An Immersive Dive into the Definition of Science Literacy

Ahmed Raza, Sarah Min, and Sam Marchetti

Abstract

Since the 1950s, scientific literacy has expanded from basic facts to include societal, cultural, and ethical dimensions vital for informed decision-making by the 2000s. However, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed flaws in these definitions, showing how media misinformation can erode public trust and complicate decision-making despite advances in scientific literacy. This literature review examines the evolution of scientific literacy, from pre-1990s decentralized communication to the modern 21st century focus on accessibility and citizen participation. Using an inductive qualitative approach, it analyzes literature by identifying themes and refining them via specific searches, covering historical trends, applications of knowledge, and recent COVID-19 updates. The literature highlights a shift to a knowledge-to-action approach in science literacy, using problem-based learning, technology, and evidence-based medicine (EBM) to enhance critical thinking and informed decision-making in education and healthcare. The Test of Scientific Literacy Skills (TOSLS) supports this shift by evaluating individuals' understanding of scientific methods and data interpretation, promoting practical and critical engagement with science. Collectively, the study redefines scientific literacy as the deepening of understanding scientific concepts through cultural, historical, and social perspectives, thereby enabling informed decision-making on real-world science issues. Future efforts should integrate technology and media literacy to drive interdisciplinary collaboration, which is essential for advancing scientific literacy and building a more informed, resilient society.

With the introduction of its National Science Education Standards in 1997, the National Research Council (NRC) highlighted that “Citizens need scientific information and scientific ways of thinking in order to make informed decisions” (NRC, 1997, p. 2). In today’s world, this statement is more relevant than ever before. Informed decision-making is crucial for addressing pressing issues such as pandemics, climate change, ocean acidification, air pollution, space exploration, artificial intelligence, and countless other scientific fields that significantly impact our daily lives. The general public should be aware that when science is communicated through government and media organizations, it often lacks necessary detail. Such communications are often accompanied by unqualified statements intended to reassure people, and it may exaggerate scientific disagreements or fail to fairly represent the arguments being presented (Ryder, 2001, p. 32). For this reason, it is of the utmost importance that citizens are scientifically literate and are capable of overcoming these shortcomings in the way science is communicated to them.

As it currently stands, one of the most common approaches to assessing whether an individual is scientifically literate or has achieved a baseline scientific literacy level, is by measuring their education. There exists much evidence in the media (particularly in discussions among the general public) regarding the prevalence of science literacy, especially concerning the percentage of scientifically literate individuals (Liu, 2009; Funk & Goo, 2015). According to the US National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the standardized assessment report highlights that science literacy is a challenge and documents misconceptions among K-16 students over the past four decades (Liu, 2009). Alarming statistics reveal that only 18% of grade 12 students achieve a minimally scientifically literate proficiency level among the four scales: minimal proficiency, basic proficiency, moderate proficiency, and high proficiency (Liu, 2009). This concerning statistic extends globally, noted by the 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators, with less than 40% of adults in selected countries demonstrating a solid understanding of basic science concepts (National Science Board, 2008). Longitudinal studies in the United States reveal a persistently low level of science literacy, estimated to be between 5-10% (Liu, 2009).

Furthermore, a survey conducted by Pew Research Center (Funk & Goo, 2015), complements Liu’s (2009) study by offering a more current perspective on the state of science literacy. Researchers have found disparities in science literacy based on demographic factors such as gender, age, and race (Funk & Goo, 2015). These findings suggest that factors beyond education influence the public's knowledge of science, providing additional insights into the challenges faced by different groups—particularly those from marginalized communities (Funk & Goo, 2015). Consequently, researchers concluded that the degree of science literacy is regulated by an individual’s experience and environment, offering more than just one’s understanding of rigorous scientific concepts (Snow et al., 2016; Funk & Goo, 2015). Moreover, if the public cannot comprehend scientific concepts, then measuring science based on education becomes a futile effort (Lombrozo, 2015). Thus, the debate on true science literacy necessitates a shift towards a new understanding, recognizing the multifaceted nature of scientific knowledge and its intersection with broader societal issues.

