Hanisch 1

How Rhetoric Has Shaped the Goals of Science Education: A Historical

Perspective
In the modern age of smart phones and space flight, it is easy to take
myriad aspects of science for granted. Technology has continued to march
into nearly every aspect of human life, and it has become imperative for
individuals to develop a basic understanding of the mainstream scientific
principles behind the innovations that have advanced our society. This
scientific understanding has been increasingly accentuated in education
with the goal of developing young minds with the ability to tackle universal
issues such as health care, food supply, and global conservation efforts.
Ultimately, the advancement of science education to produce a scientifically
literate population will ensure that our society meets inherent responsibilities
to individuals, cultures, and the planet.
In his article Scientific Literacy: Another Look at Its Historical and
Contemporary Meanings and Its Relationship to Science Education Reform,
George Deboer shows that the roots of science in education date back to the
19th century. According to Deboer, this was a period during which scientists
emphasized student learning of subjects regarding the natural world when
curriculum had traditionally focused on humanities alone. At this time,
scientist educators argued that the pursuit of science led to increased
intellectual development and a greater preparedness for the amplified role of
technology in daily life (Deboer 583). The development of science curriculum

Hanisch 2

based on the increasing relevance of science as an educational field led to

the creation of scientific literacya term that attempts to connect the
concept of science education to an individuals contribution to society.
In education, the concept of scientific literacy has remained a relevant
topic of discourse throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Despite the staying
power of this concept in education research, it has been difficult to approach
a single definition that encompasses all aspects of a scientifically literate
student. George Deboer addresses the fact that although scientific literacy is
difficult to define, the concept implies certain educational goals. For
example, scientific literacy manifests itself through preparing students for
the world of work, providing direct applications of science to everyday living,
and teaching students to be informed citizens (Deboer 592). By linking the
study of science to a scientifically literate and informed citizenry, Deboer
provides immediate relevance to the benefits produced by an effective
science education.
The multifaceted nature of applying the aforementioned, fundamental
principles of scientific literacy to education curriculum has changed over
time. In order to fully appreciate the evolution of the principles of scientific
literacy, it is beneficial to employ a historical approach to rhetoric regarding
this topic. A classical method of a historical analysis of rhetoric involves the
comparison of similarly-themed articles from different time periods. From
this, one can glean insight into how the language, tone, and metaphors from

Hanisch 3

each article serve to further the goals of science education and scientific
literacy in each time period.
Because the use of metaphor is important for communicating ideas in
writing regarding scientific literacy across time periods, this paper will utilize
both historical and metaphorical perspectives to compare rhetoric regarding
scientific literacy in both Paul Hurds 1958 article Scientific Literacy, Its
Meaning for American Schools and Jack Holbrooks 2009 article The
Meaning of Scientific Literacy. While historical analysis will be used to
compare how the articles frame the notion of scientific literacy in American
society, metaphorical analysis will be used to show how metaphors
contribute to the tone, language, and didactic power of both articles.
Specifically, trends in the over-arching goals of science pedagogy will
be examined to show that while the mid-20th century idea of scientific
literacy centered on teaching students science to solve problems in
American society, todays notions for teaching science focus first on
producing benefit for the individual student, then for the global society.
Together, these methods allow one to conceptualize the differing goals for
scientific literacy in education between the 20th and 21st centuries.
Paul Hurd begins his examination of scientific literacy in mid-20th
century American education with the statement The American people,
sparked by a Sputnik, and almost as a single voice, have inquired whether
their children are receiving the kind of education that will enable them to

Hanisch 4

cope with a society of expanding scientific and technological developments

(Hurd 14). Hurds statement underlies the perceived goals of both science
education and scientific literacy in the 1950s. The launch of Sputnik by the
Soviet Union in 1957 initiated the beginning of a technological arms race
one that placed heavy emphasis on using the strategic role of scientific
knowledge (Deboer 585) in the citizen population to give each country an
edge. To this end, Hurd portrays science education as a nationalistic
endeavor with a clear, definite purpose.
Hurds language reflects this holistic approach to science education
through the production of scientifically literate students by the above
statement that refers to America as a countrynot Americas individual
students, and to a single voicenot individual voices that can think
independently and collaborate to form solutions. By framing the beginning of
the article in this manner, Hurd effectively draws the audience into his
perception about how scientific literacy should serve to promote societal
interests over individual growth.
Furthermore, the inflammatory and persuasive tone of Hurds writing
promotes a call to action that implicates science education and scientific
literacy as mechanisms to out-compete other countries and fulfill political
goals. The metaphorical reference of a major technological achievement by a
rival country (a Sputnik) through the use of the verb sparked serves to
ignite debate and induce questions about the state of American education.

