Critical scientific and environmental literacies: a systematic and critical review

ABSTRACT

In a global context of climate crisis and extension of other planetary boundaries, science education and particularly scientific and environmental literacies have a key role towards a sustainable transformation and climate and environmental action. However, scientific, or ecological literacies are highly complex, defined and interpreted in different ways, and depend upon its social, cultural, and political contexts. Previous research has reported that some definitions or conventional visions of scientific literacies are typically disconnected from this global catastrophe and controversially have been supported by neoliberal capitalism agendas that underpin 21st-century global economies. To tackle this scenario, new and critical approaches in science education articulated with environmental literacies are imperative. This paper provides a systematic review of critical scientific and environmental literacies, seeking opportunities to materialise and promote awareness towards a process of ‘conscientisation’ in science education. Findings report and examine the range and spectrum of definitions about how critical scientific literacies have been defined, conceptualised and studied from the 1990s.

KEYWORDS:

• Scientific literacy
• environmental literacy
• critical scientific literacy
• sustainability
• scientific conscientisation
• environmental education

1. Introduction

Scientific literacy is a wide concept embracing many historically and extensive educational themes that have shifted over time and established it as an analogy and metaphor between fundamental literacy starting in the late nineteenth century and the extension movement of scientific and technological education (Aikenhead, 1985; Laugksch, 2000; Norris & Phillips, 2003; Roberts, 2007; Hodson, 2011; Roberts & Bybee, 2014; Bybee, 2015; Osborne, 2023). From reviewing recent literature in the subject, scientific literacy is still being identified and recognised as the main goal of science education (Osborne, 2023). Despite this, there is not a global consensus on the meaning of the term (e.g. Vieira & Tenreiro-Vieira, 2016). Indeed, according to Queiruga-Dios et al. (2020), the definition of scientific literacy is highly complex, as this concept is continually changing and depends upon its social, cultural, and political contexts. Even though many efforts have been made to delineate the concept, none has produced a universal acceptance because to speak of scientific literacy is basically to speak of science education itself (Queiruga-Dios et al., 2020).

In the case of environmental literacies multiple studies have argued that – in a similar way as with scientific literacy – the term has been applied in so many different ways and/or are so all-encompassing that they have very little useful meaning (C. E. Roth, 1992; Stables & Bishop, 2001; McBride et al., 2013; Wals et al., 2014). Stables and Bishop (2001) argued that the sense of environmental literacy has been deeply muddled because of its uncritical application. C. E. Roth (1992) developed an analysis of the evolution of the concept ‘environmental literacy’ between 1969 and 1989, seeing an environmentally literate citizen as one who:

recognizes environmental problems when they arise. This means acquiring a basic understanding of the fundamental interrelationships among people and the bio-geo-chemical environments. (C. E. Roth, 1992, p. 18)

Simmons (1995) conducted an in-depth examination of definitions, frameworks and models of environmental literacy found in 26 sources, including input from individuals, associations, organisations, and state and national guidelines or plans. Hart and Nolan (1999) analysed the state of environmental education research during the 1990s, providing critical commentary on its focus and quality, while also suggesting possibilities for improvement in the new millennium. Indeed, in this research, they emphasised the need to address critical, feminist, and postmodern challenges, advocating for deeper qualitative analyses, and fostering collaborations beyond academic settings, particularly with schools and communities. The authors highlighted the distinctiveness of environmental education as a field that extends beyond traditional educational institutions into nonformal or public spheres, distinguishing it from many other areas of educational research. McBride et al. (2013) then updated the discussion about the necessity to promote awareness of potential environmental issues and to understand the connections between human actions and the natural world. This discussion also involves reconsidering critical aspects of environmental literacies and an examination of the dialogues and the articulation with scientific literacies in recent years from global policies.

Since 2012, many low-income countries that are part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are adapting their educational curricula to achieve ‘adequate’ levels of scientific literacy defined by global standardised tests such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Some authors consider that students and, in some cases, teachers are not well-equipped with the basic elements of scientific literacy (Bellová et al., 2018; Cansiz & Cansiz, 2019; She et al., 2019). This adaptation to a standard-based curriculum from other realities could have the effect of ‘mimicking’ education systems of one country to be implemented in another, without questioning the specific educational context (Wang et al., 2019). Moreover, this imitative phenomenon might be promoting that teachers appears to be immersed or susceptible in accountability practices, which can affect teachers’ autonomy, agency, profession and practice (Holloway & Brass, 2018; Guerrero & Torres‐Olave, 2022).

New interconnected concepts are tackling the traditional conceptualisation of scientific literacy since the definitions of the term is continuously evolving because of an increased understanding of the nature of science and citizenship for the 21st century (Chen, 2019). For instance, the intersection of information and science literacy (Klucevsek, 2017), multiliteracies, such as health, political, ecological, financial, or emotional literacies; literacy associated with communication and interaction with technologies (Allison & Goldston, 2018), and STEM literacy as an all-inclusive term that includes scientific, technological, engineering and mathematics literacies (Zollman, 2012). Regarding the last approach, STEM literacy that aims ‘to prepare future workers and citizens for a modern and technological driven society’ (Tang & Williams, 2019, p. 7) appears recently to be understood by some as synonymous with scientific literacy, which can be risky since STEM is typically intimately associated with a utilitarian, sometimes neoliberal and instrumentalist basis for global economic growth and productivity (Carter, 2017).

Nevertheless, in a context of climate crisis, other authors seem to be moving in different directions, presenting new alternatives and pluralistic visions to the current conceptualisations of scientific literacies towards social and eco-justice: critical scientific and environmental literacies. For instance i) scientific literacy based on controversy and socio-scientific issues, such as routine childhood vaccinations and anthropogenic climate change and socio-scientific issues to help individuals to identify misinformation in everyday life (Drummond & Fischhoff, 2017; Sharon & Baram-Tsabari, 2020); ii) indigenous knowledge to articulate the knowledge acquired through conventional science, which is usually closed and formal with science knowledge from local communities (Kraijitmate et al., 2017); iii) environmental and sustainability literacies which can be considered embedded in scientific literacies specific to environmental education goals (Cohen et al., 2015; Kinslow et al., 2018; Stibbe, 2009); and iv) ‘real-world’ scientific literacy integrating authentic, multimodal and ‘real’ scenarios based on field trips (e.g. to natural reserves, health centres, museums, zoos, among others) (Buchholz & Pyles, 2018; Christensen et al., 2016). These approaches are in tune with scientific and eco-literacies for democratic decision-making (Yacoubian, 2018) and with González-Weil et al. (2014) approach which pointed out that scientific literacy is a universal necessity for contributing to social inclusiveness and equality, as well as strengthening the critical capacity of a society to take decisions in an ecological crisis.

Sjöström and Eilks (2018) have pointed out a new focus of scientific literacy connecting science learning with political and economic issues in the search of a model of science teaching for transformation. The authors suggested three levels of humanistic science education – by incorporating current ideas from an eco-reflexive Bildung conceptualisation – and by considering different dimensions of scientific literacy with increasing complexity: Vision I, science learning for later application, Vision II, meaningful science education for all, and Vision III science education for transformation. The first two were proposed by Roberts (2007) who distinguished between two main orientations of scientific literacy: Vision I and Vision II. The last level, called Vision III, can be understood based on Aikenhead (2007) and Hodson (2003, 2008, 2009, 2011). The latter never used the term Vision III but acknowledged the term ‘critical scientific literacy’, and also emphasised a fourth element: engaging in socio-political action.

Critical approaches in science education are relevant to make possible critical scientific and environmental literacies as a collective rather than individual characteristics. Instead of preparing students for a technological world, critical approaches promote dialogue in the struggle between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic views of scientific literacy (W.-M. Roth & Barton, 2004). Critical scientific and environmental literacies promote and enact opportunities for individuals to participate in a collective – considering the specificity of communities’ contexts – territories and interdependent human and natural environments (Elmose & Roth, 2005; W.-M. Roth & Lee, 2002).

Considering all the above, there is a need for more research to better understand the connection and tension between scientific and environmental literacies and an in-depth examination about how both concepts in the last three decades – critical yet dissimilar approaches – have been understood by scholars and practitioners to generate a critical understanding of the role of science education towards climate action and similar.

Envisioning possibilities in practice and to address this need pointed out in the last section, in this paper we present a systematic and critical literature review. The purpose is to examine the range and spectrum of definitions of critical scientific and environmental literacies, respectively, and to analyse how they have been understood, conceptualised, and studied.

The paper is structured as follows: The first section provides an overview of literacy, starting with its fundamental meaning and focusing on critical theories. Next, we discuss the concept of scientific and environmental literacies, considering traditional approaches. Then, we present the methods and step-by-step process used to conduct the critical systematic literature review. We present findings on various approaches to critical scientific and environmental literacies, aiming to demonstrate international perspectives on (critical) literacies in the literature spanning from 1992 to 2022. Finally, we provide a discussion and concluding remarks.

1.1. Fundamental literacies from critical theory

In 1966, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) funded the Experimental World Literacy Program and defined literacy as a fundamental human right (UNESCO, 2008). According to this international definition a person is literate when they can understand (both read and write) a short simple statement on their everyday life (UNESCO, 2008). The OECD definition of the term literacy focuses on the ability to read and write at an appropriate level and can be summarised as understanding, using, evaluating, reflecting on and engaging with textual information in daily activities at home, at work and in the community in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to participate in society (OECD, 2018). UNESCO added another concept to the definition called ‘functional literacy’ which refers to the ability to engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning with someone’s group and community, and also to enable them to continue to use reading, writing and calculation for their own and the community’s development (UNESCO, 2008).

However, some authors from a critical perspective have argued that literacy must be understood as something much more than a simple initiation to the alphabet (Gee, 1989; Kalman, 2008; Loring, 2017). For instance, Kalman (2008) argued that ‘literacy’ is the appropriation of communicative practices mediated by writing; it is a process that encompasses the appropriation of the writing system but is not limited to it. In harmony with this line of thinking, Mackay (2004) argued that literacy has never been a set of ‘fixed’ skills and that it must be ‘historically contingent’. Kalman (2008) concludes that literacy is neither autonomous, nor an independent variable; on the contrary, it is deeply embedded in other dimensions of social life and in the case of marginalised populations requires urgently political and economic policies and actions on a different scale. Therefore, becoming literate depends on knowledge of social and political conventions. For this reason, it is also important, for instance, to examine the interaction of the concepts of literacy and agency with ideologies and institutions that aim to shape and to define the possibilities and life paths of individuals (Guerrero & Torres‐Olave, 2022).

In the process of unpacking the concept of ‘literacy’ – and from critical theories – Paulo Freire’s work is truly inspirational. Freire (1973) pointed out that true or real literacy is praxis, reflection, and human beings’ action towards transformation, and he also conceived all the previous definitions regarding literacies as a naïve notion of the concept. On one hand, normally illiteracy is seen as a harmful herb, something to be eradicated because it is sometimes seen as an illness – a manifestation of the incapacity among people, ignorance, and poor intelligence. On the contrary, Freire claimed that illiteracy is an explicit phenomenon, a mirror of the structure of a society in a specific historical moment (Freire, 1970). Therefore, literacies or illiteracies might not be analysed as mechanical acts without a specific structure of power or as an act in which the educator only deposits (on illiterates) words, concepts, theories, or ideas aiming at the participation of people in social life. Freire considered these traditional methods of literacies as domesticating practices and instruments that typically promote alienation among people. In this sense, conventional approaches to scientific literacy also aim to attend to political interests to bring under manipulation individuals without the integration of their realities, histories, and specific contexts.