The concept of science literacy has evolved significantly over time, reflecting shifts in educational paradigms, advancements in scientific research, and societal priorities. However, there remains a knowledge gap in the current definition of science literacy, as it does not conform to the modern-day changes in how science is being conducted and communicated compared to prior established definitions. Specifically, the definition does not accommodate the adaptability to diverse professional contexts (such as education, medicine, and public involvement) to address contemporary challenges such as misinformation, which was notably highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This literature review aims to explore historical trends in the definition of science literacy, examining how it has been conceptualized and applied in various professional settings. Additionally, it will critically analyze emerging changes in the definition, considering the growing importance of evidence-based practices, interdisciplinary approaches, and the socio-scientific lens. By examining the intersection of science literacy with issues such as misinformation in the context of COVID-19, this review seeks to provide clarity on the new, refined definition of what it means to be scientifically literate.

Methodology

This review was conducted using an inductive approach to collecting and analyzing qualitative data, as described by Thomas (2006). The existing literature was first broadly searched for information pertaining to science literacy and themes were identified from the resulting data. These themes were then further developed and refined using more specific search terms.

The organization of this review was centered around exploring the evolution of the definition of science literacy. Researchers conducted a preliminary search for terms relating to science literacy and communication, including the following: “science literacy,” “education,” “comprehension and understanding,” “misinformation and disinformation,” and “infodemic.” Upon analysis of the data collected from this search, the information was categorized into three sections.

Section 1 analyzed the past trends and patterns of the definition, including data from as far back as the 1950s to the early 21st century. The search parameters focused specifically on data from articles published in accredited journals and government-affiliated websites that represented shifts and/or changes in published definitions of science literacy, as well as any non-formal trends observed by other institutions. The literature was searched more narrowly for the specific keywords: “development,” “technological advancement,” “holistic,” “curriculum,” and “dissemination.” These terms in conjunction with the initial group of keywords represent areas which may have documented changes in the definition of science literacy.

Section 2 focused on a specific key change in the definition of science literacy that was apparent in the data: the application of the “knowledge to action” principle, which highlighted the importance of being able to use and apply information learned. This section focused on collecting research pertaining to how science literacy is reflected in educational and professional institutions, particularly through changes in the curriculum and the introduction of evidencebased medicine. The literature was searched more narrowly for the specific keywords: “practical,” “action,” “institutions,” “curriculum,” “implementation,” “critical analysis and reasoning,” and “evidence-based research.” As in Section 1, these terms in conjunction with the initial group of keywords represent areas which may have documented changes in the definition of science literacy that specifically moved towards the application of scientific principles as opposed to simply the regurgitation of them.

Finally, the criteria for the last section focused on analyzing the current and/or ongoing updates to science literacy, specifically with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This timeframe was selected to explore the changes in the way scientific information is now perceived and conveyed to provide an updated definition of what it means to be scientifically literate. The literature was searched more narrowly for the specific keywords: “public engagement,” “knowledge transmission,” “reform,” “misinformation and disinformation,” “fear-mongering,” “social media,” “decision-making,” and “socioeconomic lens.” These keywords combined with the initial group represent where the definition of science literacy is currently developing in the modern day.

Review

Past Trends and Patterns in Science Literacy

Reaching a consensus on the definition of science literacy has proven challenging, especially with the rapid advances in scientific discoveries and media technology over the last century. As these elements intertwine, the connection between broader public consciousness and proactive engagement becomes increasingly significant. The term “scientific literacy” originated in 1950, introduced by a Stanford professor of science education, Paul Hurd, emphasizing a focus on “understanding science and its applications to society” (Ogunkola, 2013). In the 1990s and early 2000s, a palpable shift towards a more “holistic” approach to scientific literacy emerged. This shift reflected a broader recognition that scientific understanding encompasses not only the accumulation of facts but also societal, cultural, and ethical facets within the realm of science (Ogunkola, 2013; Snow et al., 2016). This shift underscores the importance of individuals engaging with science within the context of their culture and society. This suggests that science literacy acknowledges that scientific knowledge is intricately linked with social contexts and values (Snow et al., 2016).

Despite progress in understanding the diverse aspects of scientific literacy, there is still an urgent need to evaluate its current levels in the general population and the methods used to measure it. By examining the evolution of how we define scientific literacy and analyzing the different approaches used to teach it, we can obtain a better understanding of the intricacies of scientific comprehension and its impact on society.

