Linda HeidenrichSED 600Rethinking Scientific LiteracyThe premise behind this study was scientific literacy is increased in two criticalways: more prevalent use of writing about science and creation of an environment inwhich learning science is safe. This article was the fourth stage of a doctoral program fora math and science researcher in Australia. Her previous research highlighted twoconditions critical to increased scientific literacy: the power relationship between teacherand student in addition to the need to belong to a meaningful learning community. Ms.Hanrahan tested this theory by creating an action research project involving twenty-fourstudents ranging from 12-13 years of age at a private Catholic school in a lowersocioeconomic area who had scored low on the literacy portion of the entry tests(Hanrahan, 1999, 702). She hypothesized affirmational dialogue journal writing wouldhelp students to be more scientifically literate. Affirmational dialogue journal writingrequires the students to complete a journal entry expressing their feelings about a certainexperiment, reflecting on a test or reflecting on previous experiences with science. Theresearcher then took these journal entries and responded to them in an affirmative mannerfocusing on the insight and suggestions the students offered.I commend Ms. Hanrahan for several aspects of her research. First, shecommitted eight months to this research and had the students respond to a variety oftopics ranging from specific (the experiment completed that day) to the general (what hasyour experience in science been like?). In addition, she had the students use code namesfor their journal entries so they felt comfortable with providing honest answers as well asallowed her to publish the answers for the other students and her research paper. Sheaddressed the students’ concerns in a classroom discussion format in addition toproviding written feedback to the students. Ms. Hanrahan also triangulated her researchby performing interviews with the students and the teacher in addition to makingvideotapes and corresponding transcripts of components of her study. Ms. Hanrahan alsowas an increasingly involved researcher, beginning with general observations,progressing to short activities with a lesson and ending with conducting an entire periodof instruction and dialogue. By providing anonymity, being an active participant andtriangulating her data, Ms. Hanrahan created a sound research project. Yet, my concernswith her research include the lack of participation on the part of the teacher and the lackof an obvious connection between her research and scientific literacy. Ms. Hanrahanprovided the majority of the feedback for the students and then had a dialogue with theteacher regarding students’ comments due to the concern of placing additional timeburdens on the teacher. Although this dynamic worked and the teacher made changes tohis teaching based on these conversations, I felt the teacher should have been moreinvolved in the journaling process. In addition, although Ms. Hanrahan’s research provedclearly student achievement increased overall, general literacy and writing competencyincreased, and behavior problems decreased due to increased ownership and buy-in fortheir science class, the connection was not clear that scientific literacy increased from thisresearch study.This study reminded me to integrate journaling into my class on a regular basisbecause it allows students to feel ownership of the class, allows students the ability towrite which is beneficial across the curriculum and allows students to reflect and think ina metacognitive way about the science curriculum. My students are similar to thestudents in this study in that they generally dislike science, have low writing skills andrarely have the chance to reflect on their learning. This study reminded me how criticaloverall literacy is to achieving scientific literacy.Hanrahan, Mary. (1999). Rethinking Science Literacy: Enhancing Communication and Participation in School Science through Affirmational Dialogue Journal Writing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36,