1.2. Scientific and environmental literacies

The first definition of scientific literacy, as a goal of science education, appeared in 1945 (Rudolph, 2024). According to Hurd (1958), revolutionary changes in the nature, ethos, and practice of the sciences reveal a need to regularly re-examine the traditional purposes of education in the sciences (Hurd, 1998) and, comparably to the concept of literacy in the previous section. A citizen who is ‘scientifically literate’ is someone who can participate democratically in many national democratic decisions about science and technology in modern life.

Pella and colleagues defined scientific literacy as the ability to understand basic concepts of science, nature of science, ethics and interrelationships of science and society and differences between science and technology (Pella et al., 1966). Similarly, Wellington (2001) analysed the literature summarising the debate into three categories of vision of scientific literacy, which followed the decision to include (or not) specific topics in the curriculum: practical (utilitarian arguments), civil (citizenship arguments) and cultural (intrinsic value):

1. Practical and utilitarian dimension, because it is knowledge necessary to solve life’s everyday problem or to prepare people for careers and jobs that involve science and to develop a ‘scientific attitude’.

2. Civic or citizenship dimension, because it is knowledge necessary to play a full part in key decision-making in areas such health, natural resources, energy policy and environment. This definition is still being used by some authors (e.g. Wu et al., 2018).

3. Cultural or intrinsic value, because it involves knowledge about ideas in science that represent our major cultural heritage and promote making sense of natural phenomena.

After general criticism from scholars about attempts to define scientific literacy, these three dimensions were reconsidered. For instance, (i) adding more or fewer categories such as methodological science literacy, professional science literacy, universal science literacy, technological science literacy, amateur science literacy, journalist science literacy, science policy literacy and public science policy literacy, each of them with a specific role in society (Branscomb, 1981); (ii) discussing new forms of scientific literacy, such as functional scientific literacies, true scientific literacy, nominal scientific literacy, multidisciplinary scientific literacies (Bybee, 1997; Fensham, 2002; Shamos, 1995); or, (iii) as Roberts (2007) pointed out, presenting only two visions for scientific literacy: Vision I which looks inward at science, its products, such as laws and theories, and its processes, as hypotheses and experimentation unfold; and Vision II which looks outward in situations where science has a role, for example in decision-making on socio-scientific issues (Roberts, 2007, p. 9). Thus, even though the concept has been gradually reconceptualised, to such an extent that it is considered as a poorly and even fuzzily defined concept, scientific literacy has become an internationally recognised and contemporary educational slogan that aims to (re)direct educational goals (Laugksch, 2000, p. 71).

Similarly, the concept ‘environmental literacy’ was first introduced by C. E. Roth (1968) in the Massachusetts Audubon Society as a reaction to the frequent media portrayal of individuals who were contributing to pollution and were deemed environmentally illiterate. The initial definition of environmental literacy underwent several revisions as it served as the central concept for the Liberty Council of Schools Environmental Education Projects in the USA, a multi-community education initiative. It was later further developed as a core goal statement for the Massachusetts State Plan for Environmental Education, which was supported by a grant from the National Environmental Education Act in 1972. C. E. Roth (1992) raised the question: ‘How shall we know the environmentally literate citizen?’. Since then, the definition of the term has undergone changes and has been widely examined. To the date, multiple studies have claimed that the concepts of environmental literacy or ecological literacy have been applied in various ways, making them overly broad and lacking in specific meaning.

According to Wals et al. (2014), there is a significant degree of similarity between scientific literacy and environmental literacy. To distinguish between them, it is important to have a general understanding of the development and current state of scientific literacy, as outlined in the overview provided above. The two concepts not only overlap, but also have a considerable amount of parallel development. Bybee (1979a) included a significant set of environmental literacy elements in his definition of scientific literacy, stating that:

the goal of science education should be directed to develop a science literacy that includes the fundamental understanding of the interdependence relationship of individuals with each other (communities) and with their environment. (p. 252)

From the end of the 1980s, different authors claimed that as society evolves and shifts towards a new social and political order, science education requires a different understanding of the goals of scientific literacy (Bybee, 1979b). As a result, science education might gradually adopt an ecological (environmental literacy) standpoint in the policies that shape its programmes and curriculum. Therefore, this paper aims to examine the development and tensions between these two concepts over the past 30 years.

2. Methods

To analyse critical approaches for scientific and environmental literacies, a qualitative and systematic critical literature review was carried out. This process is based on an adapted step-by-step process developed by Bhattacharya et al. (2021), considering the typologies of literature reviews presented by Xiao and Watson (2019) and Barnett-Page and Thomas (2009). This adjusted method entailed five steps: 1) identification of the research questions; 2) systematic search for relevant literature reviews; 3) selection of studies and establishment of inclusion/exclusion criteria; 4) description of selected studies; and 5) definition of processes for extracting information, synthesising data, and discussing the findings.

2.1. Identifying the research questions

In the light of the research problem outlined in the previous sections, this article tries to provide insights into this by addressing the following research questions:

1. How have critical scientific and environmental literacies been understood by science education scholars between 1992 and 2022?

2. What are the opportunities for a potential convergence between critical scientific and environmental literacies?

2.2. Systematic relevant literature review search

A pilot search was initiated by a process of exploration in Google Scholar using broad keywords such as ‘science/scientific literacy’ or ‘STEM literacy’, followed by the addition of the term ‘critical’. This process was subsequently repeated for other keywords, including ‘STEAM’, ‘mathematical’, ‘chemical’, ‘physical’, ‘environmental’, ‘Anthropocene’, and other terms associated with scientific and environmental literacies.

Following the initial title screening conducted in Google Scholar, a systematic search of articles published in various databases was undertaken. With regards to international relevance, a search was performed in the Web of Science (WoS) core collection by Clarivate Analytics, employing keywords such as ‘scien* literacy’ and ‘environm* literacy’, alongside the term ‘critical [keywords] literacy’ connected by the Boolean OR operator. The search was filtered for articles using the Boolean operator AND and was limited to the Education and Educational Research category within the period of 1992 to 2022.

This search was supplemented by conducting similar searches in the SCOPUS database from Elsevier and EBSCOhost. Additionally, two Latin American open access databases, SciELO and Redalyc, were included in the search, using terms such as ‘Alfabetización cien*’ AND ‘crítica’, ‘Alfabetización ambient*’, and ‘Alfabetización cien*’ OR ambient” AND ‘crítica’.

2.3. Selecting studies and development of inclusion/exclusion criteria

The search performed on Web of Science (WoS) using the keyword and Boolean for ‘exact phrase’: ‘critical scien* literacy’ yielded 16 documents. Without using quotation marks, a total of 2,592 documents were found. The search was subsequently refined by utilising the ‘exact phrase’ option for further tests. By employing the Boolean operator AND in separate rows for ‘scien* literacy’ AND ‘critical’, 376 results were obtained, including articles and book sections/chapters, within the ‘All fields’ category. Subsequently, the search was expanded by adding ‘STEM literacy’ AND ‘critical’, resulting in 10 results. However, when searching for the exact phrase ‘critical STEM literacy’, only 1 result was obtained. Similar searches were conducted for ‘Chemi* literacy’ OR ‘critical’ OR ‘Biolo* literacy’ OR ‘Physic* literacy’, yielding 8, 4 and 42 articles respectively. A search for ‘sustainab* literacy’ OR ‘climate change literacy’ OR ‘eco* literacy’ AND ‘critical’ yielded a total of 107 results. Another search using the keywords ‘environmen* literacy’ AND ‘critical’ produced 47 results. In total, 617 documents were located in Web of Science.

The same process was systematically repeated in the SCOPUS (n = 700), SciELO (documents in Spanish) (n = 141), and EBSCOHost (n = 308) databases, resulting in an apparent total of 1,766 documents. However, after eliminating duplicated items using EndNote software and considering all databases, the final number was determined to be 617 documents. From this number, 81 documents were excluded: 33 book chapters, 9 books, 23 conference proceedings, and 9 other documents, as well as 2 PhD theses. After eliminating this last group, duplicated articles, and considering documents until September 2022, a final number of 531 documents was obtained.

To define inclusion/exclusion criteria, a careful reading of the abstracts of these 531 documents was undertaken to ascertain their relevance to the research questions. The documents were analysed and documented in EndNote software and in an Excel spreadsheet during the preliminary search. Throughout this process, the titles, and abstracts of the 531 documents were reviewed by the authors to confirm whether they were connected to empirical or theoretical studies related to critical scientific or environmental literacies. Figure 1 summarises the process of the systematic literature review.

Figure 1. Systematic literature review process and inclusion/exclusion criteria.

The research methods utilised were described in terms of large- or small-scale studies, employing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approach. Upon completion of the preliminary review, specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were established. Each article had to meet the following criteria: a) being published in a peer-reviewed journal; b) focusing on critical studies in the science education field or being related to environmental education; c) encompassing studies conducted in formal or informal science classrooms; d) centring on primary or secondary level education; and e) being published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish.

2.4. Description of selected studies

An iterative process was employed, incorporating the inclusion and exclusion criteria developed during the initial literature search. The first stage involved an overview of all recorded citations. During this process, the abstracts were scrutinised, with an emphasis on identifying critical approaches or connections with political, cultural, ecological, economic, ethical, ideological, social, and other relevant dimensions in connection with critical approaches. The extracted data were documented in an Excel spreadsheet for subsequent analysis.

Final tasks related to the evaluation of quality and acceptability were conducted. Articles that articulated science or environmental education with social, cultural, ethical, political, or environmental issues were identified. Furthermore, preference was given to articles that focused on action-oriented science education, activism, indigenous science or scientific or environmental literacies aiming to foster a more democratic and harmonious society through critical engagement between science, nature, and society. Finally, we used snowballing approach as a complementary process to identify relevant literature (Wohlin, 2014). A network of the main concepts found in the literature review is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Network of concepts and topics of selected studies based on frequency and inclusion criteria.

2.5. Definition of processes of extracting information, synthesis of data and its discussion

The systematic process of identifying and gathering relevant conceptualisations about scientific and environmental literacies was based mainly on utilising specific search terms, keywords, and inclusion/exclusion criteria to ensure the inclusion of relevant documents. This process was developed in an Excel spreadsheet which helped to organise the retrieved information, including bibliographic details of authors, names of journals, main topics and themes of documents, key findings, and relevant excerpts for later analysis.

Then, the process of data analysing and the integration of findings, themes, and key concepts from the selected literature was developed using the software NVivo 12. The software was utilised to identify commonalities, patterns, and gaps within the literature to develop a coherent understanding of the research topic. This software was helpful in categorising and organising the extracted data based on themes, theories or conceptual frameworks, methodologies, and conceptualisation of scientific and environmental literacies. Then this process was exported to an Excel document to facilitate comparison and synthesises. Finally, the outcome of this process is helpful to summarise and synthesise the main findings and arguments of the reviewed studies over three main time periods to present a comprehensive overview of the existing knowledge decade by decade. The justification for the distribution of the findings in these three periods is based on specific political events and new frameworks developed in the last three decades in science and environmental education:

1. In 1992, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) published a framework for science education entitled Benchmarks for Science Literacy. This document outlined the key concepts and skills that students are expected to master in science at different stages of their education.

2. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, also known as the Earth Summit, took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. During this conference, environmental issues were discussed, and Agenda 21, a plan of action, was adopted. This event highlighted the importance of environmental education and its integration into science curricula. Notably, more than 178 governments accepted in Rio the Agenda 21 program for sustainable development worldwide.

3. During the 1990s, there was an important development of new pedagogical approaches. For instance, the importance of active learning in science education and problem-solving became increasingly emphasised instead of mere memorisation of facts. Additionally, there was an increased awareness of diversity and equity in science education. During this time, awareness of the lack of diversity in science disciplines grew, leading to efforts to promote the inclusion of students from diverse backgrounds in science education. Moreover, the 1990s was a period of significant advances in educational technology, which allowed for better integration of technology within science teaching.

