The Public's Bounded Understanding of Science

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 59-69

  Bromme, Rainer ^a   Goldman, Susan R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84902687163     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.921572     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 518-542. doi: 10.1002/sce.20432
2. Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35-54.
3. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2010). The changing information environment for nanotechnology: Online audiences and content. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12, 1083-1094.
4. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95. doi:10.1177/0963662506071287
5. Besley, J. (2014). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding (Chapter 7). In National Science Board (Eds.), Science and engineering indicators 2014 (pp. 7-1-7-55). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
6. Braasch, J. L. G., Lawless, K. A., Goldman, S. R., Manning, F., Gomez, K. W., & MacLeod, S. (2009). Evaluating search results: An empirical analysis of middle school students' use of source attributes to select useful sources. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41, 63-82.
7. Britt, M. A., Richter, T., & Rouet, J.-F. (this issue). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49.
8. Bromme, R. (2000). Beyond one's own perspective: The psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 115-133). Toronto, ON, Canada: Toronto University Press.
9. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) attained from others. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 163-193). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511691904.006
10. Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Wolf, V. (2013). From understanding to deference: Laypersons' and medical students' views on conflicts within medicine. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/21548455.2013.849017
11. Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 24-52.
12. Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40-41. doi:10.1126/science.1232329
13. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141-167. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
14. Collins, H. M. & Pinch, T. (1998). The golem: What you should know about science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
15. Cummings, L. (2014). The "trust" heuristic: Arguments from authority in public health. Health Communication, pp. 1-14. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2013.831685.
16. Duncan, R., Rogat, A. D., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students' understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 655-674. doi:10.1002/tea.20312
17. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. doi:10.1080/03057260208560187
18. Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95, 168-185. doi:10.1002/sce.20414
19. Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2012). Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence: A think-aloud study. Learning and Instruction, 22, 103-120. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002.
20. Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 107-143. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x
21. Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Ferris & D. M. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 317-351). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
22. Goldman, S. R. (2010). Literacy in the digital world. In M. G. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing reading research to life (pp. 257-284). New York, NY: Guilford.
23. Goldman, S. R. (in press). Reading and the web: Broadening the need for complex comprehension. In R. J. Spiro, M. DeSchryver, M. S. Hagerman, P. Morsink, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Reading at a crossroads? Disjunctures and continuities in current conceptions and practices. New York, NY: Routledge.
24. Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356-381. doi:10.1002/RRQ.027
26. Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K. A., & Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J. F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading: From words to multiple texts (pp. 180-199). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
27. Halatchliyski, I., Moskaliuk, J., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2014). Explaining authors' contribution to pivotal artifacts during mass collaboration in the Wikipedia's knowledge base. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9, 97-115. doi:10.1007/s11412-013-9182-3
28. Hillocks, G. (2011). Teaching argument writing, Grades 6-12: Supporting claims with relevant evidence and clear reasoning. New York, NY: Heineman.
29. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475. doi:10.2307/3132137
31. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
32. Keil, F. C. (2008). Getting to the truth: Grounding incomplete knowledge. Brooklyn Law Review, 73, 1035-1052.
33. Keil, F. C. (2010). The feasibility of folk science. Cognitive Science, 34, 826-862.
34. Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2011). Beliefs about abilities and epistemic beliefs-Aspects of cognitive flexibility in information rich environments. In J. Elen, E. Stahl, R. Bromme, & G. Clarebout (Eds.), Links between beliefs and cognitive flexibility: lessons learned (pp. 105-124). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1793-0
35. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. New York, NY: Pergamon.
36. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
37. Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Driffield, East Yorkshire, England: Studies in Education.
38. Lewandowski, S., Ecker, U., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106-131.
39. Maier, M., Rothmund, T., Retzbach, A., Otto, L. & Besley, J. (this issue). Informal learning through science media usage. Educational Psychologist, 49.
40. Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 162-188. doi:10.1002/tea.21061
41. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
42. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041
43. Origgi, G. (2004). Is trust an epistemological notion? Episteme, 1, 61-72. doi:10.3366/epi.2004.1.1.61
44. Patt, A. G., & Weber, E. U. (2013). Perceptions and communication strategies for the many uncertainties relevant for climate policy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5, 219-232. doi:10.1002/wcc.259
45. Pellegrino, J. (2013). Proficiency in science. Assessment challenges and opportunities. Science, 340, 320-323. doi:10.1126/science.1232065.
46. Powells, J. D. (2011). The inquisition of climate science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
47. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1-44. doi:10.1080/03057260108560166
48. Sandoval, W. A., Sodian, B., Koerber, S., & Wong, J. (this issue). Developing children's early competencies to engage with science. Educational Psychologist, 49.
49. Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Easy to understand but difficult to decide: Information comprehensibility and controversiality affect laypeople's science-based decisions. Discourse Processes, 50, 361-387.
50. Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2012). The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople's reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22, 231-243. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.004
51. Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). You'd better ask an expert: Mitigating the comprehensibility effect on laypeople's decisions about science-based knowledge claims. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/acp.3018
52. Schwan, S., Grajal, A., & Lewalter, D. (this issue). Understanding and engagement in places of science experience: Science museums, science centers, zoos, and aquariums. Educational Psychologist, 49.
53. Shea, N. A. (2013). Investigating the role of content knowledge, argumentation, and situational features to support genetics literacy (Doctoral dissertation). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University, RU Core. doi:10.7282/T3RX9945
54. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioural model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 69, 99-118.
55. Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (this issue). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49.
56. Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25, 359-393.
57. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Multiple document comprehension: An approach to public understanding of science. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 122-129.
58. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., & Bromme, R., (2013). How do readers explain the occurrence of conflicts in science texts? Effects of presentation format and source expertise? In M. Knauff, N. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3448-3453). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
59. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013). Dealing with uncertainty: Readers' memory for and use of conflicting information from science texts as function of presentation format and source expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 130-150. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769996
60. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Skodzik, T., & Bromme, R. (2014). Comprehending multiple documents on scientific controversies: Effects of reading goals and signaling rhetorical relationships. Discourse Processes, 51,93-116. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2013.855535
61. Taylor, R. S., & Ferrari, M., (2011). Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy. New York, NY: Routledge.