International Journal on Integrated Education e-ISSN : 2620 - 3502

p-ISSN : 2615 - 3785

https://journals.researchparks.org/index.php/IJIE

Assessing the Level of Scientific Literacy Ability of Fresh Science Education

Students in Tertiary Institutions in South-South Nigeria

Owo. W. J, Green. B.
Department of Integrated Science, Ignatius Ajuru University of Education, Port Harcourt

Abstract: The changing and demanding nature of the world around us requires man to advance
his knowledge and skills for him to be able to cope with the changes and demands. This survey
study therefore assesses the level of scientific literacy (SL) ability of year one science education
students in tertiary institutions in South- South Nigeria using a scientific literacy test (SLT)
developed by the researchers based on three competencies (explaining phenomena scientifically,
designing and evaluating science investigations, and interpreting data and evidence
scientifically). The instrument was administered on a sample of 2,025 students in the 2022/2023
session from selected institutions. Results showed that majority of the students have low ability
to design and evaluate investigations, and low ability to interpret data and evidence. However, a
good proportion of them show high ability in explaining phenomena and high ability in the
overall SL. The results implicitly revealed integrated science (ITS) education students to be
better in all the three competencies and the overall SL than their colleagues in biology, chemistry
and physics education. It was recommended that science teachers, students and government
should play their roles to ensure meaningful science teaching and learning in schools as to help
the students gain higher scientific literacy.
Keywords: Scientific literacy, Science, education, students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
Globally science education is recognized as the tool that transforms the individual as well as the
society. It provides man with skills necessary for him to function and be relevant in any
environment he finds himself. The increasing importance of science has made every nation to
introduce science subjects into the school curriculum and is compulsorily learnt by the citizens
either at the primary, secondary or tertiary level of education.
Science is a way of knowing and its learning helps man gain knowledge about the nature,
interactions and uses of things in the universe. The learning of science encourages the
development of scientific skills such as critical and logical thinking, problem-solving skill,
intrapersonal and interpersonal skills that are crucial for man to develop their full potential,
survive, work and improve himself and the environment. These skills and abilities are needed by
science students especially the would-be science teachers to equip them in science teaching to
promote science learning. DeBoer's (2000) comprehensive analysis of the historical development
of science education revealed the existence of a minimum of nine discrete objectives associated
with science education, all of which are intricately linked to the overarching objective of
fostering scientific literacy.
In the comity of scientists, scientific literacy has come to be an important global discourse in
relation to the aims and relevance of science education (McGregor &Kearton, 2010). For,
according to Osborne (2007) the primary goal of any science education should be to develop
scientific literacy. Gyllenpalm et al. (2010) highlighted scientific literacy as a general goal of

Copyright (c) 2023 Author (s). This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).To view a copy of this Volume 6, Issue 7 | Jul -2023 | 346
license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
International Journal on Integrated Education e-ISSN : 26203502
IJIE | Research Parks Publishing (IDEAS Lab) p-ISSN : 26153785

