 2009; Mueller & Zeidler, 2010; Roth & Lee, 2004; Zeidler,
Herman, Ruzek, Linder, & Lin, 2013). Science educators in South Korea have
reformed the National Science Education Standards, which aim to raise secondary
school graduates with self-directed and creative talents who can deliver global lea-
dership in the twenty-first century. Although South Korean students have performed
successfully on international science and mathematics tests (e.g. Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA), Trends in International Mathematics
and Science Study (TIMSS)), their awareness of global issues—such as environ-
mental pollution, global warming, land conservation, and the unexpected conse-
quences of genetic modification of plants—seems relatively low and they are not
very proactive in resolving these issues (Lee, Sohn, & No, 2008).
For these reasons, the authors of this study revisit the meaning of scientific literacy
that corresponds to the demands of South Korean society and global changes, and
propose a new conceptual framework for scientific literacy for the twenty-first
century (see more details in Choi, Lee, Shin, Kim, & Krajcik, 2011). Much debate
has been going on the meaning of scientific literacy, and some researchers have
faced problems formulating distinct meanings of scientific literacy (DeBoer, 2000;
Roberts, 2007). However, we agree with Miller’s (1998) and Laugksch’s (2000)
views that scientific literacy is a socially and culturally constructed concept and con-
tinuously evolves along with the changes of context and era.
In our conceptualization of scientific literacy for the twenty-first century (Choi et al.,
2011), we emphasize more the competencies of students to solve complex problems in
personal, societal, and global contexts by collaborating and communicating with
others, finding and using appropriate resources, and arguing for and against positions
Korean Secondary Students’ Perception of Scientific Literacy 3
using sufficient evidence and reasoning (American Association for the Advancement
of Science [AAAS], 2007; National Research Council [NRC], 2012). We also empha-
size developing character and values of individuals who are able to respect and be com-
passionate of other human beings and the environment, and acting responsibly as
citizens who understand scientific knowledge as a product of human enterprise
(Elmose & Roth, 2005; Hodson, 2003; Lederman, 1992; Roth & Lee, 2004).
Further, as lifelong learners, we believe that it would be crucial for students to have
an explicit and self-directed understanding of their own cognition and cognitive capa-
bility, such as that gained by reflecting upon their level of knowledge, seeking new
information to answer questions if necessary, and evaluating their learning processes
(Brown, 1987; Leahey & Harris, 1997; Maitland, 2000). We expect that the above
new direction can support students in developing the intellectual resources and
value orientation necessary to live in a global society and to solve the grand challenges
facing our global society with respect to health, sustainability, and the environment
(Aikenhead, Orpwood, & Fensham, 2011).
Before taking a first step to educate our students with this vision, we realize the need
to identify to what extent South Korean secondary school students (7th–12th grades)
perceive themselves to have competencies as global citizens. In order to investigate
this, we developed an instrument called the Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire
(GSLQ) based on our conceptualization of scientific literacy. Many existing instru-
ments that measure students’ competencies related to scientific literacy are useful
(see examples, Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992; Laugksch & Spargo, 1996; Manhart,
1997), but most of them were developed in the 1990s and consequently, do not ade-
quately measure the competencies that global society demands. Thus, this study has
two research aims. First, we presented a rigorous development process of GSLQ.
Second, we investigated South Korean secondary students’ perception of their
global scientific literacy using GSLQ across grades and gender. Since Korean students
obtain knowledge, skills, and attitudes following Korean national science curriculum,
it would be meaningful for science educators to see to what extent the students present
changes of development in their perceptions over the school years. We also assumed
that some dimensions of GSLQ may present gender difference considering previous
studies (e.g. Gilligan, 1982; Miller, Blessing, & Schwartz, 2006; Park & Noh,
2007). We expect that a valid and reliable instrument, which measures the compe-
tences for the twenty-first-century scientific literacy, serves as a benchmark for devel-
oping new standards, curriculum materials, instructional techniques, and assessments
in South Korea.
Review of Literature
Efforts to Measure Scientific Literacy
Over the past decades, science educators have developed instruments for measuring
students’ capabilities, such as attitudes toward science, understanding of the nature
of science (NOS) and the inter-relationships among science, technology, and
4 K. Mun et al.
society (STS), and basic knowledge of science, in relation to scientific literacy. For
example, Moore and Sutman (1970) and Fraser (1978) developed Likert-scale
items to measure students’ attitudes toward science. A Scientific Attitude Inventory,
developed by Moore and Sutman, asked for opinions on the NOS how scientists
worked, and how students felt about science, using a four-point Likert-scale. The
Test of Science-Related Attitudes developed by Fraser (1978), which has been
widely used by many science education researchers until recently, comprised seven
subscales such as social implications of science, normality of scientists, attitudes
toward scientific inquiry, adoption of scientific attitudes, enjoyment of science
lessons, leisure interest in science, and career interest in science.
Science educators (e.g. Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Aikenhead &
Ryan, 1992; Kimball, 1967; Rubba & Andersen, 1978) developed instruments princi-
pally to measure students’ understanding of the NOS. For example, Kimball’s NOS
Scale incorporated 29 Likert-scale items (agree/neutral/disagree) based on his concep-
tual model for NOS. Rubba and Andersen (1978) developed a 48-item Likert-scale
instrument called the Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale for secondary school stu-
dents; it included subscales such as amoral, creative, developmental, parsimonious,
testable, and unified. Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998) proposed seven open-ended ques-
tions about the NOS in order to probe learners’ NOS views in depth. They revised
some of the View of Nature of Science-A items, developed by Lederman and
O’Malley (1990), to assess pre-service secondary science teachers’ views of the tenta-
tive, empirical, inferential, creative, theory-laden, and the relationship between the-
ories and laws.
Researchers designed some instruments to measure several aspects of scientific lit-
eracy together by employing a large number of multiple-choice or Likert-scale test
items. For instance, the Views on Science-Technology-Society tool, developed by
Aikenhead and Ryan (1992), covered not only NOS, but also inter-relationships
among STS (e.g. science and technology, influence of society on science/technology,
influence of science/technology on science, etc.). Laugksch and Spargo (1996) ana-
lyzed key ideas presented in Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1989) and developed
110 true-false items (Test of Basic Scientific Literacy) that focused on three dimen-
sions of science literacy (i.e. NOS, cognitive science knowledge, and the impact of
science and technology on society). Similarly, Manhart (1997) developed multiple-
choice items to assess science literacy relating to the content knowledge about four
subjects (physical, life, earth, and space sciences), abilities necessary to engage in
scientific inquiry, the nature of scientific inquiry and knowledge, science as a
human endeavor, science and technology, and societal perspectives. Table 1 summar-
izes the information on the instruments related to scientific literacy.
Although the instruments described in Table 1 are useful for measuring students’
awareness of NOS or STS, the instruments do little to measure students’ views of
the current societal and global demands. Due to the social and societal impacts of
science, it is now time to re-conceptualize scientific literacy to account for the collec-
tive and social consciousness that is now required of all global citizens. It has become
critical to include these important skills and competencies.
Table 1. Exemplary instruments relating to scientific literacy
Developer(s) Year Instrument content Item type Participants Reliability Validity
Rubba and 1978 NSKS (Nature of 48 674 high Test–retest Construct

