Analysis of scientific language of household cleaning products’ Labelling and ıts educational ımplications

Angel  Ezquerra; Belen Fernandez Sanchez; Marina  Magana; Beatriz Mıngo

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Angel Ezquerra
Belen Fernandez Sanchez
Marina Magana
Beatriz Mıngo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

scientific literacy, scientific language, labelling, household cleaning products

Abstract

The necessity of an adequate scientific literacy among the population in general and students in particular is a fact. Two of the main obstacles in science education that hinder it are the lack of connection between the contents worked in class and the students’ day-to-day, and the misunderstanding of scientific language. In the present study, a categorization and analysis of the scientific content of labelling and packaging of household cleaning products is presented. For that, we collected information from more than 500 items from 10 different countries and analysed it through a methodology based on a content analysis of a written text. According to the criteria used –the comparison of each of these contents with the different contexts and knowledge set by the OECD in the 2015 PISA Science Framework- we classified and analysed the information collected according its type of information, obtaining different categories: information referred to physical units, composition of the product, procedures, security instructions, environmental specifications and advertising information. The results and discussion describe the mentioned categories in which this information is classified, and regarded to the type, function, and form of language used in each one. Finally, some important social implication and consequences concerning to the language used in household cleaning products are highlighted in the conclusions. Complementarily, some general recommendations of how to work these contents in class are sketched out.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aikenhead, G. (2005). Science-based occupations and the science curriculum: Concepts of evidence. Science Education, 89(2), 242-275.

Akaygun, S. & Jones, L.L., (2014). Words or Pictures: A comparison of written and pictorial explanations of physical and chemical equilibria, International Journal of Science Education, 36, 783-807.

Akçay, B. (2009). Problem-based learning in science education. Turkish Science Education, 6(1), 26-36.

Arasasingham, R.D., Taagepera, M., Potter, F. & Lonjers, S., (2004). Using knowledge space theory to assess student understanding of stoichiometry, Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 1517 – 1523.

Bahçivan, E., (2014). Consistency among Turkish Students’ Different Worlds: A Case Study Focusing on Responses to Science. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11 (1), 101-114.

Beek, K. & Louters, L., (1991). Chemical language skills: Investigating the deficit, Journal of Chemical Education 68, 389–392.

Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G. & Kucan, L., (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press.

Belova, N. & Eilks, I., (2015). Learning with and about advertising in chemistry education with a lesson plan on natural cosmetics – a case study, Chemical Education Research and Practice, 16, 578.

Belova, N., Rundgren, S. & Eilks, I., (2015). Advertising and science education: a multi-perspective review of the literature, Studies in Science Education, 51, 169-200.

Borsese, A., (1994). Il problema della comunicazione linguistica a scuola: il linguaggio scientifico e chimico in particolare [The problem of linguistic communication in school: the language of science and chemistry in particular], Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 12, 333-337.

Brookes, D.T. & Etkina, E., (2015). The Importance of Language in Students' Reasoning About Heat in Thermodynamic Processes, International Journal of Science Education, 37, 759-779.

Brown, B.A. & Ryoo, K., (2008). Teaching science as a language: A “content-first” approach to science teaching, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 529-553.

Brown, B.A. & Spang, E., (2008). Double talk: Synthesizing everyday and science language in the classroom, Science Education, 92, 708-732.

Bybee, R. W. (2008). Scientific literacy, environmental issues, and PISA 2006: The 2008 Paul F-Brandwein lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 566–585.

Calvo, M.A., (2014). Using Product Content Labels to Engage Students in Learning Chemical Nomenclature, Journal of Chemical Education, 91, 757-759.

Campanario, J., Moya, A. & Otero, J., (2001). Invocaciones y usos inadecuados en la ciencia en la publicidad [Invocations and misuses science in advertising], Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 19, 45-56.

Carvalho, C., Fíuza, E., Conboy, J., Fonseca, J., Santos, J., Gama, A. P., & Salema, M. H. (2015). Critical Thinking, Real Life Problems and Feedback in the Sciences Classroom. Journal of Turkish Science Education,12 (2), 21-31.

CE nº 1272/2008. Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament And Of The Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

Childs, P.E., Markic, S. & Ryan, M.C., (2015). The Role of Language in the Teaching and Learning of Chemistry, in Chemistry Education: Best Practices, Opportunities and Trends (eds J. García-Martínez and E. Serrano-Torregrosa), Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH and Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany.

Clegg, T. y Kolodner, J. (2014). Scientizing and Cooking: Helping Middle-School Learners Develop Scientific Dispositions. Science Education, 98(1), 36–63.

COSCE (2011). Informe ENCIENDE. Enseñanza de las Ciencias en la Didáctica Escolar para Edades Tempranas en España. [ENCIENDE Report. Science Teaching for Early Ages in Spain].

DeBoer, G., (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 582-601.

Delmas, A. & Cuerel, V., (2011). The Drivers of Greenwashing. California Management Review.

Duggan, S. & Gott, R., (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24, 661-679.

EC (2006). Recommendation of The European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 On Key Competences For Lifelong Learning.

EC (2011). Consumer understanding of labels and the safe use of chemicals. Special Eurobarometer 360. Brussels: European Commission.

Eisenhardt, K., (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review, Academy of management review, 14, 57-74.

Fang, Z.H., (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89, 335–347.

Fang, Z.H., (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school, International Journal of Science Education, 28, 491–520.