4. In 2002, The World Summit on Sustainable Development, also known as the Earth Summit 2002 or Rio + 10, was a major international conference held in Johannesburg, South Africa. It was a follow-up to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The 2002 event resulted in the adoption of the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. These documents outlined the commitments and actions needed to address global challenges and work towards a more sustainable and equitable future.

5. Beyond 2000 report: the output of a seminar series organised by the Nuffield Foundation. It was edited by Jonathan Osborne and Robin Millar. The report argues that the compulsory science curriculum should be designed to develop the scientific literacy of future citizens. Beyond 2000 in science education refers to the vision and efforts to transform science education from the year 2000.

6. Large-scale assessments, such as PISA (Program for International Student Assessment). PISA is organised and conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The first PISA assessment was conducted in 2000. PISA assesses the knowledge and skills of 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and scientific literacy. TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study), and PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) also started to evaluate elements of literacies.

7. In 2012, the Framework for K-12 Science Education, published by the National Research Council in the United States, served as a foundational guide for the development of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). This approach was globalised to other countries as a reference about what to include or not in science education curricula.

8. Finally, STEM education and sustainability education started to gain more traction from about 2010.

2.6. Limitations

The documents included in this systematic literature review primarily focus on studies published in specific ‘top’ journals. Although we also utilised the snowballing strategy to identify additional relevant papers and for identifying sources published in more obscure journals, this decision may result in the exclusion of relevant studies and the potential omission of journals not indexed in the databases considered in this study. This exclusion might especially affect documents written in Spanish and Portuguese, as there may be emerging journals in the field of education that are not yet indexed. Consequently, this limitation can introduce language and cultural bias into the review. Additionally, we acknowledge the subjective nature of the selection and data extraction process. Despite efforts to minimise bias to interpret inclusion and exclusion criteria, the study selection process and data extraction in a systematic literature review inherently involve subjective judgement. However, from our epistemological positionality, it is valuable to recognise that subjectivity is an inherent aspect of qualitative research.

3. Initial findings

Some preliminary terms and results of an initial search from Google Scholar are shown in Table 1. The fields of health, science/scientific, mathematical, technological and environmental contained more substantial numbers of articles relating to critical literacy approaches.

Table 1. Initial pilot search with Google scholar carried out on April 2022.

[Field]	[Field] literacy	Critical [field] literacy	% critical
[none]	4.5 million	66.400	1.47
Science/scientific	73.200/128.000	307/420	0.41/0.32
STEM	4.120	30	0.72
STEAM	420	0	0
Mathematics/mathematical	10.800/27.300	120/427	1.11/1.56
Chemistry/chemical	452/1.290	1/3	0.22/0.23
Biology/biological	212/1.410	0/1	0/0.07
Physics/physical	274/8.650	2/11	0.73/0.13
Geography/geographical	603/794	1/0	0.16/0
Ecology/ecological	138/12.800	1/58	0.72/0.45
Eco/eco-	2.630/6.200	56/10	2.12/0.16
Technology/technological	37.300/44.100	43/294	0.11/0.66
Environment/environmental	1.880/24.200	0/218	0/0.90
Sustainability	3860	3	0.07
Anthropocene	6	0	0
Climate/climate change	3.640/731	1/0	0.02/0
Health	392.000	4.260	1.08
Disciplinary	9.340	50	0.53

Overall, in the last twenty years, most research studies focused on scientific and environmental literacy were published between 2018–2022, followed by those between 2010–2017 and 2002–2009. The search on WOS for scien* literacy returned 2,533 records of peer-reviewed articles but in the case of critical scientific literacy only 13. In SCOPUS, there were 3560 WOS hits for scien* literacy and 19 for critical scien* literacy; for environmental literacy there were 594 but only 4 for ‘critical environm* literacy’. EBSCOhost returned 308 records for the iterated search. Spanish databases returned the following results: for ‘alfabetización’: 14300 hits and alfabetización científica crítica: 45 hits. A summary of the total number of records in the last three decades is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Growth of published papers about critical approaches in science and environmental literacies. Number of papers for 2022 including only eight months.

3.1. Findings and discussion: understandings of scientific and environmental literacies from critical approaches

Upon reviewing the literature from 1992 to 2022, it becomes evident there have been various interpretations and understandings of critical scientific and environmental literacies. These concepts have been influenced by political, economic, cultural, ethical, and social factors specific to different contexts worldwide. This section aims to present and discuss the diverse conceptualisations and approaches to both concepts over the past three decades.

As discussed, the findings are divided into three main periods. Firstly, the emergence of critical scientific and environmental literacy approaches between 1992 and 2002 is examined. Subsequently, the development and consolidation of definitions and ‘new’ understandings from 2002 to 2012 is explored and discussed. Prior to moving on to the last decade, a summary is provided of the main authors who have influenced the discussion about critical approaches to literacy in science and environmental education between 1992 and 2012. Finally, the state of the art of the literature and the strengthening of critical approaches between 2012 and 2022 is presented.

Throughout the three last decades, the main topics in which both concepts have been discussed can be summarised in: i) curriculum and science policies; ii) teaching, role of science educators, pedagogy and didaktik or didáctica in the case of Latin American, German or Nordic countries tradition; iii) science in media, public participation, decision-making, and values in science; iv) scientific and environmental literacy and its connection with agency, citizenship and democracy; v) critical environmental literacies for climate change and sustainability education, ecology, health and nutrition, eco-literacies and activisms; vi) socio-scientific issues, socially relevant issues; vii) interdisciplinarity and approaches such as STS, STSE, STEM, STEAM, among other; viii) science outside the classroom and informal science learning; and ix) decolonial and feminists approaches, such as indigenous science and radical visions of scientific and environmental literacies. Due to the abundance of information for each of the themes, this chapter will only focus on the most significant and frequent topics discussed in the literature.

References to articles from the systematic literature review sample are indicated using square brackets [], while references to other sources in the literature are enclosed in parentheses ().

3.2. The emergence of critical scientific and environmental literacies approaches between 1992 and 2002

In this first period, 10 articles were identified. Different ways of understanding and defining critical perspectives in science and environmental literacies were documented. Much of the research conducted during the 1990s on critical scientific and environmental literacies primarily acknowledges the complexity and challenge of defining the concept of literacy, before embarking on a critical examination within the realm of science and environmental education [Bailey et al., 1998]. During this decade, important questions challenged the universal meaning of scientific and environmental literacies. Specifically, there was a focus on interrogating the notion of being a critical science literate citizen and exploring what (in)justices are perpetrated in the name of various conceptualisations of literacies [Bailey et al., 1998]. In general, during this period there is common agreement regarding the importance of attaining a more comprehensive understanding of significant scientific theories, research methods, and the intricate relationship between science, politics, environment, and society. This understanding is deemed crucial for the critical evaluation of science and environmental literacies [Mayor, 1992; Schillo, 1997].

Specifically, literature at the beginning of the 1990s starts questioning the assumption of an uncontroversial, apolitical, and unbiased position regarding political matters of science. This might be considered as a starting point to critically examine scientific knowledge and the nature of science in the context of socio-scientific disputes [Bingle & Gaskell, 1994]. For instance Martin [1991] argued that we need to remember that science is done by human beings who are inevitably influenced by ethical, ideological, and cultural values, and scientists who decide that certain claims should be treated as facts must be influenced by these contextual values. In this sense:

There is no such thing as a neutral or unbiased assessment of scientific evidence. Rather those assessments that are more persuasive and that seem to others to be more objective are the assessments which are sensitive to the diverse facts of the social context in which science is embedded.

(p. 160)

According to Bailey et al., [1998], when viewed through a critical lens, literacy is a multifaceted concept that can be examined from diverse perspectives, including historical, educational, aesthetic, sociological, political, philosophical, cultural, and economic ones. Highlighting the historical context, [McBride et al., 2013] emphasise that ‘literacy’ did not exist until the late 1800s. In fact, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word ‘literacy’ emerged several years after ‘illiteracy’ (Venezsky et al., 1987). Initially, illiteracy was perceived as a concept to distinguish or separate individuals in industrialised societies or ‘developed’ countries.

The concept of literacy has undoubtedly undergone significant advancements, particularly during the 1990s. During this period, it came to mean more than a mere ability to read and write or possess knowledge and proficiency in specific fields. Instead, it reached a critical threshold where scientific literacy became intricately intertwined with discussions between science, politics and the role of governments [Mayor, 1992]. This defining threshold is exemplified by pressing global environmental issues, underscoring the imperative for international governmental cooperation. UNESCO, for instance, has a relevant role among international organisations in providing invaluable perspectives and extensive operational and research experience to inform the scientific formulation of policy options. According to UNESCO (1979), nationally and internationally, the aim of science policies in education should be to achieve a greater ‘scientification’ of the decision-making process and an expansion of the advisory framework consistent with a recognition of the complexity of science policy issues and of the need for holistic approaches. Notably, a significant institutional link between science and government ‘was forged during the Second World War, particularly concerning the development of nuclear weapons’ [Mayor, 1992, p. 29]. Such historical milestones have laid the groundwork for the subsequent emergence of new understandings of critical approaches to scientific and environmental literacies, particularly evident since the 1990s.

Although establishing a precise relationship between industrialisation and the rise of new understandings of science education poses challenges, compelling correspondences between the two have emerged (Carl, 2009). This alignment is particularly noteworthy in the context of critical approaches, which have arisen in response to political struggles. According to Mayor [1992], recent advancements in various fields, such as communications, physics, genetics, biotechnology, and psychology, resulting from extensive research and experimentation, led to a shift in the way science is understood and have also led to ‘the need for systematic connections between science, politics and society’ (p. 30). Due to the increasingly rapid and diverse relationship between science and industry, and thus the bond between science and society, significant efforts had to be made to increase societal participation and enhance decision-making as a key component of scientific literacy [Bingle & Gaskell, 1994].

In parallel, during the same discussions, doubts about the viability of a global model or agenda of scientific literacy emerged in the early 1990s, particularly when considering environmental problems and the depletion of natural resources in specific contexts and territories. Typically, traditional, or hegemonic definitions of literacy collapse when confronted with local territorial realities. This has led to the emergence of critical perspectives and re-conceptualisations that are central to current discussions on what it means to be a literate person in science and environmental education [St Clair, 2003]. For example Bingle & Gaskell, [1994], pointed out that scientific literacy is often used as a slogan with superficial consensus, because the term holds different meanings for different people. There are different perspectives on how individuals should approach the examination and application of scientific knowledge, and while scientifically literate individuals must make decisions, those decisions are context-specific and linked to specific conflicts and communities, particularly in countries from the Global South. Therefore, according to Bingle & Gaskell, [1994], a preliminary meaning of critical scientific literacy is the ability to make informed decisions in the context of socio-scientific or socio-environmental issues through a critical examination of scientific knowledge while also integrating other forms of knowledge (cf. Aikenhead, 1985).

