Functional scientific literacy: Seeing the science within the words and across the web

Handbook of Educational Psychology: Third Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 269-280

  Tabak, Iris ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941661983     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (106)

1. Ainley, M., Corrigan, M., & Richardson, N. (2005). Students, tasks and emotions: Identifying the contribution of emotions to students' reading of popular culture and popular science texts. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 433-447.
2. Anderson, M. M. (2012). A functional conceptualization of understanding science in the news (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Madison, WI:The University of Wisconsin-Madison.
3. Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30(0), 64-76.
4. Artz, K., & Wormer, H. (2011). What recipients ask for: An analysis of 'user question generated' science coverage. Journalism, 12(7), 871-888.
5. Asher, I., Nasser, S., & Tabak, I. (2010). Putting the pieces together: The challenge and value of synthesizing disparate graphs in inquiry-based science learning. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2010) (Vol. 2, pp. 340-341). Chicago, IL:International Society of the Learning Sciences.
6. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005). Text genre as a factor in the formation of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 403-428.
7. Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39-85.
8. Bazerman, C. (2004). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activity and people. In C. Bazerman & P. A. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 309-339). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Bisanz, J., Zimmerman, C., & Bisanz, G.L. (1998). Everyday scientific literacy:Do students use information about the social context and methods of research to evaluate news briefs about science? Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 44(2), 188.
10. Boykoff, M. T., & Rajan, S. R. (2007). Signals and noise. EMBO Rep, 8(3), 207-211.
11. Braasch, J. G., Rouet, J.-F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers' use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40(3), 450-465.
12. Brand-Gruwel, S., & Stadtler, M. (2011). Solving information-based problems:Evaluating sources and information (special issue). Learning and Instruction, 21(2).
13. Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts:Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 48-70.
14. Bråten, I., Ferguson, L., Strømsø, H., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Justification beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 879-902.
15. Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue: Relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 58-85.
16. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2009). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47(1), 1-31.
17. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 111-130.
18. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students' construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(1), 6-28.
19. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 180-192.
20. Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public's bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59-69.
21. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Stahl, E. (2008). Knowledge and epistemological beliefs: An intimate but complicate relationship. In M. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs (pp. 423-441). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer.
22. Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 3), 14096-14101.
23. Chalmers, A. F. (1976). What is this thing called science? Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press.
24. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141-167.
25. Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R. W., & Buckland, L. A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluating information: Applying the air model of epistemic cognition. In D. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information (pp. 425-454). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Deng, F., Chen, D.-T., Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students' views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961-999.
27. DiFrancesco, D. A., & Young, N. (2011). Seeing climate change: The visual construction of global warming in Canadian national print media. Cultural Geographies, 18(4), 517-536.
28. Dunwoody, S. (1999). Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 59-79). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Duschl, R. A., & Hamilton, R. (2011). Learning science. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 78-107). New York, NY: Routledge.
30. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554-567.
31. Elwyn, G., & Miron-Shatz, T. (2010). Deliberation before determination:The definition and evaluation of good decision making. Health Expectations, 13(2), 139-147.
32. Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275-296.
33. Farrar, C. (2012). Assessing the impact participation in science journalism activities has on scientific literacy among high school students (doctoral dissertation). ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing (1015637958). St. Louis, MO: University of Missouri-St. Louis.
34. Feinstein, N. W. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168-185.
35. 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(2), 103-120.
36. Gerhards, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media & Society, 12(1), 143-160.
37. Gil, L., Bråten, I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Strømsø, H.I. (2010). Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: Which is better for whom? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 157-173.
38. Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. 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(4), 356-381.
40. Goldman, S. R., & Scardamalia, M. (2013a). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Nextgeneration challenges and opportunities. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 255-269.
41. Goldman, S. R., & Scardamalia, M. (2013b). Multiple document comprehension (special issue). Cognition and Instruction, 31(2).
42. Gottlieb, E., & Wineburg, S. (2012). Between veritas and communitas:Epistemic switching in the reading of academic and sacred history. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 84-129.
43. Graesser, A. C., León, J. A., & Otero, J. (2002). Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1-15). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. Graesser, A. C., Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., O'Reilly, T., Jeon, M., & McDaniel, B. (2007). SEEK web tutor: Fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2-3), 89-105.
45. Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 142-160.
46. Greenleaf, C., Brown, W., Goldman, S. R., & Ko, M.-L. (2013). READI for science: Promoting scientific literacy practices through text-based investigations for middle and high school science teachers and students. Washington, D.C.: NRC Workshop on Literacy for Science.
47. Hofer, B. K. (2006). Domain specificity of personal epistemology: Resolved questions, persistent issues, new models. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1-2), 85-95.
48. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
49. Holtzman, N. A., Bernhardt, B. A., Mountcastle-Shah, E., Rodgers, J. E., Tambor, E., & Geller, G. (2005). The quality of media reports on discoveries related to human genetic diseases. Public Health Genomics, 8(3), 133-144.
50. Jarman, R., & McClune, B. (2010). Developing students' ability to engage critically with science in the news: Identifying elements of the 'media awareness' dimension. The Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 47-64.