Galagovsky, L.R., Bonán, L. & Adúriz Bravo A., (1998). Problemas con el lenguaje científico en la escuela.Un análisis desde la observación de clases de ciencias naturales [Problems with scientific language in school. An analysis from the natural science classes observation], Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 16, 315-321

Glass, R. & Oliveira, A. W., (2014). Science Language Accommodation in Elementary School Read-Alouds, International Journal of Science Education, 36, 577-609.

Harlen, W., (2001). The assessment of scientific literacy in the OECD/PISA project, Studies in Science Education, 36, 79-104.

Hodson, D., (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future, International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645-670.

Hu, M. & Nation, P., (2000). Unknown Vocabulary Density and Reading Comprehension, Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403-430.

Jasien, P.G. & Oberem, G.E., (2002). Understanding of elementary concepts in heat and temperature among college students and K-12 teachers, Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 889-895.

Kolstø, S., (2006). Patterns in Students’ Argumentation Confronted with a Risk-focused Socio-scientific Issue, International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1689-1716.

Krippendorf, K., (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Labov, W., (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Press.

Laugksch, R. C., (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview, Science Education, 84, 71-94.

Lee, O., Quinn, H. & Valdés, G., (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics, Educational Researcher, 42, 223-233.

Lemke, J.L., (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin and R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science. London: Routledge.

Lewis, J. & Leach, J., (2006). Discussion of Socio-scientific Issues: The role of science knowledge, International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1267-1287.

Marais, P. & Jordaan, F., (2000). Are We Taking Symbolic Language for Granted? Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 1355-1367.

Martin, M., Mullis, I., Foy, P. & Stanco, G., (2012). TIMSS 2011. International Results in Science. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.

Mercer, N., Dawes, R., Wegerif, R. & Sams, C., (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 367-385.

Miller, J., (1983). Scientific Literacy: a Conceptual and Empirical Review, Daedalus, 112, 29- 48.

Moghadam, S. H., Zainal, Z. & Ghaderpour, M., (2012). A Review on the Important Role of Vocabulary Knowledge in Reading Comprehension Performance, Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 66, 555-563.

Moje, E., Collazo, T., Carillo, R. & Marx, R. W., (2001). "Maestro, what is quality?": Examining competing discourses in project-based science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 469-495.

Ngai, C., Sevian, H. & Talanquer, V., (2014) What is this Substance? What Makes it Different? Mapping Progression in Students’ Assumptions about Chemical Identity, International Journal of Science Education, 36, 2438-2461.

OECD (2007). PISA 2006 Science Competences for Tomorrow’s World. Executive Summary.

OECD (2013). PISA 2015. Draft Science Framework.

Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467.

Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: Nuffield Foundation.

Parguel, B., Benoit-Moreau, F. & Russell, C., (2015). Can evoking nature in advertising mislead consumers? The power of ‘executional greenwashing', International Journal of Advertising, 34, 107-134.

Pine, J., Aschbacher P., Roth E., Jones M., McPhee C., Martin, C., Phelps, S., Kyle, T., & Foley, B. (2006). Fifth graders’ science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in hands-on and textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 467-484.

Pitrelli, N., Manzoli, F. & Montolli, B. (2006). Science in advertising: uses and consumptions in the Italian press, Public Understanding of Science, 15, 207-220.

Pozo, J.A. & Gómez Crespo, M.A., (1998). Aprender y enseñar ciencia [Learning and teaching science] Morata: Madrid.

Pozo, J.A., Sanz, J.A., Gómez Crespo, M.A. & Limón, M., (1991). Las ideas de los alumnos sobre la ciencia, una interpretación desde la psicología cognitiva [Students’ ideas about science, an interpretation from the cognitive psicology], Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 9, 83-94.

Pro, A., y Ezquerra, A. (2004). La enseñanza de la Física: Problemas clásicos que necesitan respuestas innovadoras [The teaching of physics: classical problems that need innovative responses]. Alambique: Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales, 41, 54-67.

Pyburn D. T., Pazicni S., Benassi V. A. & Tappin E. E., (2013), Assessing the relation between language comprehension and performance in general chemistry, Chemical Education Research and Practice, 14, 524–541.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Seah, L.H., Clarke, D.J. & Hart, C.E., (2011). Understanding students’ language use about expansion through analyzing their lexicogrammatical resources, Science Education, 95, 852–876.

Seah, L.H., Clarke, D.J. & Hart, C.E., (2014). Understanding the Language Demands on Science Students from an Integrated Science and Language Perspective, International Journal of Science Education, 36, 952-973.

Song Y. & Carheden S., (2014). Dual meaning vocabulary (DMV) words in learning chemistry, Chemical Education Research and Practice, 15, 128–141.

Stahl, S. A., (2003). Vocabulary and readability: How knowing word meanings affects comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 241-247.

Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R. y 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.

Taber K.S. & García Franco A., (2010). Learning processes in chemistry: drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate structure of matter, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 99–142.

Taskin, V. & Bernholt, S., (2014) Students' Understanding of Chemical Formulae: A review of empirical research, International Journal of Science Education, 36, 157-185.

Terrachoice, (2010). The sins of greenwashing. Home and family edition. A report on environmental claims made in the North American consumer market.

Tuan, H.L, Chin, C.C. & Shieh, S., (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning, International Journal of Science Education, 27, 639–654.

Tuan, H.L. & Chin, C.C., (2000). Promoting junior high school students’ motivation toward physical science learning (III). Report for Taiwan National Research Council (NSC 89-2511- S018-030).

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2008). Science Education Policy-Making: Eleven emerging issues. UNESCO:Paris.

Wellington, J.J. & Osborne, J., (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press