Science Identity as a Pathway to Literacy: Reconceptualizing Science Education Through Dialogical Self Theory

Science Identity as a Pathway to Literacy: Reconceptualizing Science Education Through Dialogical Self Theory Science Identity as a Pathway to Literacy: Reconceptualizing Science Education Through Dialogical Self Theory

Despite decades of reform, science education continues to fall short of its aim to cultivate scientifically literate individuals capable of evidence-informed decision-making. However, dominant models of scientific literacy often understate the role of identity-particularly how learners navigate epistemic and affective tensions when making decisions. Drawing on classical identity traditions in developmental and social-cognitive psychology, Dialogical Self Theory, and the Conceptual Profile Model, I propose the Science Identity as a Pathway to Literacy framework, which positions identity development as central to achieving scientific literacy. Science Identity as a Pathway to Literacy highlights two core developmental processes: (one) developing awareness of the dialogical self and (two) building the capacity to adopt meta-positions. Together these processes help learners coordinate conflicting I-positions and conceptual profiles when engaging with science and in decision-making more broadly. By reconceptualizing literacy as an emergent dialogical competence rather than the mere accumulation of knowledge and practices, Science Identity as a Pathway to Literacy foregrounds internal negotiation, conceptual flexibility, and epistemic agency as essential outcomes of science education. This framing aligns with emerging policy perspectives, including the draft PISA twenty twenty-five Science Framework, which recognizes science identity as an important dimension of scientific literacy.

Introduction

For more than a quarter century, science education has aspired to cultivate scientifically literate individuals capable of evidence-informed decision making. Yet persistent concerns about scientific literacy-visible in international assessments and in everyday public discourse-suggest that these aims remain only partly realized. I argue that the shortfall is conceptual: dominant accounts have treated the learner largely as a decontextualized knower, separating the "objective" from the "subjective" and presuming that identity and affect either do not shape decisions or will recede in the face of compelling evidence. In practice, however, decisions are identity-saturated, value-laden, and dialogically negotiated. The core claim of this paper is that literacy often fails at the point of decision, where identity-conditioned activation filters which evidence becomes usable.

Traditional literacy models lack a mechanism for interpreting identity-evidence conflicts. To address this gap, I draw on Dialogical Self Theory and the Conceptual Profile Model to reconceptualize scientific literacy as fundamentally identity-mediated. Dialogical Self Theory foregrounds a multiplicity of I-positions that can enter into tension during reasoning. Conceptual Profile Model highlights the coexistence of diverse conceptual stances across contexts and how learners shift among them. Together, these frameworks illuminate why learners can demonstrate scientific knowledge yet default to counter-evidential choices when competing identities or conceptual profiles are activated.

Building on this synthesis, I propose the Science Identity as a Pathway to Literacy: a theoretical model that positions identity development-not merely knowledge and practices-as central to achieving scientific literacy. Science Identity as a Pathway to Literacy emphasizes two developmental processes: (one) awareness of the dialogical self and (two) capacity to adopt meta-positions. These processes enable learners to notice, name, and coordinate competing I-positions and conceptual profiles when engaging with science and with decision making more broadly. To ground the need for this reconceptualization, I next frame the limitations of prevailing goals of science education and dominant accounts of decision making.

Despite strong curricular emphasis on conceptual understanding, many students demonstrate a persistent gap between knowing scientific ideas and using them in real contexts. For instance, a Swedish study of teenagers deciding about influenza vaccination found that students drew primarily on risk, solidarity, family and friends, and media repertoires rather than on school science as an interpretative resource. Similar patterns of non-acceptance of evolution-often tied to affective, cultural, and religious commitments-are well documented. These patterns persist despite recent standards placing the Nature of Science at the center of science learning, with explicit learning outcomes across K-twelve.

What, then, is the proper goal of science education? A useful starting point is the broader societal role of education. Historically an elite institution, education today is far more democratized and compulsory, aimed at both individual development and social flourishing. From this perspective, the goal of science education in pluralistic democracies is to develop scientifically literate, responsible decision makers rather than to inculcate predetermined beliefs.

Smith and Siegel characterize scientific literacy in terms of two complementary aims: (one) knowledge of science content and (two) understanding of science. They elaborate understanding via four criteria-connectedness (linking and organizing ideas), sensemaking (plausibility and meaning), application (transfer to contexts of use), and justification (reasons that warrant claims). On the contested question "understanding versus belief," Smith and Siegel argue that knowledge and understanding-not belief-should be the educational aims; while belief often accompanies understanding, it need not be the instructional end point.

These two aims capture much of the learning process emphasized in contemporary reforms-developing conceptual knowledge and engaging in disciplinary practices. Yet they underspecify the resources learners need to make responsible decisions when identities, values, and emotions are implicated. Smith and Siegel acknowledge that some non-acceptance reflects deeply held convictions outside science, and thus beyond the reach of science instruction alone. My contention is that if such individual factors shape science learning, they will also shape decision making-precisely where scientific literacy is supposed to matter. Hence, either the field must (a) incorporate the role of identity, affect, and positioning into its goals and pedagogies, or (b) revisit those goals. Moving beyond tacit positivist assumptions that the "subjective" is irrelevant, I argue for a framework that accounts for how individuals make decisions in real contexts and how identity conditions evidence use.

Decision-making research provides further insight into why scientific literacy often fails at the point of application. Jonassen characterizes decisions as moderately ill-structured problems: the decision maker evaluates among plausible options and commits to a course of action. In short, decisions are a pervasive form of problem solving, and understanding how people decide is foundational to designing for responsible and effective decision making. Descriptive accounts highlight that real-world decisions are shaped by bounded rationality, affect, time pressure, and contextual constraints rather than purely normative calculations.

These realities matter for science education. If the goal is to develop scientifically literate, responsible decision makers, then instruction cannot address decision making by focusing only on the rational-analytic side of the ledger. A growing body of work shows that decisions about science are often identity-protective: individuals selectively attend to, interpret, and credit evidence in ways that sustain group commitments and self-positions. From this perspective, an "evidence-informed" decision is more-not less-rational when it incorporates information about how identity, affect, and positioning are shaping the choice. I therefore argue that learners need opportunities to (a) become aware of the internal plurality of perspectives they bring to problems and (b) adopt meta-positions from which they can notice, name, and coordinate those perspectives. This argument motivates my turn to Dialogical Self Theory and the Conceptual Profile Model as foundations for the SIPL framework.

Finally, this reconceptualization aligns with emerging policy frameworks. The draft PISA twenty twenty-five Science Framework explicitly includes science identity as a component of scientific literacy, indicating a global shift toward recognizing how identity mediates learners' engagement with evidence.