Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparative Study of Scientific Literacy and Core Competence Discourses as Rationales for the 21st Century Science Curriculum Reform

21세기 과학 교육과정 개혁 논리로서의 과학적 소양 및 핵심 역량 담론 비교 연구

  • Received : 2021.11.29
  • Accepted : 2022.01.07
  • Published : 2022.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The two most influential rationales for the 21st century science curriculum reform can be said to be core competence and scientific literacy. However, the relationship between the two has not been scrutinized but remained speculative - and this has made the harmonization of the general guideline and subject-matter curriculum difficult in Korean national curriculum system. This study compares the two discourses to derive implications for future science curriculum development. This study took a literature research approach. In chapter II, national curriculum or standards, position papers, and research articles were reviewed to delineate the historical development of the discourses. In chapter III and IV, the intersections of those two discourses are delineated. In chapter III, the commonalities of the two discourses are explicated with regard to crisis rhetoric, multi-faceted meanings (individual, community, and global aspects), organization of subject-matter content and teaching and learning method, and the role of high-stake exams. In chapter IV, their respective strengths and weaknesses are juxtaposed. In chapter V, it is suggested that understanding scientific literacy and core competence discourses to have a family resemblance as 21st century science curriculum reform rationale, after Wittgenstein and Kuhn. Finally, the ways to resolve the conflict between the two ideas from the general guideline and subject-matter curriculum over crisis rhetoric were explored.

오늘날 세계적으로 영향력을 미치고 있는 21세기 과학 교육과정 개혁의 두 논리는 핵심 역량 및 과학적 소양이라고 할 수 있다. 그런데 양자 간의 관계는 아직 면밀히 규명되지 않고 모호하게 남아 있으며, 이로 인하여 국가 교육과정 총론 수준의 혁신적 교육과정 구성 논리와 과학 교과의 고유한 교육과정 구성 논리가 조화되는 데 어려움이 발생하고 있다. 이에, 본 연구는 21세기 과학 교육과정 개혁 논리로서의 과학적 소양 및 핵심 역량 담론을 비교하여, 향후 과학 교육과정 개정에 대한 시사점을 제공하고자 하였다. 본 연구는 문헌 연구 방법을 취하였다. 이에 과학적 소양 및 핵심 역량 담론들을 구성해온 주요 연구 문헌들과 정책 보고서들을 두루 참조하였다. II장에서는 먼저 과학적 소양 및 핵심 역량 담론들이 영향력을 발휘하게 된 역사적 경로를 돌아본다. 이 과정에서 2000년대 초반부터 각 담론의 전개양상을 모양지운 OECD의 역할에 주목할 것이다. 그리고 국내에서 해당 담론들이 어떻게 수용되어왔는가 또한 살펴본다. III장과 IV장에서는 과학적 소양과 핵심 역량 담론의 교차를 살펴본다. III장에서는 양자 모두가 학생 위기 레토릭에 힘입어 성장하였다는 점, 개인 차원, 공동체 차원, 지구적 차원을 고려하는 다층적 의미를 지닌다는 점, 교과 내용 조직 및 학습 방법의 논리가 유사하다는 점, 고부담 평가가 교육과정 개혁을 촉구한다는 점이 제시된다. IV장에서는 과학적 소양과 핵심 역량 담론 각각이 과학 교육과정 개혁에 대하여 제공할 수 있는 차별화된 강점과 함께 약점 역시 비교한다. V장에서는 후기 Wittgenstein 및 Kuhn의 관점에서, 과학적 소양과 핵심 역량을 21세기 과학 교육과정 개혁 논리로서의 가족유사성을 지니는 언어로 이해할 수 있다고 제안한다. 이를 통해 우리나라 국가 교육과정 개발에서 반복되곤 하는 '총론과 각론의 괴리' 문제를 해소할 이론적 실마리와 함께, 2022 개정 교육과정을 비롯한 향후 과학 교육과정 담론이 위기 레토릭을 넘어 희망적인 목소리를 담아야 함을 제안한다.