Evolution of Science Literacy Since 1950s

Between 1950 and 1990, the concept of science literacy evolved significantly from a narrow focus on content knowledge to a broader understanding encompassing qualities such as critical thinking and application of knowledge to real-world problems. In the 1950s, science literacy revolved around memorizing scientific facts, taught through teacher-centered methods and textbooks (Bybee & DeBoer, 1994). However, the onset of scientific advancements such as the launch of Sputnik in 1957, spurred curriculum reforms and increased funding for science education, especially in North America (DeBoer, 2000). Likewise, the 1960s and 1970s saw the rise of inquiry-based learning, promoting student-led experimentation and scientific thinking, revealing shifts in the idea that science literacy was essential for all students, not just future scientists (DeBoer, 2000). Eventually, by 1990, technology began playing a more significant role in providing resources and enhancing learning, leading to developmental changes in dissemination and the adoption of a new action-based approach.

Dissemination of Information

One of the most significant shifts in science literacy trends occurred before and after the 1990s, especially regarding the “dissemination” of information. Before this period, the distribution of scientific knowledge was characterized by a less centralized (decentralized) approach (Ogunkola, 2013). Scientific topics, contexts, and analyses were disseminated through various channels, often without a central authority or standardized framework (Ogunkola, 2013). Additionally, how scientific information was communicated varied depending on the audience, i.e., whether it was exchanged between professional experts or conveyed to the general public (Ferguson, 2022). For professionals, communication involves technical language, specialized concepts, and data, yet they often lack “pedagogical content knowledge,” which is the skill of effectively simplifying material for non-experts (Brownell et al., 2013; Gess-Newsome, 2002). This, in turn, makes it difficult for the public to grasp scientific knowledge, as it requires simplifying concepts, using accessible language, and emphasizing practical relevance to ensure understanding and engagement (Brownell et al., 2013). This variability emphasizes the importance of considering the audience and tailoring the communication of scientific information to meet their specific needs and levels of science literacy. The advent of digital technology further transformed the landscape, enabling faster and broader dissemination of scientific information.

Prior to the 1990s, scientific knowledge was predominantly communicated and translated among professional experts (Bucchi, 2019). For example, discussions on topics such as the development of recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s were largely confined to professional scientists and researchers, with specialized jargon and contextual information primarily shared within this expert community (Houtman et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2016). In contrast, starting from the 1990s, there has been a significant emphasis on engaging the public in scientific and technological change, focusing on concepts such as “citizen science,” “community-based participatory research,” “anticipatory governance,” and “responsible innovation” (Ogunkola, 2013; Elhai, 2023). The shift highlighted the importance of using accessible language and effective translation to ensure that complex scientific concepts could be understood and effectively applied by the public. Among these, “responsible citizen” has become prominent in science policy discussions among the public, emphasizing the crucial role of participatory engagement (Bird, 2014; Elhai, 2023).

Knowledge-to-Action Approach

The patterns and trends observed thus far in the developing practical definition of science literacy, highlight the global adoption of a key aspect of the knowledge-to-action approach. This process represents a shift towards inquiry and decision-making as opposed to simply reiterating scientific content i.e., the textbook understanding of the information (Feinstein, 2011).

Inquiry is a method of critically evaluating information, following an experimental procedure, and applying scientific reasoning to real-world problems (Feinstein, 2011). For instance, utilizing quantitative data to support conclusions or results have led to the formation of the scientific method as a standardized approach in gathering experimental data (Feinstien, 2011). Compared to the past, this procedure ensures the use of an evidence-based approach, a principle used in many different fields of study.

Educational Institutions. Interestingly enough, the practical implementation of these theories have been observed in both educational and professional settings. Undergraduate science professors, Auerbach & Schussler (2017), found that the movement towards inquiry was noted within classrooms in the form of problem-based learning. This refers to the idea that students are required to take initiative to dissect and resolve problems pertaining to the curriculum. For instance, classrooms have increased the use of real-life case studies as a means of learning (Auerbach & Schussler, 2017). This teaching style encourages students to think critically, collaborate with peers, and draw connections between abstract concepts and practical applications (Auerbach & Schussler, 2017). For example, students might be tasked with designing a sustainable energy solution for their school or community. This method forces students to apply their in-class and/or textbook-style learnings to work towards resolving a real life problem. Evidence has shown that adopting such an approach not only encourages an inquisitive nature within students (in the form of conducting independent research), but is also correlated with students adopting this learning style outside of the classroom, in their day-today life (Ryder, 2001). Through this process, individuals are able to critically think, analyze, and apply learnings from educational settings—aspects of becoming scientifically literate.