Andersen Scientific Knowledge Likert- school
Scale) scale Content
Fraser 1978 TOSRA (Test of 70 1,337 Internal Discriminant
Science-Related Likert- grades consistency
Attitudes) scale 7–10
Moore and 1970 Attitude and interest 60 67 grade 10 Test–retest Construct
Sutman toward science Likert-
scale
Glynn and 2006 Motivation toward 30
Koballa leaning science Likert-

scale
Abd-El- 1998 VNOS (View of Nature of 7 Open- 14 pre-
Khalick, Science) ended service
et al. teacher
Kimball 1967 Understanding of NOS 29 712 college Split-half Content
Likert- Construct
scale Discriminant
Aikenhead 1992 VOSTS (View of 114 5,000 high Internal
and Ryan Science-Technology- Multiple school consistency
Society) choice
Laugksch 1996 NOS, nature of 110 625 college Internal Content
and technology, earth/space True- consistency
Spargo sciences, physical/ false Construct
chemical sciences, life
sciences, health
sciences
Manhart 1997 Physical science, life Multiple 1,139 Internal Content
science, earth/space choice consistency
science, abilities necessary grades 9–12 Construct
to engage in scientific
inquiry, nature of scientific
inquiry/knowledge, science
as a human endeavor,
science and technology,
societal perspectives
Conceptualization of Scientific Literacy in the Twenty-first Century

Since the 1980s, science educators and organizations have made efforts to define and
shape the meaning of scientific literacy (AAAS, 1989, 1993; Arons, 1983; Bybee,
1997; Millar & Osborne, 1998; Miller, 1998; NRC, 1996; Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2007; Roberts, 2007; Shamos, 1995). Early
concepts of scientific literacy focused on students’ learning science content and
process skills. In the twenty-first century, the focus has shifted to learners developing
the knowledge and skills needed to solve complex problems evident in their everyday
6 K. Mun et al.
lives. Future jobs require an understanding of scientific content in addition to abilities

to use this understanding to reason, to learn, and to solve problems creatively.
However, these current views of scientific literacy are still limited with respect to the
necessary global perspectives and competencies that citizens require.
Our re-conceptualization of scientific literacy for South Korea goes beyond core
scientific ideas and skills and the important dimensions of character and values, and
metacognition and self-direction (Choi et al., 2011). As we move from a context cen-
tered on the individual and society to a global context, citizens of the twenty-first
century will need to develop an integrated understanding of the core ideas of science,
and important scientific reasoning and practices, as well as realize that science is a
human endeavor. However, these aspects of scientific literacy will include values,
morals, and worldviews that can lead people to make appropriate choices and decisions
to ensure a sustainable planet. Individuals will also need to develop metacognitive skills
in order to make sense of and use new complex scientific information. These aspects of
scientific literacy extend contemporary views and as such provide a new vision of scien-
tific literacy. Our premise is that the construct of scientific literacy must also describe
students’ competencies required for living in the global society.
For a more precise characterization of scientific literacy for global citizens, we con-
ducted an extensive review of literature, debated ideas, and investigated science tea-
chers’ views of scientific literacy. From this research, we synthesized a framework
that possesses five dimensions: (1) content knowledge, (2) habits of mind, (3) charac-
ter and values, (4) science as human endeavor, and (5) metacognition and self-direc-
tion. These dimensions must be integrated in order to support students in their
acquisition of the understanding and the resources necessary to solve the problems
and issues they may face.
Content knowledge. The scientific content knowledge that individuals must possess in
a globalized society is the core ideas. Core ideas refer to the overarching concepts,
principles, and relationships between scientific ideas in the explanation and descrip-
tion of a host of phenomena that individuals experience in their lives (Bransford,
Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Linn & Eylon, 2006; Millar, 2007; NRC, 2012; Tyler,
2007; Wilson & Berenthal, 2006). It allows learners to build integrated conceptual
understanding that can be added and developed throughout their lives (NRC, 2007,
2012). Individuals who have an integrated understanding of core ideas have the foun-
dation for assimilating new ideas and apply them in order to solve problems or make
decisions when needed. Examples of core ideas may include energy, the particle nature
of matter, biodiversity, patterns of change, systems and interactions, sustainability,
scale and structure, and evolution and equilibrium. Korean students need to apply
and use core ideas to find solutions to scientific problems to live productive lives.
Science educators and policy makers in South Korea are focusing on this. However,
helping students develop core ideas has not yet been practiced in schools. This task
requires a major shift in the current climate of Korean education in schools and pro-
jects a new vision for curriculum reform and development.
Habits of mind. Habits of mind in the twenty-first century require the capabilities to
explore the scientific world and to resolve personal, community, and global problems.
This dimension emphasizes the importance of communication and collaboration, sys-
tematic thinking, including non-routine problem-solving, the use of evidence to
support claims and the development of models, and information management (Choi
et al., 2011). Namely, it involves the ability of individuals to know how to work,
listen to, and interpret information while communicating and collaborating with
others from diverse backgrounds in order to build joint understandings (AAAS,
2007; Dillenbourg, 1999). It also incorporates the ability of individuals to examine
issues critically and use logical procedures to solve issues by using appropriate
resources and evidences from multiple perspectives. Communicating with evidence
has surfaced as a key component of science education (Stevens, Sutherland, &
Krajcik, 2009; Millar, 2007; NRC, 2012), yet the current South Korean curriculum
seldom emphasizes these ideas.
Character and values. Beyond attitudes and motivation, individuals should develop
character and values as global citizens, which is essential for them to be sensitive to
global issues, to respect other human beings and the environment, and to take respon-
sible actions to resolve issues (Berkowitz & Simmons, 2003; Hodson, 2003; Lee,
Chang, Choi, Kim, & Zeidler, 2012; Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, & Howes, 2005).
Character and values may include an ecological worldview (i.e. a shared belief that
all human beings are embedded in nature and so any impacts on the environment ulti-
mately impact human beings in turn) (Smith & Williams, 1999), moral and ethical
sensitivity (i.e. empathetic concerns for others who suffer from various SSI or are alie-
nated from the benefits of development) (Ruiz & Vallejos, 1999), and socio-scientific
accountability (i.e. sense of responsibility as stakeholders on global SSI and a willing-
ness to share the responsibility to alleviate or prevent suffering) (Boyes et al., 2009;
Elmose & Roth, 2005; Mueller & Zeidler, 2010; Roth & Lee, 2004). In order to
cope with global SSI that occur in different places in the world and that affect other
parts of the world, science educators in South Korea have felt the need to nurture indi-
viduals who appreciate diversity of values and cultures, have compassion for others,
construct values collaboratively for the larger welfare, and ultimately, act.
Science as human endeavor. Individuals in the twenty-first century require a contem-

porary understanding of science (i.e. science as human endeavor) since it helps them
to use scientific knowledge when making choices, resolving issues, making decisions,
and voting intelligently with respect to what science can and cannot do (Aikenhead,
1985; Zeidler, Walker, & Ackett, 2002). Since scientific practices are essentially
socially driven (Abd-El-Khalick, 2001; Lederman, 1992), scientific knowledge or
other products of science cannot avoid being tentative, subjective, and often
inter-related with human lives. Therefore, individuals need to understand the inter-
relationship between science and society. In addition, they need to use the spirit of
science (e.g. curiosity, creativity, intellectual honesty, tolerance of ambiguity,
8 K. Mun et al.
skepticism, and openness to new ideas) to understand SSI and respond to the chal-
lenges of decision-making in social and global contexts.
Metacognition and self-direction. Metacognition and self-direction refer to an individ-