When making a decision in a socio-scientific dispute, it is essential to critically evaluate the scientific knowledge involved, while also considering other forms of knowledge and the values embedded in the different options (Hodson, 1985). Aikenhead (1985) and Reiss (1993) emphasise this point by paying attention to the importance of combining scientific knowledge with other forms of knowledge and identifying the values inherent in the alternatives. Besides, in collective decision making there are several social domains impinging upon the decision making: religion, ethics, politics, military issues, among others [Kolstø, 2001, p. 296]. According to Bingle & Gaskell, [1994], this critical examination should be taught at school level to accentuate scientific argumentation and to increase scientific literacy for decision-making, raising awareness of the constitutive values in science; and, to examine the potential of knowledge from diverse social domains other than science [Kolstø, 2001]. This perspective enters into tension with what Latour (1987) calls the ready-made-science and science-in-the-making model. In the first one, knowledge is taken for granted and seen as uncontroversial and unrelated to specific contexts of its development. In the second one, scientific knowledge is seen as claims and, therefore, they are contestable and subject to revision and, like any human activity, prone to biases. Kolstø [2001] pointed out that:

An understanding of the concept of ‘science-in-the-making’ and the role of consensus in science will bring us halfway to meeting a need for a science education that seeks to empower young people to act, ‘The need for students to understand not only “what we know” but “how we know”’.

(p. 296)

Schillo [1997] discusses a critical approach of teaching animal science and advocates a similar idea, suggesting that a teaching approach based on critical scientific literacy demands a reasonable ‘skepticism’ among students ‘to facilitate processes to reflect independently and analytically about scientific claims to serve themselves and their communities in responsible ways’ [Schillo, 1997, p. 952]. Thus, a critical approach to scientific literacy demands an understanding of the nature of scientific activity and the relationship between science, communities, and the natural world.

Ideas about the natural world, specifically regarding nature in relation to the concept of environmental literacy, are relevant for discussion when reflecting on the purpose of science education [Stables & Bishop, 2001]. According to Latour’s science-in-the-making approach, ‘Nature has not been defined, and it will be a consequence of the settlement’ (Latour, 1987, p. 99). From this standpoint, new discussions have emerged regarding scientific literacy from socio-constructivist and humanistic approaches, acknowledging that science is a human creative activity that reflects the values and biases of its practitioners and that it is highly influenced by ethics, ideology, culture, and contextual values [Schillo, 1997]. Consequently, a positivist, factual, clinically objective, literal, and absolute vision of science is no longer accepted. Based on these tensions, a generalisable idea (and standards) of scientific literacy is no longer warranted in science education (Aikenhead, 1985; Hodson, 1985) because science, in the broadest sense, is inherently a form of public knowledge that relies heavily on cultural values and society [Brady & Kumar, 2000].

Thus, the critical scientific literacy approach that emerged during the 1990s emphasised scientific literacy for decision-making with the aim of ‘increasing the power of citizens to challenge orthodoxy and to participate in decision affecting their lives’ [Bingle & Gaskell, 1994, p. 198]. This approach moves towards a notion of citizen participation in the resolution of socio-scientific disputes or, as Bailey [1998] pointed out, ‘literacy for social action’, or ‘scientific literacy for citizenship’ [Kolstø, 2001]. Science for citizenship, coined in the mid-1990s, is understood as a social process and in the literature it is normally discussed as an emergent critical approach of scientific literacy and as an important educational goal in school science curricula. Kolstø [2001], in his article about scientific literacy for citizenship, presents a framework for analysing controversial socio-scientific issues or the science dimension of science-related social issues based on science as a social process, limitations of science, values in science and critical attitude [Soja & Huerta, 2001]. Several authors have pointed to case studies on specific scientific and socio-scientific disputes as arenas for teaching science for citizenship and science as a social enterprise (Jenkins, 1994; Reiss, 1993). This approach will be in the spotlight of science education, and it will be discussed in depth in this review, when dealing with the period between 2012 and 2022.

During the 1990s, three metaphors for critical literacies were often discussed in the field: literacy as adaptation, literacy as a state of grace, and literacy as power. Bailey et al. [1998] pointed out that ‘while literacy is a metaphor, its conceptualisation serves as a slogan and rallying cry for science curriculum reform’ (p. 6). Literacy as power has been crucial in understanding the importance of science and environmental literacies from a critical standpoint. The metaphor of literacy as power, which emphasises emancipation and social reconstruction, is somehow linked to resolving societal issues. This perspective on scientific literacy seems to be in line with the work of Freire and Macedo (1987) on literacy for critical consciousness (conscientização). Yet, scientific literacy is a metaphor, and the inclusion of the word ‘literacy’ in the term makes it particularly powerful as a call for action and to promote social justice. For example, ‘injustice occurs when a powerful group in a specialised area or in the broad field of literacy perpetuates a narrow view of literacy’ [Bailey et al., 1998, p. 10] Those in positions of power possess the capability to define and set criteria in a manner that excludes specific individuals or groups considered undesirable, thereby reinforcing their own positions and authority. Scientific and environmental literacies are vulnerable to such injustices as they can be subject to criteria for inclusion based on specific achievements or skills. Nevertheless, during the 1990s the term ‘literacy’ resists precise definition, as a slogan.

3.2.1. Critical scientific and environmental literacies approaches between 2002 and 2012

Between 2002 and 2012, 21 documents were identified. In this period, it can be said that new environmental and scientific literacies approaches contributed radically to changing the way environmental issues were conceived. Specifically, different frameworks for fostering critical environmental literacy in articulation with science education were consolidated. For example, García et al. [2010] argued that we need more and new didactic treatments of social environmental issues, such as biodiversity conservation from the double perspective of scientific literacy and environmental education. Similarly, St Clair [2003] discussed critical and active environmental literacies in adults. The arguments in this research reflect a situated and critical way to apply and understand the metaphor of literacy in relation to socio-scientific and environmental issues. The author presents suggestions for a potential portrait of critical and proactive environmental literacy for adults. The concept of literacy is used as a powerful metaphor, greatly aiding in understanding ‘what each individual can do to promote a more equitable and sustainable way of life for the global community’ (p. 77). St Clair [2003] proposes six dimensions that can lead to critical environmental literacy: i) understanding that all education has an impact on the environment; ii) recognising that ecological issues are complex and cannot be fully addressed by one field or discipline; iii) encouraging education to involve meaningful engagement with the local environment and communities; iv) emphasising that the process of learning is just as crucial as the content; v) including learning experiences in nature as a fundamental aspect; and vi) developing the students’ ability to interact with natural systems. In this sense, science and environmental education cannot be accepted as a neutral endeavour made to serve desirable ends; their inherent assumptions about nature and the place of humans must be re-evaluated.

The importance of recognising environmental literacy as a human and social concern is reflected in Potter [2009] and in a report of a research project setting out to identify the social science concepts necessary to understand environmental issues [McKeown-Ice & Dendinger, 2000]. For instance, individuals engaged in efforts to reduce the use of polluting personal transportation in their local area do not necessarily need to possess detailed knowledge of molecules or chemistry. Studying the environment is not all about science [Chepesiuk, 2007]. It is more practical to start with the essential knowledge that is most relevant to the real-life problem, such as understanding pollution in relation to health. This does not imply that scientific knowledge is trivial, but rather that it is just one resource for taking action, alongside personal experiences, ethical considerations, political or economic interests, and other significant concerns. According to St. Clair [2003], adults are typically more motivated to learn and act when they are invested in issues that they care about and experience everyday rather than abstract concerns. Therefore, a critical role of educators is to demonstrate to people why they should care about the environment from a territorial or contextualised perspective, before expecting them to acknowledge its importance and begin to develop environmental literacy from pure scientific content [Chepesiuk, 2007]. In this sense, it is relevant to consider people’s understanding of science and nature might be inevitably influenced by factors such as gender, ethnicity, religious background, socioeconomic status, geographical location, and so forth. Moreover, educators who are passionate about promoting environmental literacy must ensure that their work is connected to and contributes to local, national, and global social movements dedicated to addressing environmental issues [Chepesiuk, 2007].

In the first decade of the 2000s, different perspectives on critical scientific literacies progressed. This movement can be attributed, in part, to the aftermath of the report Beyond 2000 in which a group of influential scholars in Western science education convened to assess the future of the science curriculum (Millar & Osborne, 1998; Reiss et al., 1999). Simultaneously, the United States made efforts to establish a comprehensive science curriculum, as evidenced by the publication of the report Inquiry and the national science education standards (National Research Council, 2000). However, according to Donnelly [2005], both reports sparked controversy because they only differentiated between a small segment of the population referred to as ‘future scientists’, for whom science holds direct occupational relevance, and the remainder referred to as ‘lay people’, who are not professionals or experts in a particular field, in this case science. For this latter group, the importance of science stems from the increasing relevance of scientific matters in their everyday existence and the necessity to engage with science and its discussions attentively (Millar & Osborne, 1998). To tackle this situation Donnelly [2005], suggested reforming science in the school curriculum to incorporate a range of scientific literacies, including social, political, legal, financial, parental, health, environmental, and emotional literacies. Emotional literacy emerged as a key component of critical scientific literacy during this period, as highlighted by the work of Matthews [2002, 2004]. Regarding emotions, different contemporary authors still discuss the necessity of including emotional literacy, outlining potential pathways for science and environmental education which focus on the social and emotional development of students:

We must take into consideration the relationship between the development of science, technology, and politics, creating a state of mind in students that fosters emotional development such as inclusion, tolerance, collaboration, empathy—aiming for the common good. [Galamba & Matthews, 2021, p. 585]

Supporting new potential pathways Donnelly [2005], called for a radical revision of the fundamental aims and purposes of science education and discusses critical dimensions of science literacy since ‘the notion of the concept has been left mainly unexamined within contemporary curriculum’ (p. 301) Donnelly [2005] suggests addressing three key issues:

1. the importance of science, specifically its philosophical and socio-political aspects, in modern life and decision-making, both individually and collectively

2. the effects of proposed curriculum changes on the appeal of studying science among students, both before and after mandatory education

3. the relationship between all these factors and the supposed separation between pre-professional scientific education and a general education that includes science.

In this period, the conceptualisation of scientific literacy tried (with great success) to be globalised and exported to different contexts. A hegemonic conceptualisation developed by policymakers and science education experts, mainly from Global North, prioritised preparing and evaluating students for a technologically advanced, urban, competitive, and globally oriented economy. Additionally, the emphasis on performance-based standardised national and international exams such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) were key factors in the development of hegemonic and Western-based approaches for scientific literacies [Chinn, 2007]. Paradoxically and ironically, the absence of relevant local science or the recognition of indigenous knowledge in local curricula paved the way for decolonial perspectives in science education and critical approaches to both scientific and environmental literacies. Consequently, scientific and environmental literacies between 2002 and 2012 seem to have deepened a confrontation between dominant/hegemonic and marginalised cultures.

When a science curriculum is established by considerations that are not specific to a community, particularly those of minority or indigenous groups, the teaching of science tends to disconnect from students’ experiences, local scientific issues, and traditional ecological knowledge [Kawagley et al., 1998; Snively & Corsiglia, 2001]. An example of this is demonstrated by Chinn [2007] through the marginalisation of indigenous/traditional/local knowledge in Hawaiian schools due to the imposition of the Western Modern Science ideology:

Hawaii’s students have a unique natural laboratory to explore fundamental biological questions involving evolution, adaptation, and interactions of humans and the environment on isolated island systems. But most learn classroom and text-based science, perhaps becoming literate in school science but not issues relevant to their own lives and communities. Thus, Hawaii’s teachers, especially those in elementary programs that require only two semesters of science, are unlikely in either their K–12 or college years to gain the science knowledge and tools to integrate their own and their future students’ familiar environments into their teaching. [p. 1248]

Examples from Hawaii are also valuable when discussing the conceptualisation of critical environmental literacy. In Hawaiian culture – as in many indigenous communities in Latin America and diverse contexts in the Global South – humans are considered as part of nature in which plants, animals, and non- or more than-human entities possess ancestral and spiritual significance. Chinn [2007] presented decolonial methodologies for professional development considering critical and non-hegemonic literacies based on indigenous knowledge. This radical approach demands a critical analysis of curriculum and pedagogy by science educators. In this approach, science teachers developed their lessons based on transformative learning, incorporating active learning in situated contexts to develop a sense of place and connection with nature. This model recognises the importance of biodiversity, builds social networks, understands power knowledge relationships, learns from elders, and uses traditional places to protect and respect ancestral culture and knowledge [Hall, 2004]. This model of professional development suggests the potential of decolonial and critical methodologies to incorporate and increase local science knowledge and teacher agency, and knowledge diversity in science and the participation of underrepresented minorities [Chinn, 2007]. In doing so, in-service teachers might develop tools to allocate learning in students’ lives to promote a critical scientifically and environmentally literate society which recognises powerful interests behind globalisation, exploitation of ‘natural’ resources, national curricula, and marginalisation of indigenous communities. Complementarily, this might be also an opportunity to reconnect Western modern science to culture, place, and community.

