Adaptação brasileira do Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire (GSLQ): uma possibilidade de avaliação da Alfabetização Científica para o século XXI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci/2025v30n2p293Palabras clave:
Letramento científico, Validação, Educação em Ciências, Questionário, PsicometriaResumen
A alfabetização científica é tanto um direito quanto um instrumento de transformação das pessoas, que pode ajudar a entender como a ciência, a tecnologia e a sociedade se interligam. Um desafio nessa área é a sua avaliação, exigindo instrumentos de confiáveis, adaptados e com base teórica robusta. Muitos dos questionários criados para esse fim foram concebidos há décadas, podendo não contemplar adequadamente temas emergentes do século XXI, como sustentabilidade, avanços tecnológicos globais e mudanças climáticas. O Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire (GSLQ) surge como um instrumento contemporâneo e multidimensional para avaliar aspectos da Alfabetização Científica. Diante de seu potencial e da ausência de uma versão validada para o português, este artigo descreve sua adaptação transcultural e verificação de indícios de validade para o Brasil. O processo seguiu critérios psicométricos, incluindo tradução, síntese, avaliação por especialistas e público-alvo, teste piloto e análise da estrutura interna. Para validação, utilizou-se o Coeficiente de Validade de Conteúdo e a Análise Fatorial Exploratória. Como resultado, obteve-se uma versão em português do GSLQ, adequada para aplicação na Educação Básica e no Ensino Superior.Referencias
Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: Views on science-technology-society (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760503
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project 2061—Science for all Americans. https://encurtador.com.br/paExm
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association. https://encurtador.com.br/aSiFE
Anelli, C. (2011). Scientific literacy: What is it, are we teaching it, and does it matter. American Entomologist, 57(4), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/57.4.235
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2010). Simple second order chi-square correction. Mplus Technical Appendix, 1–8. https://encurtador.com.br/Hjbhu
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Borsa, J. C., Damásio, B. F., & Bandeira, D. R. (2012). Adaptação e validação de instrumentos psicológicos entre culturas: Algumas considerações. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 22(53), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-863X2012000300014
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press.
Bybee, R. W. (1995). Achieving scientific literacy. The Science Teacher, 62(7), 28–33. https://encurtador.com.br/iTAGy
Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science and attitudes toward teaching science. Science Education, 90(5), 803–819. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20147
Damásio, B. F. (2012). Uso da análise fatorial exploratória em psicologia. Avaliação Psicológica: Interamerican Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(2), 213–228. https://encurtador.com.br/MDjK9
Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2018). Assessing the quality and appropriateness of factor solutions and factor score estimates in exploratory item factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(5), 762–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417719308
Field, A. (2009). Descobrindo a estatística usando o SPSS (2ª ed.). Bookman.
Fives, H., Huebner, W., Birnbaum, A. S., & Nicolich, M. (2014). Developing a measure of scientific literacy for middle school students. Science Education, 98(4), 549–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21115
Fraser, B. L. (1978). Development of a test of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 62(4), 509–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730620411
Gil, A. C. (2008). Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social (6ª ed.). Atlas.
Gormally, C., Brickman, P., & Lutz, M. (2012). Developing a test of scientific literacy skills (TOSLS): Measuring undergraduates’ evaluation of scientific information and arguments. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0026
Hair Júnior, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Análise multivariada de dados. Bookman.
Hernández-Nieto, R. (2002). Contributions to statistical analysis: The coefficients of proportional variance, content validity and kappa. Universidad de Los Andes Editora.
Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16(1), 13–16. https://files.ascd.org/staticfiles/ascd/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_195810_hurd.pdf
International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2ª ed.). https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<71::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-C
Laugksch, R. C., & Spargo, P. E. (1996). Construction of a paper-and-pencil test of basic scientific literacy based on selected literacy goals recommended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/5/4/003
Lederman, N. G., Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
Liang, L. L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2006, April). Student understanding of science and scientific inquiry (SUSSI): Revision and further validation of an assessment instrument. In Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA (Vol. 122). https://www.gb.nrao.edu/~sheather/For_Sarah/lit%20on%20nature%20of%20science/SUSSI.pdf
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 88–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192753
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2019). Robust Promin: A method for diagonally weighted factor rotation. Technical Report. Universitat Rovira i Virgili. https://doi.org/10.24265/liberabit.2019.v25n1.08
Manhart, J. J. (1997). Scientific literacy: Factor structure and gender differences [Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, The University of Iowa].
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. King’s College London. https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Beyond-2000.pdf
Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001
Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 112(2), 29–48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024852
Moore, R. W., & Sutman, F. X. (1970). The development, field test and validation of an inventory of scientific attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7(2), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660070203
Mueller, M. P., & Zeidler, D. L. (2010). Moral-ethical character and science education: Ecojustice ethics through socioscientific issues (SSI). In D. E. Tippins, M. P. Mueller, M. van Eijck, & J. D. Adams (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of ecojustice, place-based (science) education, and indigenous knowledge systems (pp. 105–128). Springer.