The state of progressing science literacy in educational settings has developed further with the addition of technology and interdisciplinary approaches. For instance, Levy (2012) comments on how educational institutions leverage technology to enhance science education and facilitate inquiry-based learning. Digital tools and simulations enable students to conduct virtual experiments, explore scientific concepts in interactive environments, and collaborate with peers via online forums (Levy, 2012). These technological means encourage students to engage with authentic scientific research and investigations (Levy, 2012). These changes show that we have moved towards a knowledge-to-action approach as part of what it means to be scientifically literate. It has become important to be able to use and apply information as opposed to being able to regurgitate it as in decades past, evidenced by teaching styles changing in science education.

Healthcare Institutions. Beyond the classroom, this approach has been implemented in various professional settings, a prominent one being healthcare through the development of evidencebased medicine (EBM). Initially, medical practices relied heavily on clinical experience and expert opinion, with limited integration of scientific evidence. However, the emergence of EBM in the latter part of the 20th century revolutionized medical decision-making by emphasizing the systematic appraisal of clinical research to inform patient care (Ploomipuu et al., 2020). The development of EBM was driven by the recognition of the limitations of traditional medical approaches, such as a focus on traditional textbook-style learning or simply rote memorization and regurgitation (Ploomipuu et al., 2020). With the shift in trends and the need for more rigorous methods to evaluate medical interventions, researchers and clinicians began systematically reviewing and synthesizing existing research to identify the most effective treatments based on empirical evidence (Ploomipuu et al., 2020). This approach was formalized through the development of hierarchies of evidence, which prioritize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews as the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy (Ploomipuu et al., 2020).

This example of EBM shines light on another crucial aspect of science literacy—the need for incorporating a socio-scientific lens. A socio-scientific lens is one which integrates and considers the social, economic, and ethical implications of scientific research (Snow & Dibner, et al., 2016). Evidence-based medicine emphasizes the importance of integrating clinical expertise with patient values and preferences when making treatment decisions. This patient-centered approach recognizes that scientific evidence is only one component of informed decision-making and that individual patient circumstances and preferences must also be considered (Ross et al., 2013). By incorporating patient perspectives into the decision making process, EBM promotes a more inclusive and personalized approach to healthcare.

EBM represents a paradigm shift in healthcare that emphasizes the integration of the most relevant, available scientific evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. This approach reflects a broader evolution in our understanding of what it means to be scientifically literate, moving beyond mere knowledge of scientific facts to encompass a socio-scientific lens that considers the social, cultural, and ethical dimensions of scientific knowledge. This change has also been quantified through the reduction of the number of misdiagnoses coupled with the increase in the rate of medicalization, ensuring the appropriate identification of disorders (Ploomipuu et al., 2020). In the context of medicine, being scientifically literate means not only understanding the underlying biology and physiology of disease but also being able to assess the quality and relevance of clinical research and make informed decisions about patient care (Ploomipuu et al., 2020). Ultimately, the dawn of patient-centered medicine and EBM is indicative of the knowledge-to-action approach in science literacy in a broader applicable context.

Current Popular Definition: Test of Scientific Literacy Skills (TOSLS)

Since these changes (as we move into the 21st century), there have been some recurrent themes in discourse surrounding the idea of science literacy. Holbrook & Rannikmae (2009) notably reject the idea that content knowledge (that is, the specific understanding of basic concepts in biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) equates to scientific literacy, emphasizing that science literacy is “an appreciation of the nature of science, the development of personal attributes and the acquisition of socioscientific skills and values” (p. 275). Many have discussed the core importance of having a basic understanding of the scientific method, and how scientific inquiry leads to scientific knowledge (e.g., Millar, 2006; Ryder, 2001, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; NRC, 1997). These discussions have emphasized that, in addition to a baseline understanding of scientific concepts, knowing how to use and interpret scientific methods of inquiry is of the utmost importance for students.