science education, stressing that students need to develop in scientific knowledge and
understanding about scientific concepts and skills.
The concept of scientific literacy lacks a universally agreed-upon definition (Millar, 2008;
Osborne, 2007). Instead, multiple definitions exist, influenced by various perspectives and
interpretations (Fensham, 2004; Kolstø, 2001). However, all these definitions emphasise the
importance of students' capacity to apply scientific knowledge in addressing real-world issues
that are relevant to their daily lives (DeBoer, 2000; Ajayi, 2018). Scientific literacy, as defined
by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), refers to the ability to utilise
scientific knowledge to discern inquiries and formulate evidence-based inferences, thereby
comprehending and facilitating decision-making regarding the natural environment and the
modifications induced by human actions (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 2013). Science literacy necessitates individuals to possess knowledge and
comprehension of scientific principles, procedures, and applications, enabling them to effectively
employ scientific methods to address human, environmental, and social challenges encountered
in daily existence.
However, Norris and Phillips (2003) have posited that scientific literacy encompasses various
components, namely: (i) a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental concepts and
principles of science, and the ability to differentiate them from non-scientific information, (ii) a
comprehension of the relevance and significance of science, (iii) knowledge of the characteristics
and criteria that define scientific inquiry, (iv) the freedom to engage in the process of learning
about science, (v) the capacity to think in a scientific manner, (vi) the ability to apply scientific
knowledge to solve problems, (vii) the acquisition of knowledge necessary for informed
participation in science-related matters, (viii) an understanding of the nature of science and its
interaction with culture, (ix) an appreciation for and comfort with science, including its capacity
to inspire wonder and curiosity, (x) the capability to comprehend the risks and benefits
associated with scientific advancements, and (xi) the aptitude to critically analyse scientific
information and effectively engage with scientific expertise.
To Simpson and Anderson (1981:96), one is said to be scientifically literate if he/she;
 Demonstrates proficiency in comprehending and applying fundamental concepts, principles,
laws, and theories of science in appropriate contexts.
 Exhibits a comprehensive understanding of the nature of science and the scientific
enterprise.
 Utilises scientific processes effectively for problem-solving, decision-making, and other
applicable purposes.
 Recognises the interdependence between science, technology, and society, and
comprehends their reciprocal interactions.
 Possesses a well-developed set of science-related skills that facilitate successful engagement
in various careers, leisure activities, and other roles.
 Exhibits attitudes and values that align with those upheld by the scientific community and a
society that values freedom.
 Cultivates interests that contribute to personal fulfilment, enhanced quality of life, and a
lifelong commitment to science and continuous learning.
A scientifically literate person can survive in the face of fast-paced social life with changes in
lifestyle. Scientific literacy is connected to several competencies, having knowledge and
understanding, and the capacity to co-opt scientific values (Sengdala &Yuenyong, 2021).
Scientific literacy is a major goal of science education. This central goal for teaching science at
schools can only be achieved when the schools (through the teachers) develop and promote in
learners the understanding of the following values which underlie science and to a large extent
Copyright (c) 2023 Author (s). This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).To view a copy of this Volume 6, Issue 7 | Jul- 2023 | 347
license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
International Journal on Integrated Education e-ISSN : 26203502
IJIE | Research Parks Publishing (IDEAS Lab) p-ISSN : 26153785

are still relevant today. These are:

 Longing to know and to understand
 Questioning of all things (be suspicious of certainty)
 Search for data and their meaning
 Demand for verification in an active and continuing way of what he/she knows
 Respect for logical reasoning
 Consideration of premises i.e. be aware of biases and premises influencing decisions,
 Consideration of consequences of any action (EPC, 1966:11-13).
Fitria et al. (2022) study on Students’ literacy competence in science learning in Junior High
Schools based on the reading to learn model reported improvement in scientific literacy of the
students on comparing the scores obtained before and after learning with the HOTS literacy-
based reading to learn learning method.
According to Ratcliffe and Millar (2009), the findings from the pilot trials of the Twenty First
Century Science courses indicated several key observations. Firstly, there was a noticeable
improvement in students' understanding throughout the duration of the course, across various
contexts. Secondly, students exhibited relatively weaker performance when it came to generating
explanations in both familiar and unfamiliar contexts. Lastly, students' responses to questions
pertaining to scientific concepts were significantly superior to those of the comparison group,
particularly in comparison to questions related to data and its limitations. There was no
significant difference observed in the overall performance of the students enrolled in the Twenty
First Century Science programme, in terms of their ability to comprehend fundamental scientific
concepts and processes, as well as their aptitude in utilising scientific ideas to construct
explanations, when compared to the control group.
In a comparative study conducted by Noor (2021), the scientific literacy of secondary school
students in Suburban Schools in England was examined and compared to that of Malaysian
students. The findings revealed that English students demonstrated a higher level of scientific
literacy in comparison to their Malaysian counterparts across three key competencies: explaining
phenomena, designing and evaluating investigations, and interpreting data and evidence. The
analysis conducted by Murti and Aminah (2018) examined the science literacy of high school
students using the nature of science literacy test (NOSLiT). The findings revealed that students
in Class X of Science 4 achieved an average science literacy score of 57.14%.
Studies have demonstrated that low scientific literacy of students is as a result of the teacher
deficiency in teaching science creatively; not using the necessary materials and process of
science to bring about teaching learning makes students not to understand but to memorize a
concept (Yuliati, 2017 in Fitria, 2022). Students’ SL such as logical thinking skills have not been
increased is probably due to the kind of learning process the learner is exposed to. Learning
process that limits the learners to theories do not provide the learner with problem-solving skills
and so making the learner to experience difficulties thinking logically when presented with real
life problems (Amini & Sinaga, 2021). Again, some teach students to pass with high grade rather
than helping them to see the importance of science learning in equipping them with skills and
competencies to be able to face problems in everyday life (Laslo & Baram-Tsabari, 2021). For
example, a teacher that has the ability to think logically can teach and ask his students questions
that evoke logical thinking.
Based on the importance of scientific literacy (SL) coupled with the paucity of studies on the
level of SL of fresh university science education students, this study assumes that students
entering university to study science education, having gone through science learning in
secondary schools must have a good knowledge and application of science in solving man’
problem and that of the society. Hence this study examines the level of scientific literacy among
year one science education students in tertiary institutions.
Copyright (c) 2023 Author (s). This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).To view a copy of this Volume 6, Issue 7 | Jul- 2023 | 348
license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
International Journal on Integrated Education e-ISSN : 26203502
IJIE | Research Parks Publishing (IDEAS Lab) p-ISSN : 26153785