Western scientific methods of acquiring knowledge, such as measuring, classifying, collecting, dissecting, and mapping everything in an observable, physical world, are in opposition to some African or Hawaiian perspective which see humans and nature as part of a whole or part as a family [Ramsuran, 2005]:

science is often seen as offering useful but limited view, in that it ignores the reality of spiritual life and spirit forces and too readily sets aside context, continuity and collectivity in favour of objectivity and reductionism. [Ramsuran, 2005, p. 2]

In this sense there is an ontological, epistemological, and axiological conflict at the moment of defining a model or vision of scientific literacy. Axiology deals with values, ethics, and aesthetics, ranging from values in science (objectivity and elegance) to the values of science (what science is for). Reiss (1999) pointed out that ethics and science education are inevitable and inexorable conflated. In terms of ontology and epistemology, science policies about scientific literacy are strongly ideological and normally in tension between localisation and globalisation, Western (Universal) or local science and individualistic and collectivist approaches. Ramsuran [2005] made a call for the Africanisation of scientific and environmental literacies. This idea can shed some light and provide opportunities to promote a Latin-Americanisation of science and environmental education, based on a social reconstructive ideology, on equity, transformation, multiculturalism and multiethnicity, and the professionalisation of teachers as professionals who can contribute to the development of public policies and curriculum design, understanding science and environmental literacy as a collective endeavour.

Ramsuran [2005] utilises the idea of ideology to analyse philosophical and sociological interpretations of scientific literacy aims and possible effects in society. According to Gramsci (1971), ideology can be described as a ‘terrain’ consisting of practices, principles, and dogmas that have a material and institutional nature. This terrain encompasses individuals once they become part of it within a particular hegemonic system. The dominant class holds state power due to its economic supremacy and its ability to effectively articulate the essential elements of prevailing ideological discourses among the subordinate classes in society. Gramsci (1971) referred to the social actors he called ‘organic intellectuals’ who belong to a hegemonic or potentially hegemonic class. These organic intellectuals have the dynamic role of articulation, giving rise to an ‘organic ideology’. This ideology is constructed through an ‘articulating principle’ that brings together diverse ideological elements from the discourses of subordinate groups (classes and individuals) and shapes them into a coherent ideological system that becomes the ‘hegemonic principle’. The ontological, epistemological, and axiological principles rooted in hegemonic ideologies are evident in science curricula, reflecting interests and values of the dominant class. These principles might shape and define a specific approach to literacy within the curriculum, serving as a manifestation of the hegemonic ideology prevailing in a specific political and economic context.

Ramsuran [2005] discusses scientific literacy and the concept of ‘ideology’ in the natural science curriculum in Africa, based on the impact of the apartheid state and its influence on curriculum policies. According to the author, pre-1994, those policies can be described as racist, euro-centric, sexist, authoritarian, prescriptive, unchanged, context-blind, and discriminatory (p. 1). However, in 1997, the Minister of Education launched Curriculum 2005 (C2005), which represented a profound shift in the science curriculum and, therefore, in the understanding of science literacy. The author questioned the term ‘scientific literacy’ and the relevance of its conceptualisation in countries in Africa, and in countries with issues of poverty, language, and remarkable inequities. In this sense, relevant criticism starts to mark the new understanding of literacies in the 2000s from Global South scholars.

Some questions that arise in this period that are relevant to highlight are: 1) Does the use of the term ‘scientific literacy’ in many different countries imply universal agreement on what is deemed most valuable to learn in science, and if so, why? 2) In what ways does the universalised definition itself serve as a political strategy, promoted by specific groups and for specific reasons, and supported by standardised tests and textbooks? In this regard, scholars from Africa raise a question that is also relevant for Latin America: to what extent is it appropriate for South Africa to adopt such definitions? The process of hegemonisation and the hegemonic conceptions of scientific literacy need to be critically examined, not only in terms of the content, skills, values, and language included, but also in terms of whose knowledge it represents and why (Guerrero et al., 2024). Similarly, experiences from Māori culture and Kenyan teachers describe projects to recognise and respect culture of indigenous people by rethinking scientific and environmental literacy based on decolonial methods to challenge dominant perspectives in science education [Gitari, 2006]. Incorporating indigenous knowledge and scientific education in students’ lives and environments helps to create a society that is knowledgeable in science and environmentally aware in a rapidly changing and interconnected world [Chinn, 2007]. According to different science educators working with decolonial methods, including indigenous knowledge within the school science curriculum can provide an ethical and holistic perspective on ecosystems (Gandolfi, 2021; Kato et al., 2023). However, this process of recognition implies awareness of how power-knowledge contexts are shaping school science knowledge.

According to Bang et al. (2018), science educators and policy makers should recognise how indigenous and Western systems differ, but also how indigenous science constitutes an important accompaniment to the dominant paradigm of Western science-one that may be vital in addressing contemporary problems related to climate change and sustainability. However, and according to Chinn et al. [2008], there are distinct differences in the goals, intellectual focus, association with human actions, perception of time, validation criteria, and general perspectives between indigenous knowledge and Western science. Indigenous knowledge prioritises survival and harmony with nature, while Western science often seeks knowledge for economic gain and power over nature. Indigenous knowledge also values coexisting with the mystery of nature and is intimately and subjectively related to human actions, while Western science aims to eradicate mystery and is formally and objectively disconnected from human actions [Ogawa, 2004]. Indigenous knowledge is also viewed as holistic, intuitive, and spiritual wisdom, while Western science is often reductionistic, manipulative, and mechanistic in its explanations.

It is important to be aware of and take into account both the similarities and differences between indigenous knowledge and Western science when creating educational experiences about nature and natural events that are culturally sensitive and respectful. This can lead to an increase in science literacy and provide opportunities for all students to reach this goal. [Ogawa, 2004, p. 586]

Chinn et al. [2008] suggest that Western and indigenous science should be viewed as parallel forms of knowledge. In this sense neither of them is superior to the other. However, we should recognise that the ontological foundations of scientific explanations differ amongst the various knowledge systems about nature and naturally occurring events (p. 157). In the same vein, Reiss (1993) argued that both Western and indigenous science are forms of ethnoscience. Western sciences might be considered as indigenous to the West. Calling for science education for a pluralistic society, he pointed out that:

… we should not assume that within a particular society, all scientific thinking operates within the same paradigm. By virtue of differences between individuals in such important characteristics as gender, religious beliefs (or cosmovision), ethnicity, class, age and disability, individual may differ in their scientific understandings and conceptions of the world”.

(p. 25)

Given this notion, science educators and science policy developers should consider diverse ways of understanding scientific and environmental literacies. Embracing the concept of multi-literacy in science and ecology also entails reflecting on the development and transmission of traditional knowledge systems [Stephens, 2000]. For example, trust in wisdom, which is not inherent in Western scientific reasoning, and the incorporation of local verification or ecological knowledge derived from oral traditions and storytelling could be significant points of discussion when considering critical approaches to literacy. In the same vein, numerous authors have reflected on how knowledge construction and technological innovation are often propelled by dominant elites (Gould, 1993). Consequently, Western science, being a cultural endeavour, frequently confers second-class status or insufficient recognition on individuals from non-mainstream cultures.

In the last period of the decade between 2002 and 2012, some authors also question the aims of environmental literacies and the role of governments. For instance Potter [2009], recognises that environmental literacy is fundamental to address economic, social, and ecological problems that are having a profound impact on us as present and future inhabitants of this planet. In this task, federal governments play a critical role in educating everyone about the environment:

To develop an environmentally literate society —that is, to build national capacity to develop and deliver high quality EE programs and materials—is going to require massive investment every year from now on into the foreseeable future.

(p. 31)

This also means raising awareness of nature deficit disorder and, for instance, the disconnection of children and adults from nature.

From reviewing the literature from Latin America, there is a big influence of Paulo Freire on definitions and understandings of the meanings of critical scientific and environmental literacy. For instance dos Santos [2006] pointed out a humanistic proposal for scientific literacy in chemistry education. The author reflects on globalisation and political action in a similar way to Marks et al. [2008]. Both these publications make a call to support political action aimed at improving the quality of life and protecting the environment through sustainable development, based on social inclusion. They advocated a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry lessons. In Pereira dos Santos’ proposal, the ideas of Freire regarding literacy are deemed relevant for promoting a critical scientific literacy approach that fosters conscientisation through the problematisation of social issues. Dos Santos [2006] raises questions about ‘the terrorism perpetrated by foreign countries invading the Global South and the responsibility to promote an approach to scientific and environmental literacy that engages students in such discussions’ (p. 619).

3.2.2. Brief summary of influential scholars between 1992–2012 in the development of critical approaches in scientific and environmental literacies

Most of the studies in critical scientific literacy between 1992 and 2012 – in the global north – are based on five main approaches developed by Wolff-Michael Roth, Angela Calabrese Barton, Glen Aikenhead, Michael Reiss, and Derek Hodson. In the case of critical approaches for environmental literacies, the main approach is based on Charles Roth and David Orr. The latter is mainly from a theory of ecological literacy (Orr, 1989).

W.-M. Roth and Barton (2004) argued that critical scientific literacy emerges in situated struggles over socio-scientific issues. In doing so, they argued against the decontextualised and self-referential knowledge that science education provides in schools. In addition, a more radical or critical view of scientific literacy is a process in which communities are actively involved in collective praxes. In this reconfiguration of roles, ‘collectives’ play important roles in making decisions on the issues within the local context and as such provide the focus for what students will learn W.-M. Roth & Barton [2004] pointed out that not everybody needs to have the same basic sets of concepts and skills; rather, it is more important ‘to allow the emergence literacy as a “collective property” or as a collective scientific literacy’ (p. 263).

Those who use Aikenhead’s (1985, 2007) work as a reference to develop the ideas of critical scientific literacy include Bingle & Gaskell, [1994], Kolstø [2001], Chinn [2007], Chinn et al. [2008], Weinstein [2010] and Choi et al. [2011]. Aikenhead asks what counts as scientific literacy in different contexts. Based on Roberts (2007) and his heuristic framework to understand ideologies of scientific literacy, Aikenhead (2007) argued that vision I and vision II (discussed in previous section) are mutually exclusive in science classrooms and the combination of both is detrimental for students. However, according to Aikenhead (2007), science educators must address political realities because research, policy and practice are traditionally driven by politics and its internal dimensions: elitism, privilege, funding, allegiances, among others. Indeed, according to Aikenhead (2007), the movement between vision I and vision II is a political movement. Similar claims have been strongly contested in recent years by a few authors understanding scientific literacy as a political event and a political discourse e.g., [Guerrero & Torres‐Olave, 2022; Roberts, 2007]. We also agreed on the meaning and conceptualisation of scientific and environmental literacy as a highly problematic and contested concept, especially on political grounds.