Hanisch 5

Using further metaphorical devices such as scientific education can no

longer be regarded as an intellectual luxury for the select few (Hurd 13),
Hurd is able to set the stage for the thesis of his article, that if education is
regarded as a sharing of the experiences of the culture, then science must
have a significant place in the modern curriculum from the first through the
twelfth grade (Hurd 13). Hurds use of metaphor accentuates the
importance of both science in education and a scientifically literate
population, but no concrete mechanisms are proposed to implement
solutions. In this context, the frequent use of metaphor allows Hurd to
propose ideas like sweeping educational reformwhich project appeals of
pathos to the audience and propagate the cause for a scientifically literate
nation, without detailing specifics.
While Jack Holbrook also begins his journal article with similar appeals
to the validity of nationalistic and innovative efforts of science, he departs
from Hurd by discussing both the development of the individual students
intellectual growth and the introduction of scientific values that will allow
each student to operate as an effective member of society. Holbrook states,
It is necessary to relate scientific literacy to an appreciation of the nature of
science, personal learning attributes including attitudes and also to the
development of social values (Holbrook 276).
The above statement reflects the changing goals of scientific education
and the perceived definition of scientific literacy in 21st century society. Since

Hanisch 6

Hurds 1958 article regarding the national importance of scientifically literate

students, science education had indeed been heavily implemented in
American primary schoolswhere quantitative production of scientifically
literate students was measured using standardized testing (Deboer 589).
Therefore, instead of circulating the idea of a scientifically literate
citizenry to realize nationalistic ideals, Holbrook uses diction such as
appreciation, personal learning attributes, and development to
promote the theme of science as an individualized educational experience.
Holbrooks language is descriptive and concise. He neglects the use of
metaphor and often resorts to bulleted lists to show categories of
components that a scientifically literate student is expected to possess. For
example, under the heading of Intellectual (Higher Order Thinking Skills),
Holbrook writes applies skepticism, careful methods, logical reasoning, and
creativity in investigating the observable universe (Holbrook 277).
The higher order thinking skills above are written from the perspective
of an educator evaluating an individual studentone can almost visualize a
rubric with yes/no boxes beside each skill. Unlike the ambiguity of sweeping
statements, each skill that Holbrook lists can be observed, tested, and taught
to students in the classroom through lessons and activities.

Although

this diction emphasizes building the scientific literacy of the individual,

Holbrook also discusses the foundations for scientific literacy in society,
analyzes interactions among science, technology, and society (Holbrook

Hanisch 7

277). This textual nod to Hurd gives relevance to historical claims regarding
the national beneficence of science in education, and portrays Holbrooks
approach to analyzing principles of scientific literacy as well-rounded.
Holbrook then implies that when individuals apply principles of
scientific literacy to a societal context, it leads to the realization of social
values. This phrase is a giant leap away from the language of Paul Hurds
statement that breakthroughs in science establish new areas for intellectual
conquest (Hurd 14). The differences in language and tone between Hurd
and Holbrook again reflect the evolution of the goals of science education to
produce a scientifically literate citizenry. Both authors analyze the benefits of
increased scientific knowledge in society, but their methods vary due to the
unique historical constraints present in each time period. Hurd proclaims the
need for intellectual conquest as metaphorical evidence for his thesis
regarding national science education reform, and Holbrook writes about a
students individual social values from a modern environment that
appreciates the need for a scientifically literate population.
Additionally, the lack of metaphor usage underscores the fact that in
contrast to Hurd, Holbrook doesnt need to use the device to explain why
scientific literacy is importanthis article is supported by nearly fifty years of
reform and research on the topic. An interesting historical analogy that
examines this concept compares the evolution of the goals of science
education reform with the evolution of cancer therapy.

Hanisch 8

In same time period that Hurd began to promote the urgent need for
increased scientific literacy with an almost solely nationalistic agenda, thenPresident Nixons metaphoric War on Cancer declared lofty goals to
eradicate cancer from the earth (Coleman 31). Now, Holbrooks presentation
of a student-centered approach to analyze the state of science education
correlates to modern cancer therapies that target a patients unique genetic
characteristics to improve survival. This analogy shows that a historical call
to action facilitated by specific rhetorical devices can encourage the
evolution and progression of research and reform in multiple sectors.
Ultimately, the differences in language, tone, and the use of metaphor
highlight the historical gap between Paul Hurd and Jack Holbrook.
Contrasting the two articles exemplifies the progress that has been made in
the field of science education in relation to scientific literacy. Hurds
passionate, persuasive tone and frequent use of metaphor highlight the
infancy of a national movement. Holbrooks neutral tone, specific,
individualized examples, and disuse of metaphor display the established field
of science education and the recognized importance of scientific literacy.
In this historical and metaphorical perspective, textual trends have
been analyzed to show how rhetoric reflects the changing goals of science
education. As the world becomes increasingly dependent on technology,
ensuring that students graduate with a high degree of scientific literacy has
never been more vital. Thus, it is imperative that we do not cease the

Hanisch 9

movement for continued science education reform to increase scientific

literacy. Despite their differences in rhetoric, both Hurd and Holbrook stress
the need for advancement in education reform to maintain pace with the
technological climate. This will ensure that todays students gain the
intellectual tools necessary to become tomorrows leaders.

Works Cited
Coleman, Michel P. "War on Cancer and the Influence of the Medical-industrial
Complex." Journal of Cancer Policy 1.3-4 (2013): E31-34. Web.

Hanisch 10

Deboer, George E. "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 (2000): 582-601.
Web.

Holbrook, Jack, and Miia Rannikmae. "The Meaning of Scientific Literacy."

International Journal
of Environmental and Science Education 4.3 (2009):
275-88. Web.

Hurd, Paul. "Scientific Literacy: Its Meaning For American Schools."

Educational Leadership
(1958): 13-16. Web.