ual’s capability to use cognitive resources actively in order to regulate one’s own think-
ing and improve capability to understand (Brown, 1987; Leahey & Harris, 1997), which
are essential for lifelong learning. Although these two constructs have been emphasized
in existing literature (Bransford et al., 2000), with few exceptions, very little has actually
been done in curriculum materials to promote this important aspect of learning (see e.g.
Linn & Eylon, 2006), and it has barely been counted as a major element of scientific lit-
eracy. However, in the twenty-first century, learning occurs through continual inter-
actions with others to cope with the constant scientific and technology innovation
and change (Fischer, 2000). Metacognition will serve an important role for global
citizens as they encounter various problems that relate to personal, societal, and
global issues (Choi et al., 2011). As such, it allows an individual to decide if one
grasps particular content knowledge and how it relates to other ideas; it allows
judging if an individual has sufficient and appropriate evidence to support an argument;
and it allows seeing how the perspectives of others are similar or different from one’s
own positions (Choi et al., 2011). Metacognition and self-direction help plan, guide,
and evaluate acquiring relevant information in order to improve understanding of
one’s own initiatives (Collins, 1994; Leahey & Harris, 1997; Maitland, 2000). We
identified three key aspects of metacognition and self-direction: self-directed planning,
self-directed monitoring, and self-directed evaluating (Brown, 1987; Leahey & Harris,
1997). Self-directed planning supports individuals in determining what needs to be
done for accomplishing a task (Voss, Lawrence, & Engle, 1991). Self-directed monitor-
ing is awareness of comprehension and task performance during the process of complet-
ing a specific task (Nietfeld, Cao, & Osborne, 2005). Monitoring helps an individual to
track their process of completing a task and to identify their limitations so that it influ-
ences their efforts for fulfilling a task (Kluwe & Friedrichsen, 1985). Self-directed eval-
uating refers to an individual looking back on their working process and evaluating their
decisions and resolution to be appropriate or not (Sinnott, 1989).
Methods
In order to diagnose Korean secondary students’ perception of scientific literacy, we
developed an instrument, which we called the GSLQ, and administered it to Grade
7th–12th students. The development of the GSLQ proceeded through the following
phases.
Phase 1: Developing the Initial Items of the GSLQ

We developed the GSLQ to measure secondary students’ global scientific literacy with
four dimensions: habits of mind, character and values, science as a human endeavor,
and metacognition and self-direction. We did not include the content knowledge in
this questionnaire because we believed that assessing content knowledge would
require separate measures. Based on the four dimensions, we designed 114 statements
that represent the thoughts and behaviors of students who possess global scientific lit-
eracy competencies. We used a five-point Likert-scale (1: never; 2: seldom/rarely; 3:
sometimes; 4: often/frequently; 5: always) which has been successfully adapted to
measure psychometric phenomena (Gable & Wolf, 1993). The initial items comprised
37 for habits of mind, 29 for character and values, 30 for science as human endeavor,
and 18 for metacognition and self-direction.
In developing the initial items, we reviewed instruments about scientific literacy, the
NOS, attitude toward science, and STS (Table 1). We also referred to the National
Science Standards (U.S.; NRC, 1996), the Atlas of Science Literacy (U.S.; AAAS,
2007), the National Science Curriculum and Science (Korean; Ministry of Education
Science Technology [MEST], 2009), and the National Curriculum for England
(U.K.; Department for Education and Employmen & Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority [DfEE/QCA], 1999). Where possible, we selected previously published
items aligned with our dimensions and modified them as necessary; otherwise, we
designed and developed new items. We evaluated the items using the criteria of age-
appropriateness in order to make the text readable for students. For content validity,
we discussed and revised items iteratively with eight experts and nine graduate stu-
dents in science and science education fields. They evaluated how well each item con-
nected to the previously defined dimensions of global scientific literacy. The items
were initially developed in English, translated into Korean, and then translated back
into English. We continued this process until the items had the same meaning in
both Korean and English, with the intention of developing internationally usable
instruments.
Phase 2: Piloting and Refining Items

We piloted the initial items with a total of 541 (351 males) 8th and 9th grade students
from four schools in South Korea. After analyzing the pilot data, we conducted inter-
views with 20 students (12 males) and 9 teachers to improve readability and credibility
of the items. The students and teachers pointed out ambiguous wordings and
suggested language that was more precise. We also revised or deleted problematic
items based on their comments. The internal consistency reliabilities of the dimen-
sions using Cronbach’s α coefficient were 0.91 for habits of mind, 0.91 for character
and values, 0.89 for science as human endeavor, and 0.89 for metacognition and
self-direction. These scores for the reliability coefficient were high enough to indicate
good reliability regarding internal consistency.
The mean score, standard deviation, Pearson product–moment correlation coeffi-
cient, and skewness statistics of each item were calculated for item selection. The
mean scores ranged from 2.30 to 4.15. The discriminating validity of the items was
identified by calculating a Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient, r, for
each of the 114 items, between each item and the total score for the items
10 K. Mun et al.
corresponding to the dimensions. The correlations ranged from r = –0.13 to r = 0.72.

Items with Pearson product–moment correlation under r = 0.30 are usually con-
sidered not to show a correlation with that dimension and can be interpreted as
having low discriminating validity. We deleted the following 56 items: (1) 7 items
that had low correlation coefficients (under r = 0.30), (2) 14 items that had negatively
skewed distribution (skewness fell outside the acceptable range), and (3) 35 items that
had duplicating or inconsistent content.
Based on the interviews, pilot data, and panel discussions, we deleted or revised pro-
blematic items to enhance the overall scale characteristics to create items that matched
better with each of the dimensions. The instrument in this phase comprised 58 Likert-
scale items including 15 items for habits of mind, 16 items for character and values,
and 14 items for science as a human endeavor, 13 items for metacognition and self-
direction.
Phase 3: Assessing Reliability and Construct Validity

We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) to test the validity of the GSLQ and to determine if the items had clustered
as intended. Further, EFA was used to identify subcomponents of the factors. The
results of factor analysis are often used to reduce the number of items on an instrument
by eliminating items that fail to load on any factor or that load at approximately equal
levels on two or more factors (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). CFA is a special case of struc-
tural equation modeling. In CFA, a factor structure is explicitly hypothesized and is
tested for its fit with the observed covariance structure of the measured variables.
In this phase, we administered the revised 58 items to 3,784 secondary students from
33 schools, including 15 middle and 18 high schools across South Korea, representing a
range of socioeconomic status and geographic areas. After eliminating incomplete
records, we used data from 3,202 students including 1,782 males (55.7%) and 1,420
females (44.3%) for analyses (Table 2). The students were given approximately 45
minutes to complete the survey. Then, we divided the collected data into two groups
by considering school backgrounds in order to conduct EFA and CFA.
EFA and results. Factorial validity of the GSLQ with 1,607 students was investigated
using principal components analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser Normalization.
We used the initial Eigenvalue to determine the number of factors for extraction
(greater than 1.00). Eight factors were found to be interpretable. The initial Eigen-
value of these eight factors ranged from 12.31 to 1.02. Items were selected when
factor loading exceeded 0.40 (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986; Stevens, 2002).
However, seven items loaded over 0.40 on more than one factor. Four items (C1,
C3, S2, and M9) were included in the factor on which they loaded the highest (for
example, C1: Factor 4, ecological worldview), and three items (S1, S3, and M10)
were included in the factor on which they loaded the second highest (for example,
S1: Factor 8, characteristics of scientific knowledge).
Table 2. Participants
EFA CFA Total
Grade M F Total M F Total M F Total
7 88 131 219 85 116 201 173 247 420

8 140 78 218 118 105 223 258 183 441
9 106 63 169 94 52 146 200 115 315
10 253 160 413 248 187 435 501 347 848
11 219 191 410 228 181 409 447 372 819
12 97 81 178 106 75 181 203 156 359
Total 903 704 1,607 879 716 1,595 1,782 1,420 3,202
Note: M, male and F, female.