Research Questions
1. What is the level of students’ ability to explain phenomena scientifically?
2. Will the level of students’ ability to design and evaluates science investigations be high or
low?
3. What is the level of students’ ability to interpret data and evidence scientifically?
4. Will the students have high level of scientific literacy?
THE RESEARCH METHOD
The research design utilised in this study was descriptive in nature. The study employed a
combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies to gather data (McCombes, 2019).
Subjects
The subjects consisted of 2,025 fresh (year 1) science education students in the 2022/2023
academic session, specifically, those studying education combined with either, biology (BIO),
chemistry (CHE), Integrated science (ITS), and physics (PHY) in selected tertiary schools in
South-South, Nigeria.
Instrument
The instrument used to gather data was scientific literacy test (SLT) developed by the
researchers based on the three science literacy competencies advocated by OECD (2013), which
include explaining phenomena scientifically, designing and evaluating science investigations,
and interpreting data and evidence scientifically. SLT consisted of 40 multiple choice objective
questions and 20 essay questions covering selected topics in basic biology, chemistry and
physics. The test was subjected to content, construct and face validity. Its reliability value was
0.784.
Before engaging the subjects in the study, consent was obtained from the Dean of faculty, Head
of Departments as well as the subjects. Afterward, the subjects were given the SLT to respond to.
In some of the institutions, the instrument was administered by research assistants.
Data analysis
Responses from the subjects were scored (For the multiple choice, correct option =1mark, wrong
option = 0, and Essay = 3marks each), and then analysed using percentage.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results
Table 1 shows science education students’ ability to explain phenomena scientifically. It shows
that while 22.57% of the total respondents have low ability, 77.43% of them possessed high
ability to scientifically explain phenomena. The table also indicated that the average score for the
students was 71.11%. On the percentage responses classified by course of study, the table
indicates that while low level of students’ ability to explain phenomena decreases in the order:
PHY (34.16%) > CHE (25.31%) BIO(21.95%) > ITS (12.50%), the high ability followed the
sequence: ITS (87.50%) >BIO (78.05%)> CHE (74.69%) >PHY(65.84%).
Table 1: Levels of students’ ability to explain phenomena scientifically
SCORE TOTAL RESPONDENTS BY COURSE OF LEVELS
(%) RESPONDENTS STUDY OF
BIO CHEM ITS PHY ABILTY
0- 49 457 (22.57%) 178 165 45 69 Low
(21.95%) (25.31%) (12.50%) (34.16%)
50- 1568 (77.43%) 633 487 315 133 High
Above (78.05%) (74.69%) (87.50%) (65.84%)
Copyright (c) 2023 Author (s). This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).To view a copy of this Volume 6, Issue 7 | Jul- 2023 | 349
license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
International Journal on Integrated Education e-ISSN : 26203502
IJIE | Research Parks Publishing (IDEAS Lab) p-ISSN : 26153785

