"But if it's in the newspaper, doesn't that mean it's true?" Developing critical reading & analysis skills by evaluating newspaper science with CREATE

American Biology Teacher

Volumn 72, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 415-420

  Hoskins, Sally G ^a  

^a CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

CREATE approach; Critical reading; Data analysis; Experimental design; Newspaper science

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956022862     PISSN: 00027685     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1525/abt.2010.72.7.5     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Allen, D. & Tanner, K. (2003). Approaches to cell biology teaching: mapping the journey - concept maps as signposts of developing knowledge structures. Cell Biology Education, 2, 133-136.
2. American Association for Higher Education. (2000). Targeting Curricular Change: Reform in Undergraduate Education in Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
3. Berg, C.A. & Phillips, D.G. (1994). An investigation of the relationship between logical thinking structures and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 323-344.
4. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R., eds. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5. Brooks, J.G. & Brooks, M.G. (1993). The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
6. Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3-7.
7. Clement, J. (1989). The concept of variation and misconceptions in cartesian graphing. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11, 77-87.
8. Elliott, P. (2006). Reviewing newspaper articles as a technique for enhancing the scientific literacy of student-teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1245-1265.
9. Foertsch, J. (2000). Models for Undergraduate Instruction: The potential of modeling and visualization technology in science and math education. In Targeting Curricular Change: Reform in Undergraduate Education in Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (pp. 37-40). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
10. Gardner, J.N. & Sullivan, B.L. (2004). The national newspaper as a tool for educational empowerment: origins and rationale. Monograph, The New York Times. Available online at http://www.nytimes.com/ref/college/faculty/coll- mono-gard.html.
11. Germann, P.J. & Aram, R.J. (1996). Student performances on the science processes of recording data, analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and providing evi-dence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 773-798.
12. Gudrais, E. (2007). Nixing the news. Harvard Magazine, November-December. Available online at http://harvardmagazine.com/2007/ll/nixing-the-news.html.
13. Hoskins, S.G. (2008). Using a paradigm shift to teach neurobiology and the nature of science: a C.R.E.A.T.E.-based approach. Journal of Undergraduate Neuro-science Education, 6(2), A40-A52.
14. Hoskins, S.G. & Stevens, L.S. (2009). Learning our L.I.M.I.T.S.: less is more in teaching science. Advances in Physiology Education, 33, 17-20.
15. Hoskins, S.G., Stevens, L.M. & Nehm, R.H. (2007). Selective use of the primary literature transforms the classroom into a virtual laboratory. Genetics, 176, 1381-1389.
16. Kasprisin, R. & Pettinari, J. (1995). Visual Thinking for Architects and Designers: Visualizing Context in Design. New York, NY: Wiley.
17. Mathewson, J.H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: an aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 33-54.
18. Mead, J.M. & Scharmann, L.C. (1994). Enhancing critical thinking through structured academic controversy. American Biology Teacher, 56, 416-419.
19. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20. National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21. National Research Council. (2003). Bio 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22. Novak, J.D. (1990). Concept mapping: a useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937-949.
23. Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitatiue Tools in Schools and Corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Rundle, R.L. (2005). Study links produce prices to obesity. Wall Street Journal, 6 October, p. D5.
25. Schnotz, W., Picard, E. & Hron, A. (1993). How do successful and unsuccessful learners use texts and graphics? Learning and Instruction, 3, 181-199.
26. Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G. & Crawford, B.A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645.
27. Seethaler, S. (2005). Helping students make links through science controversy. American Biology Teacher, 67, 265-268, 270-274.
28. Siebert, E.D. & Mcintosh, W.J. (2001). College Pathways to the Science Education Standards. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
29. Steitz, J.A. (2003). Commentary: Bio2010 - new challenges for biology educators. Cell Biology Education, 2, 87-91.
30. Strauss, B.S. (2005). PubMed, The New York Times, and The Chicago Tribune as tools for teaching genetics. Genetics, 171, 1449-1454.
31. US Department of Agriculture. (1992). The Food Guide Pyramid. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 252. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.
32. Yalof, D. & Dautrich, K. (2006). The Future of the First Amendment Survey 2006 Update: What America's high school students think about their freedoms. http://www.knightfoundation.org/dotAsset/355985.pdf.