The panels discussed and decided the factor best aligned with an item for measuring
global scientific literacy. Ten items failed to have substantially high loadings on any
factor and therefore, did not fit any of the dimensions. These 10 items were deleted
and the factor analysis was recomputed with the remaining 48 items. An eight-
factor model explained 50.22% of the total variance in the 48 items. All of the 48
GSLQ items, 8 factors, and factor loadings are presented in the Appendix. Based
on a theoretical model of the re-conceptualization of scientific literacy for the
twenty-first century (Choi et al., 2011), the eight factors can be categorized into
four dimensions (Table 3).
The first dimension, habits of mind, comprised two factors: Factor 6 and Factor 3.
Factor 6, labeled communication and collaboration, included five items, and accounted
for 2.43% of the total variance before rotation. Factor 3, labeled systematic thinking/
information management, included seven items that account for 4.33% of the total var-
iance before rotation. Initially, this dimension had three elements including communi-
cation and collaboration, systematic thinking, and information management. From the
factor analysis, systematic thinking and information management were combined into
one factor. The second dimension—character and values—included Factor 4, ecologi-
cal worldview with seven items, accounting for 3.19% of the total variance before
rotation, and Factor 7—socio-scientific accountability—with two items, accounting
for 2.31% of the total variance before rotation. We categorized the ecological worldview
and social and moral compassions elements separately. The results showed that the two
elements did not stand as individual factors, but blended. We decided to combine the
two elements into the ecological worldview factor. The science as human endeavor
dimension comprised Factor 8, characteristics of scientific knowledge with three
items, accounting for 2.13% of the total variance before rotation, and Factor 1—
science and society/spirit of science factor—with 10 items, accounting for 25.65% of
the total variance before rotation. Based on the results, we combined the elements
science and society with the spirit of science into one factor. The metacognition and
self-direction dimension comprised Factor 2, planning/monitoring with 10 items,
accounting for 7.39% of the total variance before rotation, and Factor 5, evaluating
12 K. Mun et al.
Table 3. Dimensions, elements, and factors of GSLQ
Items (# of
Dimension Element Factors items)
Habits of mind (H) • Communication and 6. Communication and H1–H5 (5)

collaboration collaboration
• Systematic thinking 3. Systematic thinking H6–H13 (8)
• Information management /information management
Character and • Ecological worldview 4. Ecological worldview/ A1–A7 (7)
values (C) • Social and moral social and moral
compassion compassion
• Socio-scientific 7. Socio-scientific A8–A9 (2)
accountability accountability
Science as human • Characteristics of 8. Characteristics of S1–S3 (3)

endeavor (S) scientific knowledge scientific knowledge
• Science and society 1. Science and society/ S4–S13 (10)
• The spirit of science spirit of science
2. Planning/monitoring M1–M10 (10)
Metacognition and • Planning
self-direction (M) • Monitoring 5. Evaluating M11–M13 (3)
• Evaluating
with 3 items, accounting for 2.79% of the total variance before rotation. Planning/moni-
toring elements were considered one factor by EFA.
The internal consistency reliabilities of each factor using the Cronbach’s α coefficient
were 0.74 for Factor 1, 0.84 for Factor 2, 0.79 for Factor 3, 0.69 for Factor 4, 0.64 for
Factor 5, 0.81 for Factor 6, 0.85 for Factor 7, 0.71 for Factor 8, and 0.94 for all items.
The results indicated adequate levels of reliability for all eight factors. We averaged
the corresponding items for each factor in order to create a total score for individual
factors. The correlation among the eight factors ranged from 0.23 to 0.68, and the cor-
relation between the four dimensions and each factor ranged from 0.31 to 0.97. For the
dimension analysis, the corresponding items for each dimension were averaged together
to create a score for each dimension. The results of the four dimensions showed that the
internal consistency reliabilities of each dimension were 0.87 for habits of mind, 0.80 for
character and values, 0.85 for science as human endeavor, 0.88 for metacognition and
self-direction, and 0.94 for all items. These results for the reliability coefficient were
high enough to indicate good internal consistency reliability. Based on the evidence
from the EFA, we concluded that the GSLQ appears to measure the four dimensions
of global scientific literacy. The mean scores of each item ranged from 2.75 to 4.26
whereas the mean scores of each dimension from 3.12 to 3.90 (see the details in Table 5).
CFA and results. The purpose of CFA was to replicate the factor structure obtained
through the EFA in a new sample and to examine the validity of the factors to see how
good the fit was to the GSLQ’s four-dimension, eight-factor structure. CFA usually
requires a prior designation of plausible factor patterns from previous theoretical or

empirical work. The hypothesized model involved the eight factors revealed from
the EFA and the four dimensions of the global scientific literacy framework as
shown in Figure 1.
We conducted CFA on the 48 GSLQ items with 1,595 students using the
maximum-likelihood estimates method. The data satisfied the assumption of being
normally distributed (the kurtosis range was from –0.853 to 1.27). Model-data fit
was assessed using several goodness-of-fit indexes (GFIs) (Table 4). Through the
evaluation of model fit, CFA was conducted to assess the construct validity of the
factors and the items in the model.
In order to provide evidence that the eight factors and the four dimensions fit the data,
we first conducted the chi-square goodness-of-fit test. The results of the chi-square
showed a good fit to the model (df = 1,048, N = 1,595, chi-square = 3,432.09,

p < .001); the ratio of the chi-square statistics to the degrees of freedom (chi-square/
df) in the model was 3.28, which was higher than the conventional critical ratio cut-
off of 2.0. The GFI was 0.91 and the adjusted goodness-of-fit index was 0.90, suggesting
a good fit. The comparative fit index and non-normed fit index were 0.91 and 0.90,
respectively, where values close to 1.0 indicate good fit. The model produced a root-
mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) equal to 0.04. Smaller values of the
RMSEA are associated with better fitting models (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1989; Steiger,
1990). We conclude that the above findings demonstrate satisfactory goodness-of-fit,
internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. The results
support the four-dimension model of the GSLQ.
Figure 1. Structure model for GSLQ

14 K. Mun et al.
Table 4. Summary of the goodness-of-fit indexes
Model Chi-squared (χ2) df χ2/df NFI CFI NNFI GFI AGFI RMSEA
CFA total 3,432.094 1,048 3.275 0.871 0.907 0.900 0.910 0.899 0.038
(N = 1,595)
Females 7,019.64 2,096 3.349 0.870 0.905 0.897 0.909 0.898 0.027
(N = 1,420)
Males 7,839.78 2,224 3.525 0.870 0.905 0.897 0.909 0.898 0.027
(N = 1,782)
Note: CFA, Confirmatory factor analysis; NFI, normed fit index; CFI, comparative fit index; NNFI,
non-normed fit index (Bentler & Bonett, 1980); GFI, goodness-of-fit index (Jöreskog & Sörbom,
1989); AGFI, adjusted goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA, root-mean-squared residual (Browne &
Cudeck, 1993).
Phase 4: Analyzing Korean Students’ Scientific Literacy Using the GSLQ

Individual dimension scores and total scores were compared in terms of gender and
grade using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine overall global scientific
literacy and the four dimensions. The patterns relating to differences in the total
GSLQ and each dimension mean scores across grades and gender were analyzed.
Results
The mean score of GSLQ total is 3.46. Among the four dimensions, the participants
presented the highest mean scores for science as human endeavor (MS = 3.89), but
the lowest mean scores for metacognition and self-direction (MM = 3.10). Namely,
they thought that they were rather aware of the characteristics of scientific knowledge
(e.g. tentative, evidence-based, inferential, etc.), inter-relationships between science
and society, and the spirit of science required of scientists (e.g. honesty, open-minded-
ness, skepticism, etc.). On the contrary, they believed that a relatively lesser amount of
meta-cognitive skills was used in their learning. The mean scores for character and
values (MC = 3.43) and habits of minds (MH = 3.41) were located between the ones
of science as human endeavor and metacognition and self-direction, and similar to
the GSLQ total. The STS has been a major emphasis in the Korean National
Science Curriculum since the mid-1990s and science textbooks have continuously
reflected these ideas. We assume that this emphasis on STS helps Korean students to
become more aware of the NOS as a human endeavor. Science educators in South
Korea have also emphasized habits of minds, but have mostly focused on inquiry
process skills (e.g. identifying a problem, hypothesizing, inferring, designing exper-
iments, interpreting data, etc.) rather than communication, information management,
and systemic problem-solving (Choi et al., 2011). Character and values are the current
goals that have emerged from the recent curriculum reform in 2009. The Korea Science
Education Curriculum (MEST, 2009) explicitly states that character development
should be the major directions in all subject areas. However, metacognitive skills and
Table 5. Means and standard deviations for GSLQ scores by grade