Keywords

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. Anderson, H. (2000). Kuhn's account of family resemblance: A solution to the problem of wide-open texture. Erkenntnis, 52(3), 313-337. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005546300818
  3. Archer, M. S. (2000). Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge University Press.
  4. Auerbach, A. J., & Schussler, E. E. (2017). Curriculum alignment with Vision and Change improves student scientific literacy. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 16(ar29), 1-9.
  5. Barker, P., Chen, X., & Andersen, H. (2003). Kuhn on concepts and categorization. In T. Nickles (Ed.), Thomas Kuhn (pp. 212-245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Biesta, G. & Prestley, M. (2013). Capacities and the curriculum. In Prestley, M., & Biesta, G. (Eds.). Reinventing Curriculum (pp. 35-49). Bloomsbury Academic.
  7. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practices. NH: Heinemann.
  8. Cho, C. -K. (2014). Revision of geography national curriculum in UK and debates about knowledge. Journal of the Korean Geographical Soceity, 49(3), 456-471.
  9. Cho, Y. (1997). Socialization and Education. Seoul: Kyoyookbook.
  10. Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S. -W., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20424
  11. Choi, S. (2018). Practices of competency-based curriculum: Cases at the high school level. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 169-196. https://doi.org/10.15708/KSCS.36.1.8
  12. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
  13. Elam, S. (1971). Performance-based teacher education. What is the State of the Art?, Washington: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
  14. Ewens, T. (1979). Analyzing the impact of competence-based approaches on liberal education. In Grant, G. (ed.). On Competence: A Critical Analysis of Competence-Based Reforms in Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  15. Fensham, P. J. (1985). Science for all: A reflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 415-435. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027850170407
  16. Fensham, P. J. (2007). Competences, from within and without: New challenges and possibilities for scientific literacy. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, & P. Wickman (eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium held at Uppsala University (pp. 113-119). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
  17. Fensham, P. J. (2009). Real world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context-based science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 884-896. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20334
  18. Ha, H., & Kim, H. -B. (2019). A theoretical investigation on agency to facilitate the understanding of student-centered learning communities in science classrooms. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(1), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.1.101
  19. Han, H. (2020). A study of the relationship between subject knowledge and competence by revisiting P. H. Hirst's curriculum theory. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(3), 131-155. https://doi.org/10.15708/KSCS.38.3.6
  20. Han, H. -C., Kim, K. -C., Lee, J. -Y., Chang. K. -S. (2018). Exploring issues for effective implementation of competency-based curriculum through analysis of domestic research trends. The Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 21(3), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.22799/JCE.2018.21.3.001
  21. Harlen, W. (2001). The assessment of scientific literacy in the OECD/PISA project. Studies in Science Education, 36(1), 79-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260108560168
  22. Hodge, S. (2007). The origins of competency-based training. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 47(2), 179-209.
  23. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305021
  24. Hurd, P. DeH. (1958). Scientific literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13-16.
  25. Hurd, P. DeH. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(3), 407-416. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199806)82:3<407::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-G
  26. Hwang, G. (2017), Critical review of issues in general competece education. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(3), 241-271.
  27. Hwang, G. (2021). Research for setting major features of the general guideline of the 2022 Revised National Curriculum. In Proceedings of the Public Hearing for Research for Preparing Major Features of the General Guideline of the 2022 Revised National Curriculum (pp. 3-32).
  28. Jeon, S. -J., Kwak, Y., Koh, H. Y., Lee, Y. S., & Choi, S. Y. (2017). The needs analysis of science literacy required for Koreans in the future soceity. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(3), 441-452. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.3.441
  29. Jeong, Y. T. (1985). Today and Tomorrow of Science Education. Seoul: Korea Broadcasting System.
  30. Kahle, J. B. (2007). Systematic reform: Research, vision, and politics. In Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Science Education (pp. 911-941). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  31. Kim, C. -J. (1989). Students' intuitive ideas in Earth Science. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 10(2), 229-235.