Total 2025 (100%) 811 (100 652 360 202

%) (100%) (100%) (100%)
AVERAGE SCORE = 71.11% High
Table 2 shows that 69.68% of the total respondents have low ability level while 30.32% show
high ability level indicating that majority (above 69 %) of the science education students cannot
design and evaluate investigations scientifically. But on the average, the table showed that the
students had 24.85 % as their average score
The table also shows that, by course of study, the proportion of students with low level ability to
design and evaluate science investigations is in the order: BIO (76.33%) PHY (74.75%) > CHE
(72.09%) > ITS (47.50%), while that of high level ability is in the order: ITS (52.50%) > CHE
(27.917%) >PHY(22.67%) >BIO((23.67%).
Table 2: Levels of students’ ability to design and evaluate science investigations
SCORE TOTAL RESPONDENTS BY COURSE OF LEVEL
(%) RESPONDENTS STUDY OF
BIO CHE ITS PHY ABILITY
0-49 1411 (69.68%) 619 470 171 151 Low
(76.33%) (72.09%) (47.50%) (74.75%)

50- 614 (30.32%) 192 182 189 51 High

Above (23.67%) (27.91%) (52.50%) (22.25%)

Total 2025 (100%) 811 (100 652 360 202

%) (100%) (100%) (100%)
AVERAGE SCORE = 24.85% Low
Table 3 shows science students’ ability to give interpretations to data and evidence scientifically
(IDES). It shows that 72.94% of the respondents are low in the acquisition of the ability to
scientifically give interpretations to data and evidence as 27.06% show high ability to interpret
data. Data in the table also indicated that the average score for science education students was
49.93 %. On the percentage responses classified by course of study, the table indicates that while
low level of students’ ability to IDES decreases in the order: BIO (84.33%) > CHE (81.29%)>
PHY(43.57%)>ITS (40.61%) the high ability to IDES follow the sequence: ITS(59.39%)> PHY
(57.43%) > CHE (18.71%) >BIO (36.62%) .
Table 3: Levels of students’ ability to interpret data and evidence scientifically
SCORE TOTAL RESPONDENTS BY COURSE OF STUDY LEVEL
(%) RESPONDENTS BIO CHE ITS PHY OF
ABILITY
0-49 1477 (72.94%) 688 530 173 86 Low
(84.33%) (81.29%) (40.61%) (43.57%)

50- 548 (27.06%) 123 122 187 116 High

Above (15.17%) (18.71%) (59.39%) (57.43%)

Total 2025 (100%) 811 (100 652 (100%) 360 202

%) (100%) (100%)
AVERAGE SCORE = 48.93 % Low
Table 4 presents the levels of fresh science education students’ scientific literacy (SL). From the
table, 44.84% and 55.16% of the entire sample respectively have low and high level of scientific
literacy. The table also shows that the average score for the students was 56.75% on the average.
Copyright (c) 2023 Author (s). This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).To view a copy of this Volume 6, Issue 7 | Jul- 2023 | 350
license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
International Journal on Integrated Education e-ISSN : 26203502
IJIE | Research Parks Publishing (IDEAS Lab) p-ISSN : 26153785

However, considering literacy of the respondents by course of study, the table revealed that,
while the percentage of students with low ability level of SL follows the order: PHY(50.99%) >
BIO (48.09%) > CHE(44.32%) >ITS(35.0%), the high level SL is in the order: ITS (65.0%) >
CHE (55.67%) > BIO(51.91%)> PHY(49.01%). This implies that above half of the science
education students are scientifically literate with the exception of their counterparts in physics
education. However, integrated science education students are more scientifically literate than
their colleagues in chemistry, physics and biology education.
Table 4: Level of scientific literacy of science education students
SCORE TOTAL RESPONDENTS BY COURSE OF LEVELS
(%) RESPONDENTS STUDY OF SL
BIO CHEM ITS PHY
0- 49 908 (44.84%) 390 289 126 103 Low
(48.09%) (44.32%) (35.0%) (50.99%)

50- 1117 (55.16%) 421 363 234 99 High

Above (51.91%) (55.67%) (65.0%) (49.01%)