Total Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Dimension (N = 3,202) (N = 420) (N = 440) (N = 315) (N = 847) (N = 818) (N = 359) F p
GSLQ 3.46 3.48 3.44 3.35 3.40 3.56 3.46 10.75 .00
(0.53) (0.60) (0.57) (0.55) (0.55) (0.44) (0.47)
Habits of minds 3.41 3.44 3.36 3.31 3.35 3.51 3.39 8.12 .00
(0.63) (0.68) (0.69) (0.64) (0.65) (0.56) (0.57)
Character and values 3.43 3.50 3.44 3.31 3.38 3.52 3.41 5.85 .00
(0.71) (0.76) (0.73) (0.69) (0.73) (0.66) (0.71)
Science as human endeavor 3.89 3.83 3.79 3.67 3.82 4.10 3.97 36.73 .00
(0.61) (0.61) (0.62) (0.65) (0.63) (0.50) (0.58)
Metacognition and self-direction 3.10 3.18 3.16 3.08 3.06 3.09 3.06 2.47 .00
(0.71) (0.79) (0.75) (0.67) (0.69) (0.67) (0.66)
Note: The numbers in parentheses indicate mean scores (standard deviations).

16 K. Mun et al.
self-directed learning have not been a focus of curriculum reform or student learning
and therefore the result showed low scores on metacognition and self-direction.
Specifically, in the dimension of habits of mind (see the Appendix), the mean scores
for communication and collaboration were relatively higher than those for systemic
thinking/information management. Participants responded that they often took into
consideration the goals of the group (MH2 = 3.78) and exchanged scientific ideas and
give/accept feedback to/from each other when working with others (MH4 = 3.67).
However, they seemed to feel difficulties in developing or using models to explain
their observations (MH9 = 3.07), in collecting and analyzing data in an organized
way (MH13 = 3.16, MH7 = 3.28), and in finding patterns in variegated information
(MH11 = 3.27). In the dimension of character and values, the participants showed a
lack of ecological worldview. Neither were they well aware of inter-connectedness
between the environment (e.g. water, land, air, etc.) and our life (MC1 = 3.02), nor
they felt the responsibility to protect the environment for all human beings living on
the globe (MC2 = 3.13, MC8 = 3.24, MC9 = 3.01). On the contrary, they agreed that
they needed to develop a more caring mind and compassion, and to consider disadvan-
taged people affected by SSI (MC3 = 4.10, MC4 = 3.75, MC5 = 3.64). In the dimension
of science as human endeavor, participants positively responded to most of the items
(the mean scores are closer to 4.0). They were rather aware of the nature of scientific
knowledge, the inter-relationship of STS, and the spirit of science. In particular, they
believed strongly that scientists should be intellectually honest, open-minded and skep-
tical, and enthusiastic in conducting their research (MS11 = 4.28, MS12 = 3.99, MS13 =
4.07). Lastly, in the dimension of metacognition and self-direction, the participants
responded to the items negatively, particularly for evaluating. They seldom asked them-
selves what they have learned and achieved (MM11 = 2.69, MM12 = 2.91). In addition,
they were not much used to thinking about the steps that they needed to go through
in order to solve scientific problems before approaching the problems or to look back
at the progress they had achieved (MM5 = 3.09, MM6 = 2.98). The following are
detailed analysis and comparisons of the GSLQ scores by grade and gender.
Comparison of GSLQ Scores by Grade

As evident from Table 5, the one-way ANOVA results showed statistically significant
differences by grade levels. The 11th graders presented the highest GSLQ total mean
score, whereas the 9th graders showed the lowest. Middle-school students (Grades 7–
9) produced scores relatively lower than those of high school students (Grades 10–12).
Figure 2 presents noticeable patterns of the responses on each dimension. The pat-
terns of the mean scores for the GSLQ total and each dimension were approximately
similar at each grade level, except for metacognition and self-direction. Namely, the
11th graders had the highest scores in contrast with the 9th graders with the lowest
scores on the factors GSLQ total, habits of mind, character and values and science
as human endeavor. The mean scores on metacognition and self-direction were
lower than the scores on the other three dimensions and decreased with the partici-
pants’ age.
One emerging pattern in Figure 2 was that the mean scores of the GSLQ total and
three of the dimensions, except for metacognition and self-direction, decreased with
participants’ age in middle school and then increased until participants enter Grade
11 in high school, and decreased again in Grade 12. In order to explain the decrease
and the increase, we conducted post-hoc analysis (Table 6). In the middle school, the
mean differences between the scores of 7th and 9th graders in GSLQ were statistically
significant (p < .05). In particular, the differences were much more significant in the
dimensions of character and values and science as human endeavor. However, the
mean scores of 12th graders seemed to drop suddenly. In particular, the mean differ-
ences between 11th and 12th graders in the dimension of habits of mind and science as
human endeavor were statistically significant (p < .05). This decrease seems to be
caused by the burden of preparing for college entrance exams.
The other noticeable pattern in Figure 2 was that mean scores of metacognition and
self-direction stayed almost the same throughout the school years. Table 6 also showed
that no pairs of grade groups revealed significant mean differences. This result indi-
cates that metacognition and self-directed learning skills are hard to develop by
growing mutually. Choi et al. (2011) reported that students who perceived their
science-learning environment positively tended to have high metacognition skills.
Choi et al. (2011) also found that Korean students who actively participated in
classes and who were engaged in self-directed learning were more likely to possess
high metacognition skills.
Comparison of GSLQ Scores by Gender

Mean scores of GSLQ totals by gender did not reveal significant differences. However,
as evident in Table 7 and Figure 3, the mean scores of the four dimensions were
statistically different by gender. Females’ scores showed significantly higher than
males’ scores for character and values (p < .001), and science as human endeavor
Figure 2. Mean scores of dimensions by grades

18 K. Mun et al.
Table 6. Mean differences and post-hoc Tukey test by grade (N = 3,202)
Character and Science as human Metacognition and

Grades GSLQ Habits of mind values endeavor self-direction
7–8 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02

