Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 319

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reconsidering Different Visions of Scientific Literacy and Science Education Based on the Concept of Bildung

Open access
Sjöström, Jesper, Eilks, Ingo·2018·Innovations in Science Education and Technology

Abstract

Over the last 50 years, policy makers and STEM educators have argued for Scientific Literacy (SL). SL is a typical boundary object that everyone can agree on, but that is filled with different meanings by different stakeholders. Roberts (as published in Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds), Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp. 729–780, 2007) has identified two main orientations of SL: Vision I starts from and focuses on scientific content and scientific processes to learn about corresponding applications later, while Vision II focuses on contextualizing scientific knowledge for giving its use in life and society meaning. The tension between Vision I and II can also be related to the tension between “pipeline science – preparing future scientists” and “science for all”. Recently, a more advanced vision of SL was suggested. It is called Vision III and emphasizes philosophical values, politicization and critical global citizenship education. Such an orientation can be well justified by the Central/Northern European educational and cultural tradition called Bildung. In its most contemporary understanding, it is agency-oriented. Bildung-oriented science education aims at making the student capable of a self-determined life in his/her socio-cultural environment, participation in a democratic society, and of empathy and solidarity with others. This concept is also closely connected to more recent educational paradigms that were defined also beyond Europe, e.g. the ideas of Education for Sustainability (EfS) and transformative learning. Both concepts aim on skills development for critical-democratic participation and for shaping our society and culture in a sustainable way. The different visions of SL have consequences for the content and culture of teaching and learning of science and technology. Accepting Vision III requires awareness that our view of selecting and teaching certain content is dependent on our culture, for example our norms, values and worldviews, and on the society we are living in. Learning (cognition) must be complemented with not only meta-learning (metacognition), but also transformative learning, where things are considered from multifaceted (e.g., cultural) perspectives. The discussion in this chapter focuses on educational implications of Vision III of SL and its connection to critical-reflexive Bildung, EfS and transformative learning.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-66659-4_4

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 79 references

Cited by

See all 319

Metadata

Authors
Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I.
Venue
Innovations in Science Education and Technology
Published
2018
Pages
65-88
ISSN
  • 1873-1058 (ISSN-L)
  • 2213-2236
OpenAlex
W2772839085
Cited by
319
References
79
FWCI
70.01
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reconsidering Different Visions of Scientific Literacy and Science Education Based on the Concept of Bildung. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/978-3-319-66659-4_4
The paper
Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering Different Visions of Scientific Literacy and Science Education Based on the Concept of Bildung. Innovations in Science Education and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66659-4_4

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.