Many researchers, for example, put a strong emphasis on quantitative literacy (also known as numeracy) as key to understanding science (e.g., Speth et al., 2010; NRC, 2003; Bialek & Bostein, 2004; Gross, 2004). Quantitative information has been argued to be not only necessary to approach scientific phenomena (NRC, 2003), but also necessary for daily life (e.g., tipping, balancing a checkbook, etc.) (Kutner et al., 2007).

Based on these ideas, a popular definition of science literacy has emerged from the University of Georgia (Gormally et al., 2017). This definition emphasizes two main areas of skill: first, to “understand methods of inquiry that lead to scientific knowledge,” and second, to “organize, analyze, and interpret quantitative data and scientific information” (Gormally et al., 2017, p. 367). It has led to the development of the Test of Scientific Literacy Skills (TOSLS) to assess the scientific literacy skills of undergraduate students in the life sciences discipline (Gormally et al., 2017). TOSLS does not necessarily include every major point of discussion surrounding science literacy made at the time, though. For example, it notably leaves out discussions about the importance of communicating science (Holbrook & Rannikmae, 2009; NRC, 1997). However, TOSLS still provides an excellent synthesis of what most widely-accepted definitions of science literacy were at the time of its publication. Namely, the need to understand and apply the scientific inquiry process, evaluate its use, and the need to understand, interpret, and use quantitative information.

Changes Since TOSLS: COVID-19, Misinformation, and Science Literacy

The COVID-19 pandemic brought unparalleled attention to scientific information and concepts, as the public sought to understand the virus itself, transmission mechanisms, prevention measures, vaccine development, and more (World Health Organization, 2020). This heightened focus on science likely influenced shifts in scientific literacy levels. In September 2020, the WHO released a statement identifying technology as the root cause of the infodemic undermining efforts to combat COVID-19 (Archila et al., 2021; Naeem & Bhatti, 2020; WHO, 2020). During the pandemic, there was increased dissemination of scientific information through various channels, including traditional media, social media platforms, and public health campaigns (Jewett, 2022). This widespread exposure to scientific information may have contributed to changes in attitude toward enhancing scientific literacy skills for some individuals. For example, the Pew Research Center (2020) reported that the spread of COVID-19 information has emphasized the need for citizens to understand scientific knowledge and follow public health officials' guidance during the pandemic. This has resulted in an increased recognition of the importance of scientific literacy (Pew Research Center, 2020), potentially motivating citizens to actively seek out and engage with scientific information to better understand health related issues.

However, in contemporary times, social media has emerged as a potent medium for the proliferation of misinformation. Misinformation is defined as false or inaccurate information that circulates without a deliberate intent to deceive. A primary characteristic of misinformation is that it can be disseminated unintentionally, usually stemming from a lack of awareness or understanding (El Mikati et al, 2023; Ecker et al., 2022). This dissemination often arises from errors, mistakes, or misinterpretations (Ecker et al., 2022). A recent examination conducted by the Pew Research Center on news consumption patterns across various social media platforms (e.g., Instagram) revealed a significant increase in the proportion of adults accessing misinformed news via social media (Shearer & Mitchell, 2021). Specifically, the analysis indicates that in 2020, approximately half of American adults collectively accessed news through social media platforms either often (23% of participants) or sometimes (30% of participants), which represents a significant increase from the 20% reported in 2018 who claimed to frequently rely on social media for news updates (Aïmeur et al., 2023; Shearer & Mitchell, 2021).

During a pandemic and global lockdown, it can be difficult to distinguish between reliable information and rumors. This challenge arises because there is often an overwhelming amount of information, some of which may be contradictory or confusing, leading to the spread of misinformation (Naeem & Bhatti, 2020). Conflicting information from unreliable sources made it difficult for individuals to discern accurate information from falsehoods, potentially leading to misunderstandings or skepticism about scientific findings.

The key intent that can be presumed during COVID-19 is that individuals spreading misinformation may not intend to deceive; rather, they may unknowingly share information that is ultimately incorrect (Aïmeur et al., 2023). While misinformation may arise inadvertently due to errors or misunderstandings, disinformation operates with the intent to deceive. Deliberately crafted and strategically disseminated, disinformation seeks to manipulate perceptions, influence behaviour, and plant seeds of discord. Particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, though not as common as misinformation, instances of disinformation were present. These included manipulating epidemiology and statistics to elicit fear mongering, influence action, and to an extent, dictating the behaviours of others (Aïmeur et al., 2023).