7–9 0.13∗ 0.13 0.19∗ 0.16∗∗ 0.10
7–10 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.01 0.12
7–11 −0.08 −0.07 −0.02 −0.27∗∗ 0.09
7–12 0.02 0.05 0.09 −0.14∗ 0.12
8–9 0.09 0.05 0.13 0.12 0.08
8–10 0.04 0.01 0.06 −0.03 0.10
8–11 −0.12∗∗ −0.15∗∗ −0.08 −0.31∗∗ 0.07
8–12 −0.02 −0.03 0.03 −0.18∗∗ 0.10
−0.05 −0.04 −0.07 −0.15∗∗
9–10 0.02
9–11 −0.21∗∗ −0.20∗∗ −0.21∗∗ −0.43∗∗ −0.01
9–12 −0.11 −0.08 −0.10 −0.30∗∗ 0.02
10–11 −0.16∗∗ −0.16∗∗ −0.14∗∗ −0.28∗∗ −0.03
10–12 −0.06 −0.04 −0.03 −0.15∗∗ 0.00
11–12 0.10 0.12∗ 0.11 0.13∗ 0.03
∗
Significant at the 0.05 level.
∗∗
Significant at the 0.01 level.
(p < .001). On the contrary, males’ scores showed significantly higher than females’
scores for habits of mind (p < .01) and metacognition and self-direction (p < .001).
This finding is congruent with the literature that offers gendered views of scientific lit-
eracy (Manhart, 1997).
Park and Shin’s (2010) reported that males used relatively diverse strategies when
solving complex problems, whereas females were likely to adapt limited numbers of
strategies that they felt less challenging. In this study, we also found that while
males perceive their capability in systemic thinking/information management posi-
tively (MMales = 3.36, MFemales = 3.25; p < .001), there was no significant difference
in communication and collaboration. Park and Shin (2010) also found that males
tended to spend much time in making plans to solve the problems using their prior
knowledge whereas females hardly used time for planning. However, females tended
to analyze consistently the intent of the problems in the process of problem-solving.
This study produced contrasting results. Males were good at evaluating (MMales =
2.89, MFemales = 2.66; p < .001), rather than planning/monitoring (MMales = 3.20,
MFemales = 3.17; p = .184). The recent results of international comparisons such as
TIMSS and PISA have reported that Korean female students are confident in
solving problems related to school science, but less competent in everyday problems.
Since the GSLQ does not provide a definite context, the gender difference in the
dimension of habits of mind and metacognition and self-direction may show a differ-
ent result.
On the other hand, the mean scores of females on the dimensions of character and
values, and science as human endeavor were higher than males’ scores. This result
Table 7. Means and standard deviations for GSLQ by gender
Males Females
Dimension (N = 1,782) (N = 1,420) F P
GSLQ 3.45 3.47 0.59 .44

(0.55) (0.50)
Habits of mind 3.43 3.37 7.93 .01
(0.65) (0.60)
Character and values 3.39 3.49 15.99 .00
(0.72) (0.71)
Science as human endeavor 3.83 3.96 33.26 .00
(0.62) (0.58)
Metacognition and self-direction 3.13 3.06 9.54 .00
(0.72) (0.68)
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate mean scores (standard deviations).
Figure 3. Mean scores of dimensions by gender
related to the PISA 2006 that reported that Korean female students tended to feel more
responsibility for sustainable development. This study also revealed significant differ-
ences in the sub-dimensions of character and values (i.e. ecological worldview/social
and moral compassion, socio-scientific accountability) by gender (p < .01, p < .001,
respectively). Many studies have indicated that females value caring ethics and com-
passion more highly (e.g. Gilligan, 1982). The recent TIMSS and PISA results did
not present gender difference with respect to views on science, scientists, and the
inter-relationship among science, technology, and society. Whereas previous studies
reported that females did better than males on the NOS dimension (Erickson & Erick-
son, 1984; Linn & Hyde, 1989; Lock, 1992; Robertson, 1987), in this study, females
showed significantly higher scores in both the sub-dimensions of science as human
endeavor (p < .001, p < .001, respectively). These gender differences do not mean
that one specific gender has a special ability over the other for a specific dimension of
scientific literacy. Instead, these results provide information related to students’ charac-
teristics and preferences that could be considered when developing science curriculum.
20 K. Mun et al.
Discussion
In this study, we aimed to validate an instrument, the GSLQ, to diagnose students’
perception of global scientific literacy and to investigate South Korean students’ per-
ception on their competencies as global citizens using the GSLQ. Based on a newly
developed conceptualization of scientific literacy, we followed a statistically rigorous
process until the psychometric properties of the GSLQ proved to be reliable and
valid. The statistical analysis of South Korean students’ responses on GSLQ revealed
that the distribution of the mean scores on the total GSLQ, habits of mind, character and
values, and science as human endeavor dimensions revealed similar patterns among the
grade level. It also presented that the students were well aware of the NOS, whereas
they lacked metacognition and self-directed learning skills.
Taking a closer look at the pattern, first, we could find a slight decrease in the mean
scores at Grade 12. One possible explanation for this pattern may relate to the college
entrance exam-oriented atmosphere in South Korea (e.g. highly competitive atmos-
phere, burdensome science contents, etc.). Since most South Korean high school stu-
dents (10th–12th grades) are overwhelmed by preparing for the college entrance
examination, they hardly have self-determination or opportunities to plan, monitor,
and evaluate their learning.
Second, regardless of grade levels, the students presented low confidence in using
meta-cognitive skills in their learning. Considering that we encounter a tremendous
amount of information and issues, it is very crucial for future learners to obtain
skills for self-planning, regulating, and monitoring their learning. Science educators
need to bring this issue to the forefront and seriously consider metacognition and
self-directed learning skills as a major element of scientific literacy in the globalized
society. And it would be also important to design more constructive learning environ-
ment that include well-designed instructional strategies that focus on improving meta-
cognition and self-directed learning skills.
Third, we also found gender differences in the four dimensions. Female students
showed higher scores on the dimensions of character and values and science as human
endeavor whereas males scored higher on the dimensions of habits of mind and metacog-
nition and self-direction. The dimension of character and values investigated students’
moral and ethical sensitivity and empathy to human beings and nature. Students
need to understand the interdependence of humans with nature and to develop
empathy for other organisms affected by the unexpected consequences of our scientific
and technological advances. The result of our study supports this association to the
ethics of care (Gilligan, 1982) because as Gilligan points out, females are more
likely to have moral and ethical sensitivity than males. Similarly, females seem to per-
ceive social and moral implications of science better despite their lower interest in
learning science content (Miller et al., 2006). Park and Noh (2007) investigated 128
South Korean female students’ understanding of the NOS and compared their find-
ings to the findings from the previous studies in 1990s. They reported that Korean
female students’ views had heightened over the past years and they generally presented
more informed views on science as well as raised their voices on SSI. Diagnosis of the
status of scientific literacy using GSLQ provides meaningful information on how

science educators should effectively design instructional strategies and learning
environment for female and male students considering the strengths and weaknesses
of our findings by gender.
Besides, we expect that information obtained from the GSLQ will enable science
educators and teachers to measure twenty-first-century competencies more validly
and reliably. For example, teachers, curriculum evaluators, and researchers can use
the GSLQ to measure the status of an individual student or a group in relation to
the twenty-first-century scientific competencies, and to monitor student progress
toward achieving goals over a period. The results can also be used to track changes
and to compare how changes in materials and standards affect students’ scientific lit-
eracy. Additionally, the availability of this instrument may serve as a catalyst for con-
ducting additional research on students’ development of scientific literacy. Moreover,

research using the instrument can be shared by various nations for international com-
parisons and to encourage research on comparing which instructional practices best
foster scientific literacy for living in the twenty-first century. We believe such research
efforts can encourage the global scientific community to rethink about scientific lit-
eracy and what it means to ‘know’ science for the twenty-first century. Research out-
comes using the GSLQ could contribute to the development of new science education
standards, curriculum materials, instructional practices, professional development,
and alignment among these elements.
In addition, the development of the GSLQ has the potential to advance the literature
by providing scholars with a psychometrically sound instrument for assessing scientific
literacy. A major advantage that the GSLQ has over other scientific inventories is that it
yields a separate score for each of the four dimensions of scientific literacy instead of a
single overall score. Although one could argue that scientific literacy could be
measured by existing instruments, the specificity of the GSLQ provides more precision
in examining how students learn the twenty-first-century competencies. Moreover, the
GSLQ is designed to measure global scientific literacy according to the dimensions
that are different from the current views of scientific literacy (Choi et al., 2011). For
instance, the GSLQ measures ideas related to metacognition, character and values,
and collaboration and communication, all of which are absent from most description
and current measures of scientific literacy. In sum, because this instrument is available
for use by researchers across the globe, and because this instrument has good psycho-
metric properties, the GSLQ makes an important contribution to the science edu-
cation literature.
Future studies need to evaluate whether scores on the dimensions of the GSLQ are
related to the actual student performance. For example, future studies could assess the
validity by examining whether self-reports on each of the four dimensions are signifi-
cantly and positively related to reports from teachers and interviews with students or
observations of students related to each of the corresponding dimensions. In conduct-
ing the research, we need to investigate whether students who receive high scores on
the habits of mind dimension are more likely to be high performers in scientific
problem-solving skills. Thus, additional research is required to establish the validity
22 K. Mun et al.
of the GSLQ in various contexts. Lastly, the usefulness of the GSLQ must be gauged
by the extent to which it is used as well as by the results obtained from its use. To
enhance the usefulness, we developed a relatively short inventory of 48 items for stu-
dents to complete within one class period. We consider it suitable for group adminis-
tration, and that the four dimensions can be easily administered within the duration of
an average class lesson. We recommend that teachers and researchers use the GSLQ to
assess students’ global scientific literacy and provide comments on its usefulness as a
research tool and on the practical use of the inventory.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by WCU (World Class University) program through the
National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science