Research evidence on critical literacies from various authors between 1992 and 2012 demonstrates the imperative of broadening the scope of scientific and environmental literacies. This expansion should focus on political aspects (Orr, 1989; Aikenhead, 2007), as well as acknowledge the challenges associated with sustaining new alternative approaches in scientific and environmental literacies. This awareness is crucial, as critical perspectives can either be marginalised or co-opted by prevailing hegemonic ideologies.

Furthermore, most studies aligned with Reiss (1993) advocate for a more equitable science education that incorporates three essential categories: multiculturalism, anti-racism, and feminism in science education. Similarly, Hodson (2010) emphasised that educators and students should cultivate a profound commitment to anti-discriminatory practices in science education, with a strong commitment to unveiling the shared underpinnings of sexism, racism, homophobia, Eurocentrism, and Westism (or Northism) in the propensity to create dichotomies. These previous considerations are especially pertinent when examining the perspectives of numerous indigenous cultures worldwide. In the case of Latin America, these indigenous cultures have developed distinctive ways of interpreting the world and forging a profound connection with nature through empirical, spiritual, and rational avenues. Thus, critically scrutinising the conceptualisation of scientific and environmental literacies entails acknowledging that traditional viewpoints often confine themselves to Eurocentric science, disregarding other scientific worldviews [McKinley, 2007]. Moreover, this scrutiny underscores the importance of recognising and preserving diverse ways of comprehending the essence of scientific and environmental literacy. As a conclusion, a significant portion of the discourse within this period aligns with Derek Hodson’s core concept of critical scientific literacies:

… critical scientific literacy involves recognising how science and technology can disproportionately benefit the wealthy and powerful, often at the expense of the well-being and interests of marginalised communities. This dynamic can perpetuate existing inequalities and injustices.

(Hodson, 2010, p. 200)

3.2.3. Where are we now? Critical literacies between 2012 and 2022 in the context of the climate crisis

In this final period, from 2012 to 2022, 43 articles were identified. Due to the massive body of literature and acknowledging the complexity of summarising the amount of documents, the synthesis of the main findings are presented in three sections: i) Critical eco- and environmental literacies and new understanding of living things; ii) Outdoor science and environmental education in the promotion of critical literacies; and iii) Climate change education as a must of critical scientific and environmental literacies.

3.2.4. Critical eco- and environmental literacies, new understanding of living things and climate justice literacies

Between 2012 and 2022, the growing concern for ecological issues and curricular changes in the educational system favoured the progressive inclusion and revision of the components of environmental literacy in schools. In recent literature Kaya and Elster [2019], redefined the concept of environmental literacy to contribute to training more qualified environmentally literate people to protect and improve the environment and natural resources as a fundamental part of human well-being. Kaya and Elster [2019] considered experts’ opinions (scientists, educators, and environmental educators responsible for environmental education) to revise the concepts that need to be included in the definition of environmental literacy. As a result, the authors suggest adding seven ‘new’ dimensions: knowledge and understanding of environmental issues; environmental attitudes; environmental motivation; morals and ethics related to the environment; intention to act in an environmentally friendly manner; environmentally friendly behaviours; and sustainability.

In the same vein, from Mexico, Sánchez [2015], pointed out the addition of critical ecological literacy as a new pedagogy for the understanding of living beings. He suggests considering critical dimensions of awareness in environmental literacy:

1. Interdependence among all the members of an ecological community, as they are interconnected in a vast and complex network of relationships, the web of life.

2. The cyclical nature of ecological processes, as feedback loops are pathways through which nutrients are continuously recycled. This implies understanding that entire communities of organisms have evolved this way over billions of years, endlessly using and recycling the same mineral, water, and air molecules.

3. Cyclical exchanges of energy and resources in an ecosystem are sustained in an omnipresent cooperation, that is, by establishing links of entities living within each other and cooperating.

Both Sánchez [2015] and Kaya and Elster [2019] argued for different key aspects to achieve maximum sustainability. Similarly, in decade beginning in 2000, eight papers have discussed new labels for critical approaches to environmental education, specifically intertwined with the concept of ecological literacy. According to Sánchez [2015] and Pitman et al., [2018], ecological literacy represents a novel educational approach to be introduced or infused by science and environmental education curricula, focused on comprehending living beings and their ecological context.

Ecological literacy involves understanding how plants and animals (including humans) depend upon each other, how populations evolve, how biotic and abiotic elements interact with each other, and how systems work together to create energy and cycle materials; it forms the foundational knowledge required by the human species (Capra, 1996; Capra & Y Luisi, 2014). It can be acquired and communicated in as many ways as humans learn and pass on learning, including through direct observation, teaching, or storytelling [Pitman et al., 2018, p. 118]. Ecological literacy offers a perspective of life as a totality (a complex) in which humans have an inescapable role through our interdependent relationships with non-human (or more-than-human) entities, surpassing narrow and outdated views to make way for the optimism of action. Thus, ecological literacy is a critical factor in achieving sustainability [Capra & Stone, 2010]. In words of Pitman et al., [2018]:

Our inherent relationship with natural systems means, in effect, that we are part of nature, despite the authority our species has so often attempted to wield over nature. A disturbing aspect of the rapid change we are experiencing on Earth is a disconnection between much of humanity and the natural world in ways that threaten our sustainability.

(p. 117)

Nevertheless, ecological literacy extends beyond just academic knowledge; it also encompasses emotional, social, and ecological intelligence [Sánchez, 2015]. Pascuas Rengifo et al. [2020], affirm that educational institutions must adapt so that students mobilise emotional relationships with nature from the beginning of their school education. In this sense, by nurturing these forms of intelligence, critical ecological literacy cultivates a sense of responsibility and a deep connection with nature.

However, current teaching practices often fall short in providing a profound understanding of ecological processes, merely touching on surface-level aspects. For instance Pérez-Martín & Bravo-Torija, [2018], suggest that Science Teacher Education programs in Environmental Education are traditionally focused on the presentation of traditional or non-controversial environmental issues, such as recycling. In this sense, the ecological approach within environmental literacy might be superficial and disconnected from local socio-scientific and socio-environmental issues for students. This inadequacy stems at least in part from the challenge faced by teachers who must incorporate topics that were not part of their academic training at university. To address this, Sanchez [2015] and Kinslow et al., [2019] emphasise the importance of a paradigm shift in the philosophy of teacher education, re-evaluating curricula, embracing project-based learning in ecological education, and emphasising experiential learning and direct engagement with the environment. This shift aims to uncover any significant relationships between ecological literacy and the value people placed on nature, the amount of time spent outdoors and in contact with nature, and the perceived sources of knowledge and understanding [Pitman et al., 2018].

According to Pascuas Rengifo et al. [2020], an eco-literate individual must understand and know the place where they are, the ecosystems that make it up, the ecological principles that govern it, and their global and local connections from a systemic approach [Pitman et al., 2018]. According to Pérez-Martín & Bravo-Torija, [2018], to comply with these principles, we also need education for environmental justice; likewise, we need environmental education framed within a paradigm of complexity (Bonil et al., 2010). This framework should consider an integral perspective (social, ethical, economic, ecological, scientific, environmental, etc.) and the distribution of content, in a collective reflection – at least in the short term – in awakening environmental awareness. In doing so, educators can foster more effective and a deep ecological education.

Deep Ecology emerges as a prominent concept, from its earlier roots, advocating for profound ecological awareness and the seamless integration of critical environmental literacy practices into education. According to Sánchez [2015], the principles of Deep Ecological Literacy aim ‘to promote a profound change in the common conception about the Earth and living systems, fostering place-based learning that looks towards the future and the coming generations’ (p. 381). Deep ecology is a biocentric challenge in education, aiming to protect nature by producing through conservation and conserving through production, as proposed by sustainable development, balanced and in harmony with the environment [Sánchez, 2015]. Expecting to play a critical role in raising environmental literacy among school learners, this framework might be a new alternative to recognise the importance, implication, and limits of the systems of the web of life and a critical approach within environmental literacies. According to Sánchez [2014], this is an unavoidable option for the survival and quality of life of all ecosystems, of which human beings are just one element.

3.2.5. Outdoor science and environmental education in the promotion of critical literacies

Over the decade from 2012, diverse empirical methods for advancing critical scientific and environmental education approaches have emerged. Specifically, in this section we offer an analysis of opportunities and challenges drawn from articles that explore how outdoor learning experiences can facilitate and enhance critical scientific or environmental literacies. As previously mentioned, teaching and learning outside the classroom have been portrayed in the literature in science or environmental education with a wide range of labels, including situated learning, informal education, outdoor learning, fieldwork/study, field-based learning (FBL), learning in natural environments (LINE), and experiential education, among others. In this section, we will employ the concept of outdoor science and environmental education to simplify the spectrum of definitions.

In the case of outdoor science and environmental education, the notion of unfinished science (Latour, 1987), as a theoretical framework, gained momentum in the last 10 years. Unfinished science is an umbrella term that involves various designations and subcategories, including science-in-the-making (Latour, 1987) and Public Understanding of Science (Lewenstein & Bonney, 2004). The idea of ‘finished’ science as a ‘polished, objectified, linear, and persuasive story’ Bucchi (1998), is criticised by many scholars. For instance Hine & Medvecky [2015], and Navas Iannini & Pedretti [2022] present progressive views of critical scientific literacies in the context of teaching and learning science in museums. Learning in those places is normally not rigidly planned or limited by the educational goals of science curricula. Therefore, creating an open learning environment can alleviate the pressure on both students and teachers to achieve specific learning outcomes and assessments, which is often experienced in traditional school settings. Museums and other extracurricular places, by presenting innovative information and exploring the social and cultural aspects of science and technology across various historical periods and locations, frequently offer open-ended activities resembling the idea of unfinished science scenarios.

Museums are increasingly recognising their significance as key participants in various scientific, social, cultural, and political realms, acknowledging that the dissemination of scientific knowledge involves a pedagogical challenge influenced by public literacy beliefs [Hine & Medvecky, 2015]. Transcending the idea of simply being temples or collections houses, science museums are now increasingly being urged to transform into spaces for public discussions and settings where critical and civic scientific literacy can be nurtured, equipping citizens for sustainable futures. In this vein, Navas and Pedretti [2022] draw attention to various museum exhibitions that showcase climate change (e.g. KlimaX – The Norwegian National Museum of Science, Technology, and Medicine), biodiversity loss (e.g. Schad Gallery: Life in Crises, Royal Ontario Museum), and food consumption (e.g. Comer: Las mesas de América Latina [Eating: Dining rooms in Latin America], Parque Explora). These examples illustrate how museums are adapting their landscapes and exhibition practices over time.

From a Freirean perspective, Marques and Marandino [2018] point out that this shift in the hegemonic and sometimes elitist idea of what a museum should be is relevant to open a dialogue between experiential and scientific culture, the appropriation of knowledge (related to the nature of science (NOS), and science, technology, society, and environment (STSE) perspectives), and social participation (involving decision-making and social transformation). According to Hine & Medvecky, [2015], as institutions of authority, ‘museums not only present information about science but also shape the way society perceives science as an activity and scientists as a community’ (p. 10).

Navas and Pedretti [2022] argue that museums play a crucial role in comprehending the dynamic nature of scientific discovery, enabling programs to achieve genuine and widespread public engagement and political influence. They provide an opportunity to present the complexity of science, including its social and philosophical aspects, thereby fostering what can be termed ‘critical’ in science literacy. As a result, museums, and science centres or national parks, serving as platforms for outdoor science and environmental education, have become essential resources for supporting both young and adult education and are regarded as key institutions, advocating for a broader understanding of the culture of science, falling potentially under the umbrella term of critical science and environment literacy scenarios. For instance, in words of Hine & Medvecky [2015]:

Critical science literacies increase the awareness and knowledge of ‘how science works’, of the sociological and philosophical underpinnings of scientific processes, then unfinished science ought to feature much more prominently in our science communication institutions, such as museums or science centres. [p. 9]

Alongside the development of literacies in outdoor science and environmental education, critical science literacy has evolved into a concept that emphasises enhancing individuals’ ability to comprehend, evaluate, assess, and interpret science and scientific statements, rather than merely increasing their knowledge of scientific facts or claims. In essence, critical science literacy is centred around the development of skills, focusing on epistemic capacity rather than epistemic content [Hine & Medvecky, 2015].