Total 2025 811 (100 652 360 202

%) (100%) (100%) (100%)
AVERAGE SCORE= 56.75% High
Discussion
Three scientific literacy competences of fresh science education students are examined in this
present study following the three scientific competencies which include competence to explain
phenomena scientifically; evaluating data and designing scientific investigations; and interpret
data and scientific evidence. Findings expose that, while fresh science education students'
scientific literacy skills for explaining phenomena are high, the other competencies are
somewhat low. Majority of the students have problems interpreting data and evidence, as well as
designing and evaluating investigations. However, on the general scientific literacy as shown in
table 4, the students, with the exception of students in physics education demonstrated high SL.
Again integrated science education students indicated high level acquisition of SL.
Contrary to Sutrisna and Anhar (2020) that notice low average competence of students to explain
phenomena, the present study observed high ability of students to explain phenomena
scientifically which is in support of the results obtained by Noor (2021) and Henukh et al.
(2021). They found that students possessed good scientific literacy. This finding can be
connected to the fact that the students learnt in relation to the materials being taught and with the
scientific phenomena (observable natural events occurring in the universe). Science which
primarily connotes the study of nature and the universe offers man the ability to understand the
world around him and hence the natural occurrences and be able to explain or predict such
occurrences using the knowledge gained from science. This finding revealed that the students
understood the environment around them and the materials learnt in their various science
subjects/courses especially at the secondary school level which make them to be competent in
providing a more detailed explanation in their own words about a concept.
Result on the ability to design and evaluate investigations disagrees with that of Henukh et al.’s
(2021) study that found the average score obtained by students to be 65%, but agrees with that
reported by Noor (2021) for Malaysian students that scored an average of 37%. The inability of
the students to devise, describe and assess scientific investigations and suggest ways of tackling
questions could be linked to the way science is taught at the secondary school (Adu-Gyamfi &
Ampiah, 2016; Purwani, 2018; Sutrisna &Anhar ,2020; Yuliati, 2017 in Fitria, 2022; Laslo &
Baram-Tsabari, 2021). Adu-Gyamfi and Ampiah, (2016) condemned the use of English language
(that is a second language of the learners) in science instructions as a reason for students
Copyright (c) 2023 Author (s). This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).To view a copy of this Volume 6, Issue 7 | Jul- 2023 | 351
license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
International Journal on Integrated Education e-ISSN : 26203502
IJIE | Research Parks Publishing (IDEAS Lab) p-ISSN : 26153785

acquiring low SL. Science students in some schools have not perform a single science practical
or experiments either because of lack of facilities or the teacher could not engage the students in
practical classes (Yuliati, 2017 in Fitria, 2022). Again, some teachers teach students to pass with
high grade rather than helping them to see the importance of science learning in equipping them
with skills and competencies to be able to face problems in everyday life (Laslo & Baram-
Tsabari, 2021). Many of the strategies promote memorization than critical thinking (Aina, 2017).
Strategies such as guided discovery (Chatila & Sweid, 2020), scientific argument (Soysal,
2015).collaborative learning (Sekerci & Canpolat (2014) could be utilized to develop and
promote students’ SL. According to Agustin and Supahar (2021) the mode of science teaching
and learning that does not change or give room for the learner to actively engage in learning but
only aims enhancing students’ test scores cannot enhance students' scientific literacy skills.
Purwani (2018) profess that student scientific literacy competencies can be improved or obtained
if students are learning with scientific problems. The students need to be taught with scientific
problems capable of engaging them in learning that will cause them to be motivated and curious
to go into discovery and inquiry.
Students’ ability to interpret data and evidence scientifically was found to be low. This finding is
in accord with the finding of Sutrisna & Anhar (2020) and Henukh et al. (2021) but in disaccord
with the finding of Noor (2021). Henukh et al. (2021) reported that the average score obtained by
students was 49% while Noor (2021) reported 60 % for Malaysian student. Again, the low ability
of students to interpret data and evidence could be attributed to the teachers role in science
teaching, student’ learning and evaluation of science learning. The pattern of teaching and
evaluation of science has great influence on the way students learn. Instead of presenting science
to students using strategies and materials that promote analytical thinking skill that can help
them to interpret or give meanings to data and evidence, science teachers adopt strategies that
encourage memorization. For example, some teachers often evaluate science leaning with
questions that require students to list, mention, state or define instead of questions that will
require them to distinguish between A and B, calculate or deduce from the information presented
in charts, tables or diagrams amongst others.
The success of scientific literacy hinges on the role played by the teacher throughout the learning
process. It is the teacher that plans and execute the learning the learning process. His efforts can
bring the students to gain or improve their scientific literacy skills and so improve scientific
literacy in schools (Adnan , et al, 2021 in Fitria, 2022 ) or mar students’ acquisition of scientific
literacy skills
Although the average score of the overall scientific literacy presented in table 4 is lower than
24.4 (68.6%) reported by Garner-O’Neale and Ogunkola (2015) for undergraduate chemistry
students in Barbados, the result demonstrated that many of the students showed good level of
scientific literacy. This result corresponds with that of Murti and Aminah (2018) which found
out that the average score for Indonesian students was 59.6%.
Worthy of note is the highest proportion of ITS students with high ability level in all theSL
competencies stated above as well as in the overall SL measured. This indicates that, among the
fields of study in science education, ITS has the highest proportion of students that are
scientifically literate. This outcome of the study does not come as a surprise. The study of
Integrated Science (ITS) offers students numerous possibilities to gain a full understanding of
nature due to its foundation in the interconnectedness of the cosmos. This approach provides a
wide range of evidence that contributes to a holistic comprehension of the natural world. The
study of integrated science provides learners with the opportunity to develop a knowledge of the
underlying interconnectedness of scientific disciplines, the shared methodologies employed in
addressing scientific problems, and the practical applications of science in daily life.