and Technology (R32-20109).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary
science courses: Abandoning scientism. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215–233.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional
practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.
Aikenhead, G., Orpwood, G., & Fensham, P. (2011). Scientific literacy for a knowledge society. In
C. Linder, L. Ostman, D. A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Pro-
moting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 28–44). New York, NY: Rou-
tledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Edu-
cation, 69(4), 453–475.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: ‘Views on Science-
Technology-Society’ (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project 2061—Science for all
Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science lit-
eracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2007). Atlas of science literacy.
Washington, DC: Author.
Arons, A. B. (1983). Achieving wider scientific literacy. Daedalus, 112(2), 91–122.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education. In
D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science edu-
cation (pp. 117–138). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Boyes, E., Skamp, K., & Stanistreet, M. (2009). Australian secondary students’ views about global
warming: Beliefs about actions, and willingness to act. Research in Science Education, 39, 661–
680.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and
school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious
mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp.
65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Towards an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Graber & C. Bolte
(Eds.), Scientific literacy (pp. 37–68). Kiel: Institute for Science Education (IPN).
Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy
in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670–697.
Collins, N. (1994). Metacognition and reading to learn [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/
databases/ERIC_Digests/ed376427.html
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.
Department for Education and Employment & Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (DfEE/
QCA). (1999). Science: The national curriculum for England. London: Author.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Col-
laborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Elmose, S., & Roth, W. M. (2005). Allgemeinbildung: Readiness for living in risk society. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 37(1), 11–34.
Erickson, G. L., & Erickson, L. J. (1984). Females and science achievement: Evidence, explanations
and implications. Science Education, 68(2), 63–89.
Fischer, G. (2000). Lifelong learning—More than training. Journal of Interactive Learning Research,
11(3/4), 265–294.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical
assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in
applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39(2), 291–314.
Fraser, B. L. (1978). Development of a test of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 62(4),
509–515.
Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain: Measuring attitudes
and values in corporate and school settings. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Glynn, S. M., & Koballa, T. R. (2006). Motivation to learn college science. In J. J. Mintzes & H. L.
William (Eds.), Handbook of college science teaching (pp. 25–32). Arlington, VA: National Science
Teachers Association Press.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International
Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago,
IL: SPSS Publications.
Kimball, M. E. (1967). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science
teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(2), 110–120.
Kluwe, R. H., & Friedrichsen, G. (1985). Mechanisms of control and regulation and problem
solving. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control (pp. 203–217). Berlin: Springer-
Verlag.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.
24 K. Mun et al.
Laugksch, R. C., & Spargo, P. E. (1996). Construction of a paper-and-pencil test of basic scientific
literacy based on selected literacy goals recommended by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 331–359.
Leahey, T., & Harris, R. (1997). Learning and cognition. Princeton, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of
the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.
Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Devel-
opment, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225–239.
Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for
global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific
issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925–953.
Lee, M., Sohn, W., & No, U. (2008). The result from PISA 2006(RRE 2008–10). Seoul: Korea Insti-
tute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In
P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511–
544). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, M. C., & Hyde, J. S. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Researcher, 18(8),
17–27.
Lock, R. (1992). Gender and practical skill performance in science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 29(3), 227–241.
Maitland, L. (2000). Ideas in practice: Self-regulation and metacognition in the reading lab. Journal
of Developmental Education, 24(2), 26–32.
Manhart, J. J. (1997). Scientific literacy: Factor structure and gender differences (Doctoral thesis). The
University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Millar, R. (2007). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a
scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13),
1499–1521.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s
College London.
Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7
(3), 203–223.
Miller, P. H., Blessing, J. S., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high-school students’
views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 363–381.
Ministry of Education Science Technology (MEST). (2009). The revised Korea national curriculum
standards in 2009. Seoul: Author.
Moore, R. W., & Sutman, F. X. (1970). The development, field test and validation of an inventory of
scientific attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7(2), 85–94.
Mueller, M. P., & Zeidler, D. L. (2010). Moral-ethical character and science education: Ecojustice
ethics through socioscientific issues (SSI). In D. Tippins, M. Mueller, M. van Eijck, & J. Adams
(Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of ecojustice, place-based (science) edu-
cation, and indigenous knowledge systems (pp. 105–128). New York, NY: Springer.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science
in grades K–8. Committee on science learning, kindergarten through eighth grade. In R. A.
Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Acade-
mies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscut-
ting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student per-
formance in the postsecondary classroom. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(1), 7–28.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2007). PISA 2006 science com-
petencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris: Author.
Park, B., & Shin, D. (2010). Elementary school high achievers’ gender characteristics of successful
and unsuccessful process in problem solving. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruc-
tion, 10(2), 173–189.
Park, H., & Noh, M. (2007). Girls` middle school students` understanding of the nature of science
and their achievements. Secondary Institute of Education, 55(3), 1–19.
Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Robertson, I. J. (1987). Girls and boys and practical science. International Journal of Science Edu-
cation, 9(5), 505–518.
Roth, W. M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science
Education, 88(2), 263–291.
Rubba, P. A., & Andersen, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school
students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449–
458.
Ruiz, P. O., & Vallejos, R. M. (1999). The role of compassion in moral education. Journal of Moral
Education, 28(1), 5–17.
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Sinnott, J. D. (1989). Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications. New York, NY: Praeger.
Smith, G. A., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture,
and the environment. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Steiger, J. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Stevens, S., Sutherland, L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009). The big ideas of nanoscale science and engineering.
Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
Tyler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Cam-
berwell: ACER Press, Australian Council for Educational Research.
Voss, J. F., Lawrence, J. A., & Engle, R. A. (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis of
problem solving in international relations. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensh (Eds.), Complex
problem solving (pp. 119–157). Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wilson, M. R., & Berenthal, M. W. (2006). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A., & Lin, S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemo-
logical orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3),
251–283.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of
Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-
based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., & Ackett, W. A. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of
science and responses to socio-scientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367.
26 K. Mun et al.
Appendix. Factor loadings, mean scores, and standard deviations of GSLQ