  32. Kim, H., & Kim. J. G. (2019). Development of science-art convergence STEAM education program for aesthetic sensibility competency: Making illustrated poem using pressed flower. School Science Journal, 13(4), 431-440. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.13.4.201911.431
  33. Kim, L. -J. (2019). Exploring the concept of "aesthetic sensitivity competency". The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.15708/KSCS.37.3.1
  34. Klopfer, L. E., & Champagne, A. B.(1990). Ghosts of crisis past. Science Education, 74(2), 133-154 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740202
  35. Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
  36. Korea Ministry of Education [KMOE] (1981). Elementary School Curriculum.
  37. Korea Ministry of Education [KMOE] (1988a). Elementary School Curriculum.
  38. Korea Ministry of Education [KMOE] (1988b). High School Curriculum.
  39. Korea Ministry of Education [KMOE] (1997). Science Curriculum.
  40. Korea Ministry of Education [KMOE] (2015a). General Guideline of the 2015 Revised National Curriculum..
  41. Korea Ministry of Education [KMOE] (2015b). Science Curriculum.
  42. Korea Ministry of Education [KMOE] (2021). Plans for proceeding future curriculum with peoples.
  43. Korea Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [KMOEST] (2011). Science Curriculum.
  44. Korea Ministry of Education, Korea Ministry of Science and ICT, & Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science & Creativity [KMOE, KMOSCIT, & KOFAC] (2019). Korean Science Education Standards for the Next Generation: Scientific Literacy for All Koreans.
  45. Korean Federation of Science & Technology Societies [KOFST] (1979). Proceeding strategies for the movement of scientifying all people. The Science & Technology, 12(7), 6-7.
  46. Kortland, J. (2000). A problem-posing approach to teaching for scientific literacy: The case of decision-making about packaging waste. In O. de Jong, E. R. Savelsbergh, A. Alblas (Eds.), Teaching for Scientific Literacy: Context, Competency, Curriculum (pp. 15-25). Utrecht: CDβ Press.
  47. Kwak, Y. (2016). Competency-Based Curriculum in Science. Paju: Kyoyookbook.
  48. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  49. Lang, M., Drake, S., & Olson, J. (2006). Discourse and the new didactics of scientific literacy. Journal of Curriculum studies, 38(2), 177-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500122539
  50. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<71::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-C
  51. Lee, G. -G., Han, S. -R., Bae, C. -H., & Hong, H. -G. (2019). Hilary Putnam's internal realism and its implications for science curriculum. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(1), 1-27.
  52. Lee, G. -G., & Hong, H. -G. (2017). A comparison of 「Integrated Science」 and 「Converged Science」 of the 2015 Revised National Curriculum through core concepts. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(6), 981-992. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2017.37.6.981
  53. Lee, G. -G., Park, J., Lee, S. -K., Hong, H. -G., Shim, H. S., & Shin, M. -K. (2019). Exploring multi-faceted understandings and issues regarding science subject matter competency: Considering the relationship with general core competency. Journal of Science Education, 43(1), 94-118. https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2019.43.1.94
  54. Lee, H. -S., & Yoo, P. K. (2020). The effects of the science lesson applying the backward design model on science core competency of 2015 Revised Science, science process skills, and scientific communication ability. Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education, 32(1), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.13000/JFMSE.2020.2.32.1.211
  55. Lee, M. -J. (2004). The issues in the current studies on the science curriculum reform. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 24(5), 916-929.
  56. Lee, M. -J. (2009). Toward to the definition of 'scientific literacy'. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 28(4), 487-494.
