Erratum to: From Understanding to Deference: Laypersons' and Medical Students' Views on Conflicts Within Medicine (International Journal of Science Education, Part B, (2015), 5, 1, (68-91), 10.1080/21548455.2013.849017);From Understanding to Deference: Laypersons' and Medical Students' Views on Conflicts Within Medicine

International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 68-91

  Bromme, Rainer ^a   Thomm, Eva ^a   Wolf, Veronika ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b Asklepios Fachklinikum Göttingen   (Germany)

Author keywords

Reasoning; Science communication; Scientific literacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 85022148833     PISSN: 21548455     EISSN: 21548463     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2013.874231     Document Type: Erratum

References (43)

1. Andreassen, H. K., Bujnowska-Fedak, M. M., Chronaki, C. E., Dumitru, R. C., Pudule, I., Santana, S., & Wynn, R., (2007). European citizens’ use of E-health services: A study of seven countries. BMC Public Health, 7, 53. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-53
2. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006). Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of internet-based learning activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 1027–1042.
3. 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, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511691904.006
4. Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A., (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 385–418. doi:10.1023/A:1011917914756
5. Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., & Sperl, C. T., (2001). Profiling persuasion: The role of beliefs, knowledge, and interest in the processing of persuasive texts that vary by argument structure. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 269–301. doi:10.1080/10862960109548112
6. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C., (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if it works. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514–529. doi:10.1080/0950069890110504
7. Collins, H., & Pinch, T., (1998). The golem at large: What you should know about technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J., (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. doi:10.1080/03057260208560187
9. Feinstein, N., (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95, 168–185. doi:10.1002/sce.20414
10. Feufel, M. A., & Stahl, S. F., (2012). What do Web-use skill differences imply for online health information searches? Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14, e87. doi:10.2196/jmir.2051
11. Feynmann, R., (1985). QED: The strange theory of light and matter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Science Library.
12. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J., (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 515–540. doi:10.1177/107769900007700304
13. Fox, S. (2005). Health information online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
14. 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, 84–129. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.582376
15. Hofer, B. K., (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1026
16. Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute. (2011). Public attitudes to science 2011: Main report. Retrieved from http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2764/Public-attitudes-to-science-2011.aspx
17. Irwin, A., (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.
18. Kajanne, A., (2003). Structure and content: The relationship between reflective judgment and laypeople's viewpoints. Journal of Adult Development, 10, 173–188. doi: 10.1023/A:1023414313800
19. Kajanne, A., & Pirttilä-Backman, A., (1996). Toward an understanding of laypeople's notions about additives in food: Clear-cut viewpoints about additives decrease with education. Appetite, 27, 207–222. doi: 10.1006/appe.1996.0047
20. Kajanne, A., & Pirttilä-Backman, A., (1999). Laypeople's viewpoints about the reasons for expert controversy regarding food additives. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 303–315. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/8/4/303
21. Keil, F. C., (2010). The feasibility of folk science. Cognitive Science, 34, 826–862. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01108.x
22. Keil, F. C., Stein, C., Webb, L., Billings, V. D., & Rozenblit, L., (2008). Discerning the division of cognitive labor: An emerging understanding of how knowledge is clustered in other minds. Cognitive Science, 32, 259–300. doi:10.1080/03640210701863339
23. 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.
24. Kienhues, D., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2011). Dealing with conflicting or consistent medical information on the Web: When expert information breeds laypersons’ doubts about experts. Learning and Instruction, 21, 193–204. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.004
25. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S., (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
26. Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M., (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 27–90. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.518645
27. Kuhn, D., (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A., (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implication for science education. Driffield: Studies in Education.
29. Liao, V., & Fu, W. T., (2011). Effects of aging and individual differences on credibility judgment of online health information. In L., Carlson, C., Hoelscher, & T. F., Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 384–289). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
30. Liu, Z., (2004). Perceptions of credibility of scholarly information on the web. Information Processing and Management, 40, 1027–1038. doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(03)00064-5
31. Mayring, P., (2008). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis: Principles and techniques]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
32. Osborne, J., (2001). Science education for contemporary society: Problems, issues and dilemmas. In O., de Jong, E. R., Savelsbergh, & A., Albus (Eds.), Teaching for scientific literacy (pp. 15–25). Utrecht: CDb-Press.
33. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R., (2003). What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692–720. doi:10.1002/tea.10105
34. PISA. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
35. Rasch, B., Friese, M., Hofmann, W., & Naumann, E., (2006). Quantitative Methoden 2 [Quantitative methods 2]. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag.
36. Sillence, E., Briggs, P., Harris, P. R., & Fishwick, L., (2007). How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information? Social Science and Medicine, 64, 1853–1862. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.01.012
37. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J., (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235–260. doi: 10.1080/09500690500336957
38. Thoermer, C., & Sodian, B., (2002). Science undergraduates’ and graduates’ epistemologies of science: The notion of interpretive frameworks. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 263–283. doi:10.1016/S0732-118X(02)00009-0
39. 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, 187–211. doi:10.1002/sce.20480
40. Tsai, C.-C., & Liu, S. Y., (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemological views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1621–1638. doi:10.1080/09500690500206432
41. Upshur, R. E. G., (2000). Seven characteristics of medical evidence. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 6, 93–97. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.2000.00244.x
42. 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, 1060–1106. doi:10.3102/0002831209333183
43. Wirtz, M., & Caspar, F., (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität: Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriesystemen und Ratingskalen [Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: Methods to determine and improve the reliability of assessments with category systems and rating scales]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.