These instances of misinformation and disinformation have enabled researchers to identify a gap of knowledge—the relation between science literacy and the prevalence of these aforementioned systems. Studies conducted by Wang and colleagues (2019) suggest that individuals with lower levels of scientific literacy are more likely to accept misinformation without critical evaluation. This vulnerability stems from a lack of understanding of scientific concepts, making it easier for individuals to be misled by false or misleading information (Wang et al., 2019). Furthermore, recent research by Pennycook & Rand (2021) demonstrates that low scientific literacy is associated with a reduced ability to discern reliable sources of information from unreliable ones. Individuals with limited scientific knowledge may struggle to evaluate the credibility of sources—a prominent perpetrator of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic—leading them to inadvertently contribute to a chain of misinformation (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). Moreover, low science literacy rates can foster a distrust of scientific institutions and experts, as shown by studies investigating public attitudes towards science (Aïmeur et al., 2023). When individuals lack confidence in scientific authorities, they may be more inclined to believe alternative narratives, including those disseminating disinformation (Aïmeur et al., 2023).

Ultimately, this correlation shines light on the evolution of the definition of science literacy. While there has been no formal definition published with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, these instances highlight the importance of critical thinking and analytical skills in being scientifically literate (Pennycook & Rand, 2021). It is vital that one is able to adequately rationalize credible sources of information (and how to access them) in order to prevent being swayed by alternative outlets. Furthermore, taking the initiative to search for evidence-based research, as opposed to placing blind-faith in word of mouth, news/media sources (especially social media), and other resources certainly contributes to the newer aspects of the definition of science literacy (Pennycook & Rand, 2021).

Revising the Definition of Science Literacy

Moving away from the decentralized communication nexus, a holistic approach to science literacy must emphasize not only factual knowledge, but also societal, cultural, and ethical facets within the realm of science. Despite ongoing efforts to evaluate and improve science literacy through education, challenges persist, as evidenced by the prevalence of widespread misconceptions among the public. Disparities in science literacy rooted in demographic factors add complexity to the issue, underscoring the necessity for a nuanced comprehension of science literacy that goes beyond the mere understanding of scientific concepts. As science evolves, our approach to science literacy must also evolve, emphasizing the recognition of science as a cultural endeavor and grasping its societal implications for personal decisionmaking, civic involvement, and economic advancement.

In Millar's (2006) analysis of the Twenty-First Century Science project in the UK, it was observed that “scientific literacy includes the knowledge and understanding needed to use [scientific knowledge] safely and effectively, or to make better-informed decisions about whether or not to use [scientific knowledge]” (pg. 1508). These findings highlight the significance of scientific literacy in everyday decision-making. The emphasis lies in recognizing the importance of incorporating societal, cultural, and ethical facets within the realm of science to enhance decision-making capabilities (Ogunkola, 2013; Snow et al., 2016). However, with the growth of technology accompanied by the value of citizen participation, the emphasis lies not only on understanding these concepts but also on assessing an individual’s ability to apply the acquired information in practical scenarios. Therefore, we define scientific literacy as follows: “The expansion of understanding scientific concepts through engagement with processes grounded in cultural, historical, and social perspectives, thereby enabling individuals to critically engage in discussions and make informed decisions about real-world science issues.” The construct of this new definition becomes apparent when comparing the scientific literary trends pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic. There has been a noticeable impact on the dissemination of information within the public circle (Fawcett et al., 2021). Before the pandemic, public engagement with science may have been more limited, with fewer opportunities for individuals to directly interact with scientific research or participate in citizen science projects (Tan et al., 2022).

The pandemic amplified interest and engagement (through the increased use of surveys and communication studies) with science as people sought to understand the virus and its impact on society. Additionally, while misinformation has always been a concern, the rapid spread of false information during the pandemic, particularly through social media platforms, created an unprecedented challenge to scientific literacy (Fawcett et al., 2021). This surge in misinformation eroded public trust in scientific institutions and heightened the need for individuals to critically evaluate sources, complicating efforts to uphold scientific literacy standards (Fawcett et al., 2021).

