Popular media in the biology classroom: Viewing popular science skeptically

American Biology Teacher

Volumn 71, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 332-335

  Gardner, Grant E ^a   Jones, M Gail ^a   Ferzli, Miriam ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349167230     PISSN: 00027685     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1662/005.071.0604     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Briscoe, S. & Aldersey-Williams, H. (2008). Panicology. New York, NY: Viking Press.
2. Carmines, E. & Stimson, J. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74 (1), 78-91.
3. Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
4. Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57 (4), 99-118.
5. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582-601.
6. Druckman, J. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (Ir) relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98 (4), 671-686.
7. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43 (4), 51-58.
8. Guill, J. M. (2006). A written media-review project that reinforces introductory biology topics & promotes critical thinking. The American Biology Teacher, 68 (6), 365-367.
9. Jarman, R. & McClune, B. (2007). Developing scientific literacy: Using news media in the classroom. New York, NY: Open University Press.
10. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71-94.
11. MacDonald, G. J. (2008, August 12). Are we science-savvy enough to make informed decisions? USA Today.
12. MacKenzie, A. H. (2007). Assessing biology information in today's world. Are our students capable? The American Biology Teacher, 69 (7), 390-392.
13. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14. National Science Foundation. (2006). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understandings. In NSF Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Retrieved, February 27th, 2008. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sein06/c7/cth.htm.
15. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M. & Clawson, R. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19 (3), 221-246.
16. Nisbet, M. C. & Scheufele, D. A. (2007). The future of public engagement. The Scientist, 21 (10), 39-44.
17. Oulton, C., Dillon, J. & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (4), 411-423.
18. Seethaler, S. (2005). Helping students make links through science controversy. The American Biology Teacher, 67 (5), 283-289.
19. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13 (6), 675-682.
20. Spies, S. (2008, February 16). Abortion remarks angers students. The Raleigh News & Observer, p. 1B, 11B.