The importance of models and modeling in science education is well‐recognized, yet there exists significant polysemy among these terms within the literature. This ambiguity often leads to confusion, particularly regarding whether modeling represents an expected student performance, an instructional strategy to promote such performance, or both. Moreover, the construction of models has been depicted as both the objective of modeling and a distinct phase within modeling‐based instruction. Additionally, the expression of models has often been overlooked despite its significance as a crucial modeling practice. In an endeavor to shed light into these complexities associated with modeling in science education, this paper pursues a twofold aim. First, it theoretically presents and justifies the Instruction Performance Modeling (IPM) cycle, drawing on numerous previous contributions to the field, as a practical and specific instructional tool designed to clarify some problematic concepts both regarding modeling instruction and modeling practice. Second, it provides empirical evidence regarding the type of modeling performance exhibited by students involved in instruction guided by the IPM. This study applies discourse analysis to the multimodal productions of preservice teachers attending a lab‐based workshop on the topic of flotation. The main findings reveal that students' modeling performance, while exhibiting certain patterns such as the Introductory pattern or the Evaluation‐Revision one, predominantly manifests as a disorganized sequence of modeling practices. This result is consistent with certain precedents in the modeling literature but contrasts with the expected outcomes of well‐established approaches like Generation‐Evaluation‐Modification. Furthermore, the study aims to highlight the rich, meaningful, and productive modeling practices occurring in instructional scenarios guided by the IPM cycle.
{"title":"The IPM cycle: An instructional tool for promoting students' engagement in modeling practices and construction of models","authors":"Anna Garrido, Digna Couso","doi":"10.1002/tea.21979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21979","url":null,"abstract":"The importance of models and modeling in science education is well‐recognized, yet there exists significant polysemy among these terms within the literature. This ambiguity often leads to confusion, particularly regarding whether modeling represents an expected student performance, an instructional strategy to promote such performance, or both. Moreover, the construction of models has been depicted as both the objective of modeling and a distinct phase within modeling‐based instruction. Additionally, the expression of models has often been overlooked despite its significance as a crucial modeling practice. In an endeavor to shed light into these complexities associated with modeling in science education, this paper pursues a twofold aim. First, it theoretically presents and justifies the Instruction Performance Modeling (IPM) cycle, drawing on numerous previous contributions to the field, as a practical and specific instructional tool designed to clarify some problematic concepts both regarding modeling instruction and modeling practice. Second, it provides empirical evidence regarding the type of modeling performance exhibited by students involved in instruction guided by the IPM. This study applies discourse analysis to the multimodal productions of preservice teachers attending a lab‐based workshop on the topic of flotation. The main findings reveal that students' modeling performance, while exhibiting certain patterns such as the Introductory pattern or the Evaluation‐Revision one, predominantly manifests as a disorganized sequence of modeling practices. This result is consistent with certain precedents in the modeling literature but contrasts with the expected outcomes of well‐established approaches like Generation‐Evaluation‐Modification. Furthermore, the study aims to highlight the rich, meaningful, and productive modeling practices occurring in instructional scenarios guided by the IPM cycle.","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142184669","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent research has highlighted the role of science education in reducing beliefs in science‐related misinformation and stressed its potential positive impact on decision‐making and behavior. This study implemented the Elaboration Likelihood Model to explore how individuals' abilities and motivation interact with the type of processing of scientific information in the peripheral vs. central persuasion routes. A representative sample of adults (N = 500) completed an online questionnaire during the second wave of COVID‐19 (November 2020) focused on two COVID‐19‐related dilemmas involving social distancing recommendations. First, we examined whether relying on misinformation was associated with participants' stances and the complexity of their arguments and found that relying on misinformation was associated with the intention to reject social distancing recommendations and with the use of simple arguments. Second, we explored how motivation, operationalized as personal relevance, and abilities, operationalized as the highest level of science education, science knowledge, and strategies to identify misinformation, were associated with viewpoints and justifications. We found that personal relevance was associated with the intention to reject the recommendations but also with more complex arguments, suggesting that people did not intend to reject scientific knowledge but rather tended to contextualize it. Abilities were not associated with stance but were positively correlated with argument complexity. Finally, we examined whether motivation and abilities are associated with relying on scientific misinformation when making science‐related decisions. Respondents with higher levels of science education and motivation relied less on misinformation, even if they did not necessarily intend to follow the health recommendations. This implies that motivation directs people to greater usage of the central processing route, resulting in more deliberative use of information. Science education, it appears, impacts the information evaluation decision‐making process more than its outcome.