Nevertheless, despite the vast evidence that valuable learning can take place in out-of-school contexts (Dillon et al., 2005; Falk & Dierking, 2000; Guerrero & Reiss, 2020; Rickinson et al., 2004), the literature reports three main challenges in promoting a critical approach within outdoor science and environmental education. The first concern is how to foster inter-institutional dialogue between informal and formal institutions to enhance learning and promote scientific and environmental literacy for future societies [Kim & Dopico, 2016]. According to Monteiro et al. [2016], inter-institutional dialogue is crucial for establishing a collaborative framework. They describe the current challenges, visions, and potential of out-of-school educational places, such as science museums and centres of science and technology, by providing specific examples of research educational programs and practices in Brazil and other international contexts. Traditionally, both parties (schools and museums/national parks/zoos, or any other institution) have different goals and agendas, often feeling excluded from each other in the decision-making and programme development processes; or they have mutually excluding relationships due to diverse reasons, such as differing goals, expectations, and a lack of communication. Additionally, not many studies have looked at formal and informal educators working together in collaborative projects Guerrero & Reiss (2020).

However, adopting a collaborative inquiry approach when reshaping outdoor education from a critical perspective appears essential for developing collective scientific and environmental literacy. Harnisch et al., (2014) illustrates this idea with the expression, ‘the community is the curriculum’, suggesting that outdoor science and environmental education should go beyond fixed curricula and involve engaging in challenging projects, interacting with individuals from different backgrounds and perspectives, and integrating across disciplines, time, and various community-based organisations. For outdoor science and environmental education to be effective, collaborative frameworks between formal and informal contexts, as well as science teachers and ‘informal’ science and environmental educators from institutions beyond schools, need to be developed, recognising their expertise as education professionals [Guerrero et al., 2023]. This approach could lead to more practical and relevant learning activities in both school classrooms and informal settings such as museums, national parks, and botanical gardens, among others. Consequently, bridging the gap between school science and science learning acquired in informal settings becomes necessary.

The second challenge lies in the notion of an epistemic approach to scientific or environmental literacy. Informal institutions, such as science centres, national parks, or museums, primarily share scientific knowledge with visitors through representations of ‘experts’’ knowledge, which may create another gap in learning. The rich resources and attractive contexts of informal learning environments have significant potential to enhance students’ science learning and critical thinking, resulting in the development of scientific literacy. Nonetheless, as highlighted by Monteiro et al., [2016], a more critical viewpoint is necessary when analysing outdoor activities and students’ learning in those settings. Unlike the structured approach of school science with its content-based curriculum, informal contexts often significantly engage students with visual and tactile presentations, innovative science and technology exhibits, and opportunities for self-directed learning (Falk, 2001). Therefore, it is crucial to consider the diversity of institutional cultures and, consequently, the range of political or apolitical discourses surrounding scientific and environmental literacies from both formal and informal educators.

The final challenge makes a call for the promotion of critical approaches in outdoor science and environmental education Kinslow et al. [2019], advocate expanding STEM learning opportunities beyond traditional classroom settings, emphasising the need to address environmental and climate challenges. However, the disconnection between conventional classrooms and these real-world challenges poses challenges for both learners and environmental educators Kinslow et al. [2019], specifically urge science and environmental educators, whether formal or informal, to incorporate such elements as sociocultural, moral, economic, and value-related factors to contextualise environmental learning and foster effective problem-solving.

According to Kinslow et al. [2018], many field-based environmental and science education programmes lack the ability to contextualise and offer meaningful learning experiences for students. This deficiency often leads to the depoliticisation of certain complex environmental issues in outdoor science and environmental education. For instance, traditional field trips in ecology classes primarily focus on teaching specific techniques, species, or habitats studied in classroom settings (Rickinson et al., 2004; Dillon et al., 2005).

To promote critical scientific and environmental literacy through outdoor education Dunlop et al. [2021], present the case of outdoor education and ‘Fracking’ as an example where scientific and technological knowledge intersects and conflicts with economic, political, social, and other forms of knowledge. This example could be relevant for Latin America, given the region’s approximately seven thousand fracking wells. Visiting areas affected by fracking could serve as a valuable example to foster critical scientific literacy, helping individuals make well-justified decisions concerning the desirability of actions related to fracking or anti-fracking stances. Dealing with complex social and environmental issues (such as hydraulic fracturing) in the years of compulsory science schooling is necessary because scientific knowledge is necessary but not sufficient to prepare young people for the critical scientific literacy required to meet sustainable development goals [Dunlop et al., 2021, p. 557].

Possibly related to the previous challenge, it becomes essential to elevate these experiences to higher epistemic levels. Many field-based environmental education programmes have attempted to address this gap by introducing citizen science elements, where participants actively collect data and engage in scientific endeavours connected to their communities. However, this approach often falls short of creating epistemically engaging learning activities if the participants merely collect data without considering the broader significance of that information. To overcome this challenge, there are some options to consider. One approach involves explicitly incorporating socio-scientific issue-based instruction or the utilisation of controversies, allowing for the integration of complex contextual components into outdoor science and environmental education, including, for instance, ethical and political questions [Dunlop et al., 2021; Kinslow et al., 2018]. By incorporating socio-scientific or socio-ecological issues, these methods offer opportunities to enhance epistemic engagement and facilitate advancements in scientific and environmental literacies.

Finally, to conclude this section, despite evidence of the positive effects of outdoor science and environmental education programmes and the emerging role of museums in fostering unfinished science experiences, Lambert and Reiss (2016) express concerns that rising costs and potential liabilities are prompting policy administrators to reduce or eliminate outdoor learning opportunities. This situation is regrettable since the literature reports opportunities to increase scientific literacy, environmental literacy, and socio-scientific reasoning for students. These learning goals are normally difficult to achieve, and policymakers should consider the potential benefits of field-based environmental education before reducing or eliminating these valuable programmes [Kinslow et al., 2018].

3.2.6. Climate change education as a must of critical scientific and environmental literacies

Climate change is already showing severe socio-ecological threats and consequences for many communities and ecosystems around the globe. Particularly in the last decade, climate change and sustainability literacies have been understood by scholars as deeply linked with scientific and environmental education [Dillon, 2016; Tasquier et al., 2022; Valladares, 2021]. Today, climate change is one of the most pressing problems facing humanity and natural environments globally; hence, the way in which education will respond to addressing this problem is crucial. Climate change is not only an environmental calamity but also an intergenerational and socio-ecojustice issue. Therefore, climate change education is not only about environmental issues, but also about political and ethical endeavours [Eliam, 2022], which should be included as a key component of critical scientific and environmental education, considering collective rights and equality. As a field in constant growth and tension, climate change education must confront such challenges [Prosser Bravo et al., 2022]. Addressing those imperatives, the main focus of this section is to discuss evidence reported in 13 articles which illustrates the intricacies of integrating climate change education to encourage a critical approach towards scientific and environmental literacies.

Climate change education, as emphasised by numerous authors during this period, is a necessity [Bright & Eames, 2020; Colston & Thomas, 2019; Prosser Bravo et al., 2022]. Its significance goes beyond shaping educational systems solely for children and youth; rather, it extends to encompass society as a whole, involving different generations and communities [Gaudiano & Cartea, 2020]. The urgency to address climate change education is evident, requiring collective action and awareness from all levels of society. However, there are two main issues reported in the literature. The first one is related to the scepticism among teachers at the moment of talking about climate change and its consequences in science and environmental education. Secondly, there is a lack of a broader consensus about how to articulate climate change education within the school curriculum. Consequently, it seems to be unclear how teachers are adapting their pedagogical practices in order to incorporate new topics in their classrooms related to the climate crisis.

Notwithstanding the abundance of scientific evidence and consensus, in a world overwhelmingly filled with fake news and ideological discourses, certain individuals continue to express doubts regarding the Anthropogenic causes and the existence of the climate crisis [Colston & Thomas, 2019]. According to Valladares [2021]:

Undoubtedly, we are experiencing a strong security crisis and we are dealing with different forms of violence and systematic violations of human rights that are intertwined in a global context characterized by a political and environmental crisis that could be synthesized in challenges such as climate change, increasing mass migrations, the excessive circulation of misinformation—fake news—as a consequence of massification of digital technologies. [p. 558]

This scepticism and explosion of fake news around climate crisis might be attributed to coordinated efforts by influential political and economic entities seeking to obstruct climate change policymaking, often associated with conservative political movements [Trémoliére & Djeriouat, 2021]. For instance, in the United States, ‘major actors such as the fossil fuel industry, corporate banking companies, conservative think tanks and foundations, environmental front groups (acting on behalf of the former), and disguised astroturf organisations play a significant role in spreading climate change denial’ [Colston & Thomas, 2019, p. 2]. These well-organised campaigns work to perpetuate the notion that climate change education is not of utmost importance Colston & Thomas [2019], through a critical discourse analysis, unmask three children’s school textbooks, self-reported as being authored by climate change sceptics. The titles of these books clearly challenge the scientific consensus on climate change: (1) Deb and Seby’s Real Deal on Global Warming: The ‘Other-side’ of the Man-made Global Warming Issues; (2) The Sky’s not Falling: Why it’s OK to Chill about Global Warming; and (3) We’re not scared anymore Mr. Gore (A Climate Change Story for Little Skeptics). These discourses are only some examples of how certain groups can contribute to undermining the wider societal recognition of climate change as an urgent problem. The efforts made by certain groups might be hindering the incorporation of climate change education as a potential core aspect of scientific and environmental literacies.

Moreover, climate change education in schools is not receiving sufficient attention. Recent evidence suggests that many teachers are providing conflicting information regarding the impacts of the climate crisis. For instance, some teachers tend to underestimate the consensus among experts on this matter, primarily due to their limited understanding of climate change [Plutzer et al., 2016]. This lack of knowledge can be attributed to the fact that only a few K-12 teachers have received formal initial teacher education on climate change, which acts as a barrier to providing quality climate change education. This is a potential new challenge for initial teacher education in science education globally. To address this issue, pre-service teachers must be supported in exploring the connections between science and society, using discursive pedagogical approaches to develop critical scientific literacy for sustainable development. Thus, it is necessary to strengthen climate change education from initial teacher education levels to all educational levels to counterbalance sceptical views of the climate crisis and to counteract ideological discourses that attempt to hinder the recognition of the reality of the climate crisis. This training should also be linked with climate change and political literacies.

Climate change literacy refers to the essential knowledge and understanding of the scientific principles governing climate change processes, causes, impacts, and potential solutions [Anyanwu et al., 2015, 2017]. It plays a pivotal role in facilitating well-informed political decisions and promoting sustainable consumption patterns. Climate change literacy also implies actively taking part in action on climate change. Calling for action, this engagement in climate change education should also involve ‘minds, hearts and hands’ [Wolf & Moser, 2012, p. 550]. However, typically, this concept is proposed as an umbrella term for the various competencies and skills needed to bridge a gap between understanding the sciences of climate change and acting on the grounds of this knowledge (Hoydis et al., 2023). The gap between the two – knowledge and appropriate behaviour – is a well-known psychological problem, variously labelled the ‘mind-’, ‘attitude-’ or ‘intention-behaviour gap’. The fact that knowing stuff does not necessarily imply a translation of this knowledge into action frustrates researchers across the board. Therefore, there is also a need to analyse how climate change education can be translated in action. This challenge might be solved by aligning climate change education with political literacy, as we argued in the previous section.