  57. Lee, M. -J. (2014). Characteristics and trends in the classifications of scientific literacy definitions. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(2), 55-62. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2014.34.2.0055
  58. Lee, S. E. (2018). Exploring an alternative direction for a competece-based curriculum in an age of uncertainty: An "ontological approach." The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 45-69. https://doi.org/10.15708/KSCS.36.1.3
  59. Lottero-Perdue, P. S., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2002). Learning on the job: The acquisition of scientific competence. Science Education, 86(6), 756-782. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10034
  60. McEneaney, E. H. (2003). The worldwide cachet of scientific literacy. Comparative Education Review, 47(2), 217-237. https://doi.org/10.1086/376539
  61. McPhail, G., & Rata, E. (2016). Comparing curriculum types: 'Powerful knowledge' and '21st century learning'. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 51(1), 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-015-0025-9
  62. Millar, R. (2013). Improving science education: Why assessment matters. In Corrigan, D., Gunstone, R., & Jones, A. (Eds.). Valuing Assessment in Science Education: Pedagogy, Curriculum, Policy (pp. 55-68). Springer, Dordrecht.
  63. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future: The report of a seminar series funded by the Nuffiled Foundation. (Retrieved September 30th, 2021 from https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Beyond-2000.pdf)
  64. Mun, K., Lee, H., Kim, S. W., Choi, K., Choi, S. Y., & Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Cross-cultural comparison of perceptions on the global scientific literacy with Australian, Chinese, and Korean middle school students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 437-465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9492-y
  65. National Commission on Excellence in Education [NCEE] (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1086/461348
  66. National Research Council [NRC] (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  67. National Research Council [NRC] (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  68. National Research Council [NRC] (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  69. National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] (1971). NSTA position statement on school science education for the 70's. The Science Teacher, 38, 46-51.
  70. Neville, A. J. (2009). Problem-based learning and medical education forty years on. Medical Principles and Practice, 18(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000163038
  71. Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS] Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  72. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  73. Ohn, J. D. (2021). Research for preparing criteria for the development of the 2022 Revised National Curriculum. In Proceedings of the Public Hearing for Research for Preparing Major Features of the General Guideline of the 2022 Revised National Curriculum (pp. 67-84).
  74. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2000). Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills: The PISA 2000 Assessment of Reading, Mathematical, and Scientific Literacy. Paris: OECD.
  75. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2001). Knowledge and Skills for Life: First Results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000. Paris: OECD.
  76. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2005). The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies: Executive Summary. Paris: OECD.
  77. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2006). Assessing Scientific, Reading, and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
  78. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2009). PISA 2009 Assessment Framework: Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics, and Science. Paris: OECD.
  79. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. Paris: OECD.
  80. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2017). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving (revised ed.). Paris: OECD.
  81. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2019a). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030: OECD Learning Compass 2030 - A Series of Concept Notes. Paris: OECD.
  82. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2019b). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework.. Paris: OECD.
  83. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2020). Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward. Paris: OECD.
  84. Orpwood, G. (2001). The role of assessment in science curriculum reform. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 8(2), 135-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940125120
  85. Park, J. (2016). Discussions about the three aspects of scientific literacy: Focus on integrative understanding, settlement in curriculum, and civid education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(3), 413-422. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2016.36.3.0413
  86. Park, J., Yoon, H. -G., & Kwon, S. (2019). Suggesting a model of science competency and applying it to science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39(2), 207-220. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2019.39.2.207
  87. Park, S. I., Lim, C. I., Lee, J. K., Choi, J. I., Lim, J. H., ..., Lee, J. E. (2012). Principles and Applications of Educational Technology. Paju: Kyoyookbook.
  88. Park, S. J. (ed.) (1985). Science Education. Seoul: Kyoyookbook.
  89. Park, S. J., Kim, D. S., Kim, Y. S., Woo, K. H., Lee, J. Y., & Han, B. S. (1983). Educational anticipation of general science museum and its proceeding methods. National Science Museum.
  90. Presidential Commission on Education Reform [PCER] (1996). Education Reform Report for Establishing New Education System. (Seoul: PCER).
  91. Research Group of the Core Competences for Chinese Students' Development (2016). The Core Competences for Chinese Students' Development [中国学生发展核心素养]. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
  92. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Science Education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  93. Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In Lederman, N. G., & Abell, S. K. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 559-572). Routledge.