This is not a challenge that ended with the lifting of COVID-19 public health restrictions. Society as a whole is facing a number of scientific challenges beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, from climate change to space exploration to pollution and access to clean water. All people, regardless of identity, need to be able to make informed decisions and voice their opinions about where we should go next. Being able to understand, process, and communicate scientific information continues to be a clear and present issue that we face today, and this is an issue that affects people differently depending on socio-economic factors (Brashier, 2024). Our definition of science literacy encompasses all of these components, pushing for an ideal that prioritizes decision-making capacities, and considers the cultural, historical, and socio-cultural aspects of our very complex communities.

Conclusion

Understanding the development and overall evolution of the state of the definition of science literacy is imperative as it enables researchers to identify existing limitations. While significant strides have been made in understanding and promoting science literacy across a wide variety of settings, obstacles still persist, particularly in addressing misinformation and disinformation, as highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Fortunately, there are a number of innovative solutions being developed in a post-COVID state of public emergency. Leveraging advancements in technology (such as with artificial intelligence), promoting media literacy, increasing access to scientific comprehension tools, and fostering interdisciplinary collaborations are promising avenues the world can take to enhance science literacy. Moving forward, addressing these limitations and carefully critiquing innovative solutions will be an essential step in fostering a scientifically literate society equipped to navigate daily decisions and bigger picture issues.

Acknowledgements

The authors recognize and thank Alyssa Pozzobon (past SfE Researcher) and Navpreet Flora (SfE Director of Operations) for serving as peer reviewers for the final draft of this review. Further, the authors thank Subiksha Nagaratnam (past SfE Researcher) and Panuya Athithan (past SfE Researcher) for their contributions to the search strategy and collecting relevant research. Lastly, the authors acknowledge and thank Vatika (SfE Director of Projects) for serving as an editor throughout the project.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy, New York: Oxford University Press. Aïmeur, E., Amri, S., & Brassard, G. (2023). Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 13(1), 30. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13278-023-01028-5

Archila, P. A., Danies, G., Molina, J., Truscott de Mejía, A. M., & Restrepo, S. (2021). Towards Covid-19 literacy: Investigating the literacy levels of university students in Colombia. Science & Education, 30(4), 785–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00222-1

Auerbach, A. J., & Schussler, E. E. (2017). Curriculum alignment with Vision and Change improves student scientific literacy. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar29. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-04-0160

Bialek, W., & Botstein, D. (2004). Introductory science and mathematics education for 21stcentury biologists. Science, 303, 788–790. doi: 10.1126/science.1095480

Bird, S. J. (2014). Socially responsible science is more than "good science". Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 15(2), 169–172. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe. v15i2.870

Brashier, N. M. (2024). Fighting misinformation among the most vulnerable users. Current Opinion in Psychology, 57:101813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101813

Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013). Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education. JUNE: a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience, 12(1), E6–E10.

Bucchi, M. (2019). Facing the challenges of science communication 2.0: quality, credibility and expertise. EFSA Journal. European Food Safety Authority, 17(Suppl 1), e170702. https:// doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170702

Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, G. E. (1994). The history of science education. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (pp. 19-32). New York: Macmillan.

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. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:63.0.CO;2-L

Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 13-29. https://doi. org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y

Elhai J. (2023). Science literacy: a more fundamental meaning. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 24(1), e00212-22. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00212-22

El Mikati, I. K., Hoteit, R., Harb, T., El Zein, O., Piggott, T., Melki, J., Mustafa, R. A., & Akl, E. A. (2023). Defining misinformation and related terms in health-related literature: Scoping Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e45731. https://doi.org/10.2196/45731

Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168-185. https://doi. org/10.1002/sce.20414

Ferguson, S. L. (2022). Teaching what is "real" about science: Critical realism as a framework for science education. Science Education (Dordrecht), 31(6), 1651-1669. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11191-021-00308-w

Funk, C., & Goo, S. K. (2015, September 10). A look at what the public knows and does not know about science. PEW Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/ internet/2015/09/10/what-the-public-knows-and-does-not-know-about-science/

Fawcett, W. J., Charlesworth, M., Cook, T. M., & Klein, A. A. (2021). Education and scientific dissemination during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anaesthesia, 76(3), 301–304. https:// doi.org/10.1111/anae.15185

Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (Vol. 6, pp. 3–17). Science & Technology Education Library. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_1

Gross L. J. (2004). Interdisciplinarity and the undergraduate biology curriculum: finding a balance. Cell Biology Education, 3(2), 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-03-0040

Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International journal of environmental and science education, 4, 275-288.