51. Kahlor, L., & Rosenthal, S. (2009). If we seek, do we learn?: Predicting knowledge of global warming. Science Communication, 30(3), 380-414.
52. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163.
53. Kohnen, A. M. (2013). The authenticity spectrum: The case of a science journalism writing project. English Journal, 102(5), 28-34.
54. Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81(5), 515-532.
55. Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328(5977), 456-459.
56. Ladwig, P., Dalrymple, K. E., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2012). Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 761-774.
57. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. I, pp. 831-880). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
58. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512-529.
59. Lewenstein, B. V. (2011). Changing our ideas. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1(1), 17-21.
60. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511-544). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Logan, R. A., Zengjun, P., & Wilson, N. F. (2000). Science and medical coverage in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post: A six-year perspective. Science Communication, 22(1), 5-26.
62. Maier, M., Rothmund, T., Retzbach, A., Otto, L., & Besley, J. C. (2014). Informal learning through science media usage. Educational Psychologist, 1-18.
63. Manuel, K. (2002). How first-year college students read popular science: An experiment in teaching media literacy skills. SIMILE: Studies In Media & Information Literacy Education, 2(2), 1-12.
64. Mason, L., Ariasi, N., & Boldrin, A. (2011). Epistemic beliefs in action:Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 137-151.
65. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Searching the web to learn about a controversial topic: Are students epistemically active? Instructional Science, 38(6), 607-633.
66. Mason, L., Junyent, A. A., & Tornatora, M. C. (2014). Epistemic evaluation and comprehension of web-source information on controversial science-related topics: Effects of a short-term instructional intervention. Computers & Education, 76(0), 143-157.
67. Mountcastle-Shah, E., Tambor, E., Bernhardt, B. A., Geller, G., Karaliukas, R., Rodgers, J. E., & Holtzman, N. A. (2003). Assessing mass media reporting of disease-related genetic discoveries: Development of an instrument and initial findings. Science Communication, 24(4), 458-478.
68. Moynihan, R., Bero, L., Ross-Degnan, D., Henry, D., Lee, K., Watkins, J.,... Soumerai, S. B. (2000). Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. New England Journal of Medicine, 342(22), 1645-1650.
69. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education:Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
70. Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23.
71. Nolen, A. L. (2009). The content of educational psychology: An analysis of top ranked journals from 2003 through 2007. Educational Psychology Review, 21(3), 279-289.
72. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 947-967.
73. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
74. Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students' interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest, and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 123-145.
75. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459-463.
76. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. V. Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 88-108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
77. Polman, J. L., & Hope, J. M. G. (2014). Science news stories as boundary objects affecting engagement with science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 315-341.
78. Porsch, T., & Bromme, R. (2011). Effects of epistemological sensitization on source choices. Instructional Science, 39(6), 805-819.
79. Ransohoff, D. F., & Ransohoff, R. M. (2000). Sensationalism in the media:When scientists and journalists may be complicit collaborators. Effective Clinical Practice, 4(4), 185-188.
80. Rowan, K. E. (1999). Effective explanation of uncertain and complex science. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 201-224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
81. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36(1), 1-44.
82. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.
83. 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(6), 361-387.
84. 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(3), 231-243.
85. 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, 28(4), 465-471.
86. Secko, D. M., Amend, E., & Friday, T. (2012). Four models of science journalism. Journalism Practice, 7(1), 62-80.
87. Segev, E., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2012). Seeking science information online:Data mining Google to better understand the roles of the media and the education system. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 813-829.
88. Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 393-429.
89. Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 1-16.
90. Stacey, D., Bennett, C. L., Barry, M. J., Col, N. F., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M.,... Thomson, R. (2011). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 10(10).
91. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the www: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 191-210.
92. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Multiple document comprehension: An approach to public understanding of science. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 122-129.
93. 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(2), 130-150.
94. 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(1-2), 93-116.
95. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Dimensions of topic-specific epistemological beliefs as predictors of multiple text understanding. Learning and Instruction, 18(6), 513-527.
96. Tabak, I., & Weinstock, M. P. (2005). Knowledge is knowledge is knowledge? The relationship between personal and scientific epistemologies. Canadian Journal for Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(3), 307-328.
97. Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2012). "It should at least seem scientific!" Textual features of "scientificness" and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96(2), 187-211.
98. Ward, P. R., Henderson, J., Coveney, J., & Meyer, S. (2012). How do south Australian consumers negotiate and respond to information in the media about food and nutrition?: The importance of risk, trust and uncertainty. Journal of Sociology, 48(1), 23-41.
99. Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1060-1106.
100. Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73-87.
101. Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). High school students' informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371-400.
102. Yang, F.-Y., Chen, Y.-H., & Tsai, M.-J. (2013). How university students evaluate online information about a socio-scientific issue and the relationship with their epistemic beliefs. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 385-399.
103. Yarden, A. (2009). Reading scientific texts: Adapting primary literature for promoting scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 307-311.
104. Yeaton, W. H., Smith, D., & Rogers, K. (1990). Evaluating understanding of popular press reports of health research. Health Education & Behavior, 17(2), 223-234.
105. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.
106. Zimmerman, C., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., Klein, J. S., & Klein, P. (2001). Science at the supermarket: A comparison of what appears in the popular press, experts' advice to readers, and what students want to know. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 37-58.