Political literacy becomes a necessary complement to climate change education, given the intricate link between political and environmental issues. According to Bright & Eames, [2020], political literacy provides teachers (and students) with a historical perspective and a deeper comprehension of broader economic, cultural, and social connections. Understanding how political influences shape individual and societal discourses, choices and the subsequent impact of those choices over time is vital for driving social and ethical transformations. However, the challenge to incorporate climate change education and political literacy will require restructuring of (teacher) education at all levels (including teacher professional development programmes).

Regarding the second tension in the literature, scholars and policymakers agree that placing climate change-related subjects on school curricula will help young people cope better with the reality of global warming and other manifestations of climate change, both practically and psychologically [Salinas et al., 2022]. Globally, international institutions have called for climate change studies to be included in schools, as a formal part of curricula. However, and typically, climate change and environmental education is taught in classrooms by integrating the topic into science or environmental school subjects’ syllabuses by ‘infusion’ [Ramsey et al., 1992]. This situation might be considered as part of the never-ending discussion about how to articulate science with environmental education, reported since the 1990s.

Various countries worldwide have attempted to introduce policies and programmes related to climate change education, although they have encountered particular challenges. For example, in Brazil efforts to implement environmental education policies have shown limited effectiveness in influencing the country’s mainstream educational, environmental, and climate change policies [Loureiro & de Lima, 2012]. In numerous global curricula, approaches to climate change education can be categorised into two main strategies: integrating multiple subjects or creating dedicated cross-disciplinary segments within the curriculum [Eilam, 2022].

UNESCO’s recent international report, The Climate Change Education Ambition Report Card (UNESCO, 2022), highlights that several nations are aligning with promoting climate change education and implementing innovative learning strategies. Noteworthy examples include Argentina’s introduction of a National Law of Comprehensive Environmental Education in 2021 and Italy’s pioneering move in 2019, making climate-related studies compulsory in state schools, requiring approximately an hour per week, 33 hours annually, for addressing climate change topics. Similarly, Cambodia has initiated a policy to incorporate climate change education by expanding the Earth science curriculum in upper secondary schools. Singapore has also examined the inclusion of climate change education within the context of subject prioritisation for national standardised tests [Chang & Pascua, 2017]. China is progressively integrating climate change issues into its educational framework and formulating national climate change mitigation and adaptation policies. It has established a comprehensive climate change mitigation programme and has invested substantially in climate-related initiatives. Education has become an integral component of China’s national sustainable development goals and strategies for climate change education [Han, 2017].

In conclusion, on a global scale, there is growing consensus that climate change education should be integrated into curricula through interdisciplinary frameworks encompassing bio-ethical dimensions [Kate et al., 2019], in a strong connection with climate, science and environmental literacies. Nevertheless, and as consequence of the lack of clarity about how to manage the climate change curricula in school subjects’ syllabuses, research suggests schools have not been engaging significantly in climate change education [Bagoly-Simó, 2013].

3.2.7. Concluding thoughts: the interplay of scientific and environmental literacies

Within the formal education system, environmental literacy most frequently finds a home within science education. This metaphor explains the nearly universal assumption within environmental literacy resources that more than common sense knowledge is required. This approach is based on the premise that a critical exploration of environmental information demands at least a functional understanding of the principles of scientific data collection and analysis. Scientific literacies seem to provide the language for arguing in favour of ecological or climate action and for promoting critical approaches in environmental education. For instance, concepts and models from science are essential to comprehend climate change (Salinas et al., 2022). However, hegemonic Western science in schools typically serves as the primary means for humans to engage with the environment, paradoxically contributing to the disconnection with the natural world. Thus, until we advance towards a critical scientific literacy aligned with an eco-centric vision, the aspirations of environmental literacy will remain unfulfilled. Both language and models of discovering reality are equally responsible for generating ontological understandings that influence rationality and emotionality in how we connect with nature.

Many educators, particularly those with eco-socialist views who have a significant influence on environmental education in various regions of Global North, typically do not critically examine their own assumptions. Environmental and science educators often blame specific aspects of modernity, such as industrial capitalism, for the ecological crisis, but neglect to question their own human-centred beliefs. Environmental and scientific literacies require challenging anthropocentric, modernist, and humanistic assumptions in an intertwined relationship (Guerrero et al., 2024). Critical environmental literacy, as defined by Stables and Scott [1999], is rooted in ‘informed skepticism towards all the grand narratives of humanist (and anti-humanist) modernity, including capitalism, socialism, science, and art’ (p. 149).

The fusion of science and environmental literacies can assist us in rekindling our sense of wonder for the profound mysteries and limitations of life beyond our material needs and logical reasoning. This process of amalgamation involves acknowledging the intricate interconnectedness of human and natural history, comprehending the historical and cultural influences shaping our scientific advancements, technological innovations, and artistic pursuits, and aligning our actions with ethical beliefs and sustainability principles. This alignment guides us as we strive for environmental improvement and assist various entities – human, non-human, or beyond-human – in their respective environments.

4. Concluding remarks

In general, critical scientific and environmental literacies have many similarities with other critical literacies approaches in education (e.g. Baró 1982; Freire & Macedo, 1987; Vygotski, 1995). Critical approaches in science education take ideas from ‘science for [critical] citizenship’ and democratic participation (e.g. Albe, 2015; Levinson, 2010), Critical Pedagogy (e.g. Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2018; Kincheloe, 2008), Continental European Bildung-perpectives (e.g. Sjöström & Eilks, 2018), Decolonisation of Science Education (Gilmartin & Berg, 2007), Science and Technology Education Promoting Wellbeing for Individuals, Societies and Environments STEPWISE (Bencze, 2017) and STSE (Science, Technology, Society, and Environment) education (e.g. Pedretti & Nazir, 2011), going beyond of the ‘traditional’ understanding of scientific literacies in the literature.

According to Hodson (2011), the principal goal of critical scientific literacies should be that all students, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, geographical location, and current attainment levels, must achieve a measure of critical scientific literacy, which he interprets as the capacity to read reports involving science in all forms and multimodalities of communication in an informed and critical way, in order to form one’s own judgement about what to believe, what to doubt, and what to reject. He believes in a universal critical scientific literacy that all pupils can engage in at some level.

The concept of critical scientific literacy considers the promotion of educational processes to articulate scientific literacy with political and environmental literacy (C. E. Roth, 1992), in order to increase social and environmental justice. A critical scientific and environmental literacy based approach would imply that teachers, scientists, science and environmental educators, and students in general, might have access to scientific and ecological knowledge questioning the sources of fundings in science and the impact of economic development not only on the environment but also on social aspects, and lastly recognising that science is also political, has history and context (Hodson, 2010). This means promoting educational processes based on emancipation and transformation that articulate scientific literacy with social and environmental justice.

After more than 20 years since the review carried out by Hart and Nolan (1999), we can assert that a critical approach to environmental education should encompass promoting a critical and politicised orientation towards environmental literacy, addressing political and economic context issues within environmental education, and fostering community environmental awareness and action. For instance, recognising that ecological issues are complex and that there are need for inter- and transdisciplinarity, emphasising the value of nature experiences, understanding that all human activities have an impact on the environment, and emphasising that learning processes are as important as content itself (St Clair, 2003) for fostering world-centred agency Biesta (2022). According to Stables and Scott [1999], critical environmental literacy is rooted in ‘informed skepticism towards all the grand narratives of humanist (and anti-humanist) modernity, including capitalism, socialism, science, and art’ (p. 149). We believe climate change literacy can be seen as a part of critical environmental literacy.

From Portuguese and Spanish literature reviewed, the conception of critical literacies is framed typically on Freire’s work who conceive literacy as conscientisation’ process (awareness), which means that teaching a person to write or read (or to learn about science) is not enough if we are not considering a process of liberation of consciousness towards the integration of personal reality and transformation Freire (1970). Teaching science from conscientisation and using territorial socio-scientific issues, implies new and complex challenges for educational systems at the structural and epistemic level. For this, it is important to rethink the epistemology of the subject in the world; that is, to analyse which subject we want to educate and for which society. A comprehensive view of the individuals would have implications at the socio-emotional level, in learning, teaching, in the pedagogical interactions, and spaces, among several other aspects. Public policies, teacher training programmes, schools, and teachers must reflect on these aspects and apply their learnings to achieve the required transformations towards a more just and equitable society. In other words, a process of scientific ‘conscientisation’ might imply understanding the role of science, in harmony with the position of the human beings within nature. This process involves a transition towards understanding society in interdependence with nature and not as it is currently done through a false human-nature dichotomy. Scientific ‘conscientisation’ means developing the ability to critically understand interpersonal connections, the meaning of being human, analysing causes and consequences of actions (our actions) in the encounter with others. This approach should be articulated with dialogues between critical pedagogies, feminisms, and framed in the decolonisation of scientific education Gandolfi (2021).

All of the above, conscientisation in critical approaches means promoting educational processes based on emancipation, transformation, and primarily, hope. It entails scientific and environmental literacy, which seeks and allows the realisation of social and environmental justice. It involves understanding the role and position of a human being within nature and society, as well as the ability to critically comprehend interpersonal connections. It delves into the meaning of being human and analysing the causes and consequences of our actions when interacting with others. Therefore, nobody is an illiterate or uneducated by choice but because of the imposition of others and as a consequence of their conditions.

Finally, returning to the original focus of this paper, it is evident that environmental problems and issues cannot simply be ignored. On the contrary, especially for disadvantaged individuals and communities, the climate crisis – alongside various other crises such as species losses and the ‘colonisation’ of artificial intelligence – seemingly demands urgent action to promote social justice and environmental sustainability (ecojustice) (Bencze et al., 2024). Within a global context marked by the climate crisis and the widening of other planetary boundaries, these challenges will only exacerbate, with ramifications extending far beyond localised impacts Hart & Nolan (1999). Consequently, future research in environmental and science education must systematically scrutinise the myths that underpin our thoughts and practices within school systems. This entails examining the structures and ethos needed to support teachers in reassessing their beliefs and understanding how to adopt new practices aligned with critical literacy approaches. In this sense, it is imperative to recognise the political, ethical, emotional, cultural and economic dimensions intertwined with environmental and science education, as these factors profoundly influence the implementation of educational initiatives in addressing global challenges.

Authors contributions

Conceptualisation and theoretical background, G.G and J.S.; Methodology, G.G.; Data preparation, G.G.; Data and systematic content analysis, G.G. and J.S.; Writing – original draft preparation, G.G.; writing – review and editing, G.G. and J.S.; graphs and tables, G.G.; Submission of manuscript, G.G.; Both authors have read and accepted the published version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors greatly acknowledge the feedback given by Prof. Michael Reiss as well as by two anonymous reviewers on previous drafts of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research (G.G.) was funded by Chilean National Agency for Research and Development, ANID, Scholarship ID: [72210316], and by Malmö University (J.S.).

Notes on contributors

Gonzalo Guerrero

Gonzalo Guerrero is a Physics and Maths Teacher by Universidad de Santiago, Chile. Currently, he is a PhD researcher in Science and Environmental Education at IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society, University College London, London, United Kingdom. His research interests are critical scientific and environmental literacies, activisms, collaborative research and teacher education.

Jesper Sjöström

Jesper Sjöström is a professor of science education at Malmö University, Sweden. His educational research is framed within the context of the Anthropocene era, addressing pertinent global environmental and socio-political issues. The research especially concerns a Vision III of scientific literacy and science education related to eco-reflexive Bildung and corresponding didactic models and modelling.