Copyright (c) 2023 Author (s). This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).To view a copy of this Volume 6, Issue 7 | Jul- 2023 | 352
license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
International Journal on Integrated Education e-ISSN : 26203502
IJIE | Research Parks Publishing (IDEAS Lab) p-ISSN : 26153785

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The outcome of this study disclosed that science education students are somehow scientifically
literate despite their low level ability in the components of scientific literacy that require
designing and evaluating investigations as well as interpretation of data and evidence. The study
also revealed a high level of scientific literacy among ITS education students compared to
students in biology, chemistry and physics education.
As a result of the above it was recommended that:
1. Science teachers, as a matter necessity, should:
a) Be using strategies that will motivate and encourage the learner to be involved in the
learning, promote problem-solving and analytical skills.
b) Engage students in experimental and practical work.
c) Develop evaluation tools for science students based on scientific literacy using questions that
call for synthesis and evaluation or analysis of data to evoke critical thinking rather than
questions that require mere recalling of facts.
d) Take students on science tours to museums, industries, game reserves where they can obtain
real-world experiences and knowledge
2. Students should see themselves as the future scientists and so they should engage in
collaborative learning, ask questions and develop the spirit of inquiry and discovery.
3. Government and school authorities should provide science materials (both projected and non-
projected audio, visual and audio-visual) necessary for effective teaching and learning of
science in schools
REFERENCES
1. Adu-Gyamfi, K., & Ampiah, J. G. (2016). The junior high school integrated science: The
actual teaching process in the perspective of an ethnographer. European Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 4(2), 268-282.
2. Agustin, A. R., & Supahar. (2021). A quantitative analysis of Indonesian Junior High
School science textbooks for scientific literacy themes. Proceedings of the 6th International
Seminar on Science Education (ISSE 2020), 541(ISSE 2020), 752–761.
https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210326.108
3. Aina, J. K. (2017). The physics authentic learning experience through the peer instruction.
Saarbrucken: LAP Lambert Academic Publisher..
4. Ajayi, V. O. (2018). Scientific literacy. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323317149.
5. Amini, S., & Sinaga, P. (2021). Inventory of scientific literacy ability of junior high school
students based on the evaluation of PISA framework competency criteria. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, 1806(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012017
6. Chatila, H., &Sweid, S. (2020). Development of scientific literacy through guided-inquiry
learning approach in biology. International Journal of Science and Research, 9(4), 1750-
1756
7. 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.
8. Educational Policy Commission (EPC) (1996). Education and the Spirit of Science.
Washington, D. C. National Education Association, 11-13.
9. Fensham, P.J. (2004). Increasing the relevance of science and technology education for all
students in the 21st century. Science Education International, 15(1), 7-26.
Copyright (c) 2023 Author (s). This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).To view a copy of this Volume 6, Issue 7 | Jul- 2023 | 353
license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
International Journal on Integrated Education e-ISSN : 26203502
IJIE | Research Parks Publishing (IDEAS Lab) p-ISSN : 26153785