  94. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260108560166
  95. Ryder, J., & Banner, I. (2013). School teachers' experiences of science curriculum reform. International Journal of Science Education, 35(3), 490-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.665195
  96. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20327
  97. Seo, K (2020). Dilemmas of competecy-based curriculum. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.15708/KSCS.38.4.1
  98. Seoul National University Education Research Institute [SNUERI] (1994). The Dictionary of Educational Studies (revised ed.). Seoul: Haudongsul.
  99. Seoul National University Education Research Institute [SNUERI] (1998). The Encyclopedia of Education. Seoul: Haudongsul.
  100. Sewell Jr, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1086/229967
  101. Shamos, M. (1995). The Myth of Scientific Literacy. Rutgers Yniversity Press.
  102. Shin Y. (2021). The process of competence-fostering science curricular restructuring and ways of elementary-secondary science curricular content. In Proceedings of the Public Hearing for Competence-fostering Science Curricular Restructuring Research (pp. 2-14).
  103. Sinnema, C., & Aitken, G. (2013). Emerging international trends in curriculum. In Prestley, M., & Biesta, G. (Eds.). Reinventing Curriculum (pp. 141-163). Bloomsbury Academic.
  104. Snaza, N. (2009). Thirteen theses on the question of state in curriculum studies. In Malewski, E. (Ed.). Curriculum Studies Handbook - The Next Moment (pp. 61-80). Routledge.
  105. So, K. -H. (2004). Curriculum Development - Major Issues and New Approaches -. Seoul: Kyoyookbook.
  106. So, K. -H. (2007). 'Competency' in the context of schooling: It's meaning and curricular implications. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(3), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.15708/KSCS.25.3.200709.001001
  107. So, K. -H. (2017). Understanding Curriculum. Paju: Kyoyookbook.
  108. Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of 'relevance' in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.802463
  109. Takayama, K. (2007). A nation at risk crosses the Pacific: Transnational borrowing of the US crisis discourse in the debate on education reform in Japan. Comparative Education Review, 51(4), 423-446. https://doi.org/10.1086/520864
  110. Turner, S. (2008). School science and its controversies; or, whatever happened to scientific literacy?. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507075649
  111. Ufer, S., & Neumann, K. (2018). Measuring competencies. In Fischer, C. F., Hmelo-Silver, S. G., & Reimann, P. (Eds.). International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 433-443). New York, NY: Routledge.
  112. Valladares, L. (2021). Scientific literacy and social transformation. Science & Education, 30(3), 557-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00205-2
  113. Wheelahan, L. (2007). How competency-based training locks the working class out of powerful knowledge: A modified Bernsteinian analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(5), 637-651. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690701505540
  114. White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. London. The Falmer Press.
  115. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (expanded 2nd ed.). VA: ASCD.
  116. Willbergh, I. (2015). The problems of 'competence' and alternatives from the Scandinavian perspective of Bildung. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(3), 334-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.1002112
  117. Williamson, B. (2013). The Future of the Curriculum - School Knowledge in the Digital Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  118. Wittgenstein, L. (2010). Philosophical Investigations. John Wiley & Sons.
  119. Yager, R. E. (1992). What we did not learn from the 60s about science curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 905-910. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290810
  120. Yao, J. X., & Guo, Y. Y. (2018). Core competences and scientific literacy: the recent reform of the school science curriculum in China. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1913-1933. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1514544
  121. Yates, L., & Millar, V. (2016). 'Powerful knowledge' curriculum theories and the case of physics. The Curriculum Journal, 27(3), 298-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2016.1174141
  122. Young, M. (2008) Bringing Knowledge Back in: From Social Constructivism to Social Realism in the Sociology of Education. Routledge.
  123. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2013). On the powers of powerful knowledge. Review of Education, 1(3), 229-250. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3017
  124. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2015). Curriculum and the Specialization of Knowledge. London, Routledge.