The authors tested a novel approach to the conceptualization and measurement of a dimension of scientific literacy, the understanding of scientific and technical terms. Through an analysis of the media’s use of scientific and technical terms randomly selected from a scientific dictionary, the authors identified the thirty-one terms most often used in the media. The authors argue that these terms represent what an individual is expected to know within the bounds of normal civic discourse. The measure that was developed therefore represents a conceptualization of a “civically literate” scientific vocabulary that avoids the possible biases that could be associated with a selection of terms based solely on experts’ views. Scientific literacy results obtained through the use of the instrument at the pilot-test level are discussed and contrasted with those obtained when using the National Science Foundation’s scale, which is the most widely cited public scientific literacy measurement instrument based on a more conventional approach to scientific literacy.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1989. Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1993. Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Babbie, E.2004. The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
4.
DeBoer, G.2000. Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching37:582-601.
5.
Friedman, S., S. Dunwoody, and C. Rogers. 1986. Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. New York: Free Press.
6.
Gerbner, G., L. Gross, and N. Signorielli. 1981. Scientists on the TV screen. Culture and Society42:51-54.
7.
Gregory, J., and S. Miller. 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
8.
Gumpert, G., and S. Drucker. 1994. Public space and urban life: Challenges in the communication landscape. Journal of Communication44:169-177.
9.
Irwin, A., and B. Wynne. 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Isaacs, A., J. Daintith, and E. Martin, eds. 1999. A dictionary of science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
Koelsche, C.1965. Scientific literacy as related to the media of mass communication. School Science and Mathematics65:719-725.
12.
LaFollette, M. C.1990. Making science our own: Public images of science, 1910-1955. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Laugksch, R.2000. Scientific literacy: a conceptual overview. Science Education84:71-94.
14.
Laugksch, R., and P. Spargo. 1996. Construction of 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 Science5:331-359.
15.
Miller, J. D.1983. Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112:29-48.
16.
Miller, J. D. 1996. Public understanding of science and technology in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Presented at OECD Symposium on the Public Understanding of Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan, November.
17.
Miller, J. D.1998. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science7:203-223.
18.
National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2005. Zipf’s law. http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/zipfslaw.html.
19.
National Science Board. 1989. Public science literacy and attitudes toward science and technology. In Science and engineering indicators—1989, 161-176. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
20.
National Science Board. 1991. Attitudes toward science and technology: The United States and international comparisons. In Science and engineering indicators—1991, 165-190. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21.
National Science Board. 1993. Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. In Science and engineering indicators—1993, 193-214. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
22.
National Science Board. 1996. Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. In Science and engineering indicators—1996, 7.1-7.21. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23.
National Science Board. Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. In Science and engineering indicators—1998, 7.1-7.21. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
24.
National Science Board. 2000. Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. In Science and engineering indicators—2000, chap. 8. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
25.
National Science Foundation. 2002. Chapter 7: Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/c7/c7s1.htm%23top.
26.
Nelkin, D.1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W. H. Freeman.
27.
Nisbet, M., D. A. Scheufele, J. Shanahan, P. Moy, D. Brossard, and B. V. Lewenstein. 2002. Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research29:584-608.
28.
Wynne, B.1991. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, & Human Values16:111-121.