Mun, K., Shin, N., Lee, H., Kim, S. W., Choi, K., Choi, S. Y., & Krajcik, J. S. (2015a). Korean secondary students’ perception of scientific literacy as global citizens: Using global scientific literacy questionnaire. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1739–1766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1045956
Mun, K., Lee, H., Kim, S. W., Choi, K., Choi, S. Y., & Krajcik, J. S. (2015b). Cross-cultural comparison of perceptions on the global scientific literacy with Australian, Chinese, and Korean middle school students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 437–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9492-y
Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Metacognitive monitoring accuracy and student performance in the postsecondary classroom. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(1), 7–28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20157410
Pramuda, A., Kuswanto, H., & Hadiati, S. (2019). Effect of real-time physics organizer based smartphone and indigenous technology to students’ scientific literacy viewed from gender differences. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12316a
Reckase, M. D. (1985). The difficulty of test items that measure more than one ability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168500900409
Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Santos, W. L. P. D., & Mortimer, E. F. (2001). Tomada de decisão para ação social responsável no ensino de ciências. Ciência & Educação (Bauru), 7(1), 95–111. https://www.scielo.br/j/ciedu/a/QHLvwCg6RFVtKMJbwTZLYjD/?format=pdf&lang=pt
Sasseron, L. H., & de Carvalho, A. M. P. (2011). Alfabetização científica: Uma revisão bibliográfica. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 16(1), 59–77. https://ienci.if.ufrgs.br/index.php/ienci/article/view/246
Sasseron, L. H., & Machado, V. F. (2017). Alfabetização científica na prática: Inovando a forma de ensinar física. Livraria da Física.
Şen, M., Sungur, S., & Öztekin, C. (2018, June). Adaptation of global scientific literacy questionnaire in Turkish context: Findings of pilot study. In International Congresses on Education, Istanbul, Turkey (Vol. 1). https://www.erpacongress.com/upload/dosya/erpa_2018_e_book_of_abstracts_with-isbn_15bc88410a4099.pdf
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. Rutgers University Press.
Shen, B. S. (1975). Science literacy: Public understanding of science is becoming vitally needed in developing and industrialized countries alike. American Scientist, 63(3), 265–268.
Sinnott, J. D. (1989). Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications. Praeger.
Sireci, S. G., Yang, Y., Harter, J., & Ehrlich, E. J. (2006). Evaluating guidelines for test adaptations: A methodological analysis of translation quality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(5), 557–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106290478
Teixeira, E., Siqueira, A. D. A., Silva, J. P. D., & Lavor, L. C. (2011). Cuidados com a saúde da criança e validação de uma tecnologia educativa para famílias ribeirinhas. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, 64, 1003–1009. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-71672011000600003
Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16, 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353
Urbina, S. (2007). Fundamentos da testagem psicológica. Artmed.
Valentini, F., & Damásio, B. F. (2016). Variância média extraída e confiabilidade composta: Indicadores de precisão. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 32, e322225. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-3772e322225
Vizzotto, P. A. (2019). A proficiência científica de egressos do ensino médio ao utilizar a física para interpretar o cotidiano do trânsito. [Tese de doutorado. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul]. Repositório LUME. http://hdl.handle.net/10183/197250
Vizzotto, P. A. (2021). Quais são os instrumentos de avaliação da alfabetização científica mais utilizados nas pesquisas do Brasil? What are the most used instruments for the evaluation of Scientific Literacy in Research in Brazil?. Revista Cocar, 15(33), 1-20. https://periodicos.uepa.br/index.php/cocar/article/view/4515/2157
Voss, J. F., Lawrence, J. A., & Engle, R. A. (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving (pp. 119–157). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684
Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A., & Lin, S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21077
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2025 Patrick Alves Vizzotto
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
La IENCI es una revista de acceso libre (Open Access) y no hay cobro de ninguna tasa ya sea por el envío o procesamiento de los artículos. La revista adopta la definición de la Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), es decir, los usuarios tienen el derecho de leer, descargar, copiar, distribuir, imprimir, buscar y hacer links directos a los textos completos de los artículos publicados en esta revista.
El autor responsable por el envío representa a todos los autores del trabajo y, al enviar este artículo para su publicación en la revista está garantizando que posee el permiso de todos para hacerlo. De igual manera, garantiza que el artículo no viola los derechos de autor y que no hay plagio en lugar alguno del trabajo. La revista no se responsabiliza de las opiniones emitidas en los artículos.
Todos los artículos de publican con la licencia Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC 4.0). Los autores mantienen sus derechos de autor sobre sus producciones y deben ser contactados directamente en el caso de que hubiera interés en el uso comercial de su obra.