Houtman, D., Vijlbrief, B., & Riedijk, S. (2021). Experts in science communication: A shift from neutral encyclopedia to equal participant in dialogue. EMBO reports, 22(8), e52988. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202152988

Jewett, S. (2022). Examining Canada’s scientific literacy through COVID-19 tweets (Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository No. 8469). https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/8469

Khan, S., Ullah, M. W., Siddique, R., Nabi, G., Manan, S., Yousaf, M., & Hou, H. (2016). Role of recombinant DNA technology to improve life. International Journal of Genomics, 2016, 2405954. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2405954

Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y., and Dunleavy, E. (2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2007–480). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Levy, M. (2012). Technology in the classroom. The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching, 279-286.

Liu, X. (2009). Beyond science literacy: Science and the public. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 301-311. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ884399.pdf

Lombrozo, T. (2015, September 14). Scientific literacy: It's not (just) about the facts. NPR. https:// www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/09/14/440670274/scientific-literacy-its-not-justabout-the-facts

Millar, R. (2002). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. Teaching science in secondary schools, 113-128.

Millar, R. (2006). Twenty First Century Science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600718344

Naeem, S. B., & Bhatti, R. (2020). The Covid-19 “infodemic”: A new front for information professionals. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 37(3), 233-239. https://doi. org/10.1111/hir.12311

National Science Board (2008). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: NSF National Research Council. (1997). Introducing the National Science Education Standards, booklet. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/5704

NRC. (2003). Bio2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. National Academies Press (US).https://doi.org/10.17226/10497

Ogunkola, J. B. (2013). Scientific literacy: Conceptual overview, importance and strategies for improvement. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3, 265-274. doi:10.5901/ jesr.2013.v3n1p265

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(7), 2521-2526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806781116

Pew Research Center (2020, September 29). Science and scientists held in high esteem across global publics. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/09/29/science-andscientists-held-in-high-esteem-across-global-publics/

Ploomipuu, I., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2020). Modelling health literacy on conceptualizations of scientific literacy. Health Promotion International, 35(5), 1210- 1219. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daz106

Ross, K., Hooten, M. A., & Cohen, G. (2013). Promoting science literacy through an interdisciplinary approach. Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching, 39(1), 21-26.

Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36(1), 1-44. doi: 10.1080/03057260108560166

Shearer, E., & Mitchell, A. (2021, January 12). News use across social media platforms in 2020. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/01/12/newsuse-across-social-media-platforms-in-2020/

Snow, C. E., Dibner, K. A., Committee on Science Literacy and Public Perception of Science, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, & National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (Eds.). (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. National Academies Press (US). https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27854404/

Speth, E. B., Momsen, J. L., Moyerbrailean, G. A., Ebert-May, D., Long, T. M., Wyse, S., & Linton, D. (2010). 1, 2, 3, 4: infusing quantitative literacy into introductory biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(3), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-03-0033

Tan, Y. R., Agrawal, A., Matsoso, M. P., Katz, R., Davis, S. L. M., Winkler, A. S., Huber, A., Joshi, A., El-Mohandes, A., Mellado, B., Mubaira, C. A., Canlas, F. C., Asiki, G., Khosa, H., Lazarus, J. V., Choisy, M., Recamonde-Mendoza, M., Keiser, O., Okwen, P., English, R., … Yap, P. (2022). A call for citizen science in pandemic preparedness and response: beyond data collection. BMJ Global Health, 7(6), e009389. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmjgh-2022-009389

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. https://doi. org/10.1177/1098214005283748

Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019). Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Social Science & Medicine, 240(112552). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552

World Health Organization. (2020). Managing the COVID-19 infodemic: Promoting healthy behaviours and mitigating the harm from misinformation and disinformation. Joint statement by WHO, UN, UNICEF, UNDP, UNESCO, UNAIDS, ITU, UN Global Pulse, and IFRC. https://www.who.int/news/item/23-09-2020-managing-the-covid19-infodemic-promoting-healthy-behaviours-and-mitigating-the-harm-frommisinformation-and-disinformation