10. Fitria, Y., Alfa, D. S., Irsyad, M., Anwar, M., Adisva, Q. N.F., & Abdullah, H. (2022).
Student literacy competence in science learning in Junior High Schools with the reading to
learn model. Al-Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan,14 (2), 1607-1616. DOI:
10.35445/alishlah.v14i1.1321
11. Garner-O’Neale, L., & Ogunkola, B. (2015). Effects of interest in science, study habits, sex
and level of study on the nature of science literacy level of undergraduate chemistry
students of the University of the West Indies, Barbados. Journal of Educational and Social
Research, 5(2), 267-267.
12. Gyllenpalm, J., Wickman, P.O., & Holmgren, S.O. (2010). Teachers’language on scientific
inquiry: Methods of teaching or methods of inquiry? International Journal of Science
Education, 32(9), 1151-1172.
13. Kolstø, S.D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science
dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.
14. Laslo, E., &Baram-Tsabari, A. (2021). Expressions of science literacy in online public
discussions of animal experimentation. International Journal of Science Education, Part B:
Communication and Public Engagement, 11(1), 55–74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2020.1871103
15. McCombes, S. (2019). Understanding different sampling methods. Retrieved from:
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/sampling-methods/
16. Millar, R. (2008). Taking scientific literacy seriously as a curriculum aim. Asia-Pacific
Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 1-18
17. Murti, P.R., &Aminah, N.S. (2018). The analysis of high school students’ science literacy
based on nature of science literacy test (NOSLiT).Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
1097(1), 1-8.
18. Noor, N. S.A.M. (2021). Assessing secondary students’ scientific literacy: A comparative
study of suburban schools in England and Malaysia. Science Education International 32(4),
343-352. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i4.9
19. Norris, S.P., & Phillips, L.M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to
scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
20. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013) PISA 2015:
Draft Science Framework. United Kingdom, France: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
21. Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184.
22. Purwani, L. D.( 2018). Analysis of Student’s Scientific Literacy Skills Through
Socioscientific Issue’s Test on Biodiversity Topics. Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1013
23. Ratcliffe, M., & Millar, R. (2009). Teaching for understanding of science in context:
Evidence from the pilot trials of the twenty first century science courses. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 945-959.
24. Sampson, R. D., & Anderson, N. D. (1981). Science Students and Schools: A Guide for the
Middle and Secondary School Teacher. Canada: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Pp. 6.
25. Sekerci, A. R., & Canpolat, N. (2014). Impact of argumentation in the chemistry laboratory
on conceptual comprehension of Turkish students. Educational Process: International
Journal, 3(1-2), 19-34.Available at: https://doi.org/10.12973/edupij.2014.312.2.
26. Sengdala, P., &Yuenyong, C. (2021). Enhancing Laos students’ understanding of nature of
science in physics learning about atom for peace. European Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 2(2), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9405
Copyright (c) 2023 Author (s). This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).To view a copy of this Volume 6, Issue 7 | Jul- 2023 | 354
license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
International Journal on Integrated Education e-ISSN : 26203502
IJIE | Research Parks Publishing (IDEAS Lab) p-ISSN : 26153785

27. Soysal, Y. (2015). A critical review: Connecting nature of science and argumentation.
Science Education International, 26(4), 501-521.
28. Sutrisna , N., & Anhar, A. (2020). An analysis of student’s scientific literacy skills of senior
high school in Sungai Penuh City based on scientific competence and level of science
literacy questions. Advances in Biological Sciences Research,10, 149-156

Copyright (c) 2023 Author (s). This is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).To view a copy of this Volume 6, Issue 7 | Jul- 2023 | 355
license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/