items
Factor
Item loading Mean SD
Habits of mind 3.41 0.63

Factor 6: Communication and collaboration 3.55 0.67
H1. I am willing to accept critical comments that others have about my .668 3.54 0.90
scientific ideas
H2. When I work with others, I take into consideration the goals of the .669 3.78 0.92
group
H3. I am able to select key ideas when people present their scientific .478 3.54 0.89
opinions
H4. I give useful feedback to others about their scientific ideas .524 3.67 1.06
H5. When I express my scientific ideas, I try to present them in a complete .436 3.23 1.04
and comprehensive manner
Factor 3: Systematic thinking/Information management 3.31 0.71
H6. When solving a scientific problem, I select important ideas to .483 3.48 0.99
determine which of them might influence the result
H7. I carefully analyze data from an experiment to draw valid conclusions .627 3.28 1.11
H8. When solving a scientific problem, I try to find patterns in .606 3.27 1.10
experimental data
H9. I develop scientific models or use existing models in order to explain .658 3.07 1.08
my observations
H10. When solving a problem, I try to find relevant information from .649 3.49 1.00
various resources
H11. When I collect data or find information, I am able to find similarities .566 3.34 0.96
and differences
H12. When solving a scientific problem, I compare and evaluate .569 3.42 0.97
information to determine what is most relevant
H13. When I collect data or find information, I do it in an organized way .476 3.16 1.04
Character and values 3.43 0.71
Factor 4: Ecological worldview/social and moral compassion 3.52 0.76
C1. I think about how the water, land, air, and life are all connected when I .455 3.02 1.17
do something that might affect the environment
C2. I take responsibility to protect the environment so that others in the .665 3.13 1.17
world can live in a healthy environment
C3. I believe we need to develop personal characteristics that will help us .473 4.10 1.02
care about scientific issues that affect the world
C4. When I need to make a decision about issues that affect the world, I .675 3.75 1.12
feel passionate about acting on behalf of disadvantaged people
C5. I try to respect and understand the feelings of others who live in .659 3.64 1.08
different parts of the world
C6. I am willing to participate in solving problems that impact people living .656 3.38 1.15
in different parts of the world
C7. I am willing to take part in decision-making activities about issues that .473 3.65 1.26
affect the world
(Continued)
Appendix. Continued
Factor
Factor 7: Socio-scientific accountability 3.12 1.00

C8. My personal behaviors can influence the environment throughout the .739 3.24 1.13
world
C9. My decisions on global issues can contribute to changing the world .756 3.01 1.16
Science as human endeavor 3.89 0.61
Factor 8: Characteristics of scientific knowledge 3.79 0.79
S1. Scientific ideas can change when scientists find new evidence .425 3.82 1.09
S2. Scientific knowledge derives from observations of the natural world .420 3.70 0.99
S3. People who believe different theories will make different observations .407 3.86 1.01
of the same phenomena

Factor 1: Science and society/spirit of science 3.92 0.63
S4. Creativity plays an important role in developing scientific knowledge .582 4.07 0.99
S5. Science, technology and society are closely related to each other .645 4.18 0.96
S6. Public support for scientific research is needed for science to advance .617 3.87 1.00
S7. Because scientific research requires financial support, it can be .577 3.80 1.04
influenced by companies or governments
S8. Scientific theories (i.e. Plate tectonics, evolution) result from human .560 3.73 1.05
effort
S9. How people make use of science and technology can cause many .508 3.76 1.09
social, environmental and health problems
S10. How people make use of science and technology can help to resolve .420 3.42 1.17
social problems
S11. Scientists should be intellectually honest when conducting and .574 4.28 0.98
reporting their research
S12. Although scientific problems are complex and have no clear solution, .595 3.99 0.99
scientists continually try to find solutions
S13. Scientists are open-minded and skeptical in conducting their research .625 4.07 1.01
Metacognition and self-direction 3.10 0.71
Factor 2: Planning/monitoring 3.19 0.72
M1. Before I try to solve a scientific problem, I ask myself do I understand .502 3.20 1.07
the problem
M2. When beginning a new scientific problem, I think about what .599 3.32 1.05
information I need to solve the problem
M3. Before I try to solve a scientific problem, I put the problem into my .565 3.46 1.10
own words
M4. When I start to solve a new scientific problem, I try to remember if I .605 3.39 1.11
have worked out a similar problem before
M5. When I face a new scientific problem, I think about all the steps as I .661 3.09 1.08
work through the problem
M6. While solving a scientific problem, I keep looking back at the problem .665 2.98 1.11
after I complete a step
M7. When solving a scientific problem, I work step-by-step .591 3.36 1.03
M8. When I finish solving a problem, I look back to see if I did the correct .545 3.36 1.14
procedures
(Continued)
28 K. Mun et al.
Appendix. Continued
Factor
M9. When solving a scientific problem, I ask myself whether I completely .510 2.79 1.16
understand all aspects of the problem before I go forward
M10. Once I solve a scientific problem, I consider if there are other ways to .415 2.97 1.17
solve it
Factor 5: Evaluating 2.79 0.91
M11. Once I solve a problem, I ask myself what I learned from my work .710 2.69 1.14
M12. After I finish a part of an experiment, I ask myself if I have achieved .601 2.91 1.13
my goal
M13. I am willing to look for scientific evidence and information to make .437 2.77 1.18
decisions about global issues
View publication stats

Korean Secondary Students' Perception of Scientific Literacy As Global CitizensUsing Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Korean Secondary Students' Perception of Scientific Literacy As Global CitizensUsing Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Korean Secondary Students’ Perception of Scientiﬁc Literacy as Global

Article in International Journal of Science Education · June 2015

Hyunju Lee Kongju Mun

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sung-Won Kim Sung Choi

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fostering Worldviews of Socioscientific Issues View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Science

Korean Secondary Students’ Perception

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1045956

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Korean Secondary Students’

Kongju Muna, Namsoo Shinb, Hyunju Leea,

Keywords: Scientiﬁc literacy; Development instrument; Twenty-ﬁrst-century capacities;

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

and joined in fund-raising campaigns to support their recovery.

Table 1. Exemplary instruments relating to scientiﬁc literacy

Developer(s) Year Instrument content Item type Participants Reliability Validity

Rubba and 1978 NSKS (Nature of 48 674 high Test–retest Construct

Koballa leaning science Likert-

Conceptualization of Scientiﬁc Literacy in the Twenty-ﬁrst Century

lives. Future jobs require an understanding of scientiﬁc content in addition to abilities

Science as human endeavor. Individuals in the twenty-ﬁrst century require a contem-

Metacognition and self-direction. Metacognition and self-direction refer to an individ-

Phase 1: Developing the Initial Items of the GSLQ

Phase 2: Piloting and Reﬁning Items

corresponding to the dimensions. The correlations ranged from r = –0.13 to r = 0.72.

Phase 3: Assessing Reliability and Construct Validity

EFA CFA Total

Grade M F Total M F Total M F Total

7 88 131 219 85 116 201 173 247 420

Note: M, male and F, female.

Table 3. Dimensions, elements, and factors of GSLQ

Habits of mind (H) • Communication and 6. Communication and H1–H5 (5)

Science as human • Characteristics of 8. Characteristics of S1–S3 (3)

requires a prior designation of plausible factor patterns from previous theoretical or

showed a good ﬁt to the model (df = 1,048, N = 1,595, chi-square = 3,432.09,

Figure 1. Structure model for GSLQ

Table 4. Summary of the goodness-of-ﬁt indexes

Phase 4: Analyzing Korean Students’ Scientiﬁc Literacy Using the GSLQ

Table 5. Means and standard deviations for GSLQ scores by grade

Korean Secondary Students’ Perception of Scientiﬁc Literacy 15

Note: The numbers in parentheses indicate mean scores (standard deviations).

Comparison of GSLQ Scores by Grade

Comparison of GSLQ Scores by Gender

Figure 2. Mean scores of dimensions by grades

Table 6. Mean differences and post-hoc Tukey test by grade (N = 3,202)

Character and Science as human Metacognition and

7–8 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02

Table 7. Means and standard deviations for GSLQ by gender

GSLQ 3.45 3.47 0.59 .44

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate mean scores (standard deviations).

Figure 3. Mean scores of dimensions by gender

status of scientiﬁc literacy using GSLQ provides meaningful information on how

ducting additional research on students’ development of scientiﬁc literacy. Moreover,

National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science

Appendix. Factor loadings, mean scores, and standard deviations of GSLQ

Habits of mind 3.41 0.63

Factor 7: Socio-scientiﬁc accountability 3.12 1.00

of the same phenomena

View publication stats