{"title":"People who have more science education rely less on misinformation—Even if they do not necessarily follow the health recommendations","authors":"Yael Rozenblum, Keren Dalyot, Ayelet Baram‐Tsabari","doi":"10.1002/tea.21975","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21975","url":null,"abstract":"Recent research has highlighted the role of science education in reducing beliefs in science‐related misinformation and stressed its potential positive impact on decision‐making and behavior. This study implemented the Elaboration Likelihood Model to explore how individuals' abilities and motivation interact with the type of processing of scientific information in the peripheral vs. central persuasion routes. A representative sample of adults (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 500) completed an online questionnaire during the second wave of COVID‐19 (November 2020) focused on two COVID‐19‐related dilemmas involving social distancing recommendations. First, we examined whether relying on misinformation was associated with participants' stances and the complexity of their arguments and found that relying on misinformation was associated with the intention to reject social distancing recommendations and with the use of simple arguments. Second, we explored how motivation, operationalized as personal relevance, and abilities, operationalized as the highest level of science education, science knowledge, and strategies to identify misinformation, were associated with viewpoints and justifications. We found that personal relevance was associated with the intention to reject the recommendations but also with more complex arguments, suggesting that people did not intend to reject scientific knowledge but rather tended to contextualize it. Abilities were not associated with stance but were positively correlated with argument complexity. Finally, we examined whether motivation and abilities are associated with relying on scientific misinformation when making science‐related decisions. Respondents with higher levels of science education and motivation relied less on misinformation, even if they did not necessarily intend to follow the health recommendations. This implies that motivation directs people to greater usage of the central processing route, resulting in more deliberative use of information. Science education, it appears, impacts the information evaluation decision‐making process more than its outcome.","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142184666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Much research investigates why women do not participate in physics, or why female attrition in physics is high; this study focuses on elite female academic physicists and how they have persisted and succeeded in their fields. As opposed to researching reasons for attrition or not participating, this study focuses on six elite female academic physicists' strategies for flourishing in a male‐dominated field. Through semi‐structured life‐history interviews, the participants' narratives revealed their gendered identities to be hybrid: they all identified as female, but performed a particular kind of masculinity by actively embodying four of the same characteristics that normally deter females from participating in physics. This perspective is used to discover how these women, pioneers in their subfields, actively negotiated hostile environments and became successful. These findings give insight into the identities female physicists construct so that they can follow their passion; understanding why they made these choices provides an opportunity to make change in physics departments as well as the messages the science education community sends to young physicists.
{"title":"Being a physicist: Gendered identity negotiations on the pathways to becoming an elite female physicist in the United Kingdom","authors":"Jaimie Miller‐Friedmann, Judith Hillier, Nicola Wilkin","doi":"10.1002/tea.21980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21980","url":null,"abstract":"Much research investigates why women do not participate in physics, or why female attrition in physics is high; this study focuses on elite female academic physicists and how they have persisted and succeeded in their fields. As opposed to researching reasons for attrition or not participating, this study focuses on six elite female academic physicists' strategies for flourishing in a male‐dominated field. Through semi‐structured life‐history interviews, the participants' narratives revealed their gendered identities to be <jats:italic>hybrid</jats:italic>: they all identified as female, but performed a particular kind of masculinity by actively embodying four of the same characteristics that normally deter females from participating in physics. This perspective is used to discover how these women, pioneers in their subfields, actively negotiated hostile environments and became successful. These findings give insight into the identities female physicists construct so that they <jats:italic>can</jats:italic> follow their passion; understanding <jats:italic>why</jats:italic> they made these choices provides an opportunity to make change in physics departments as well as the messages the science education community sends to young physicists.","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142184672","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Elementary engineering, as an emergent or “contentious” practice, is fertile ground for cultural analysis. Contentious practice (Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2001). History in person: Enduring struggles, contentious practice, intimate identities. School of American Research Press) highlights how historically enduring narratives of science, engineering, schooling, and minoritized youth get taken up, figured, and refigured in local practice. The study's research questions were: What classroom cultural narratives of “good engineers” were important for fifth‐grade, minoritized children's engineering design work? How did local and macro‐level cultural narratives about science and engineering, elementary schooling, and minoritized students intersect? How were multi‐leveled cultural narratives consequential for children's engineering work? Using ethnographic methods, researchers analyzed videos, field notes, and interviews with 20 students and their teacher, focusing on engineering design discussion and activities. The authors identified two key narratives: good engineers (1) get along well with others and (2) use evidence to make design decisions. The banality of these narratives makes them ripe for deconstruction. By beginning with children's meanings of engineering competence and framing engineering as contentious practice, the authors: (1) identify the tensions in these seemingly innocuous narratives and practices; (2) illustrate children's creativity and labor in navigating tensions; (3) demonstrate the workings of macro‐level racialized, technocratic, and Western scientistic narratives and their reconfigurations in local practice; and (4) reject deficit‐based perspectives that would frame classroom struggles by assigning blame to the teacher or students. Recommendations for practice include normalizing disagreement, providing tools for joint decision‐making, broadening meanings of evidence, and co‐constructing meanings of kindness. A contentious practice lens highlights the ever‐presence of historicized narratives in local productions of practice and renders elementary engineering as an ongoing accomplishment, opening spaces of possibility less readily available to established practices of elementary schooling. However, without explicit attention to countering racialized narratives applied to minoritized youth in such settings, these spaces tighten up, limiting the potential for social change.
基础工程作为一种新兴或 "有争议 "的实践，是进行文化分析的沃土。有争议的实践（Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2001).亲历历史：持久的斗争、有争议的实践、亲密的身份。美国研究学院出版社）强调了历史上关于科学、工程学、学校教育和少数民族青年的持久叙事是如何在地方实践中被接受、演绎和重塑的。这项研究的问题是哪些关于 "优秀工程师 "的课堂文化叙事对五年级少数民族儿童的工程设计工作很重要？关于科学与工程、小学教育和少数民族学生的地方和宏观层面的文化叙事是如何交织在一起的？多层次的文化叙事对儿童的工程设计工作有何影响？研究人员采用人种学方法，分析了 20 名学生及其教师的视频、现场记录和访谈，重点关注工程设计讨论和活动。作者发现了两个关键叙事：优秀的工程师（1）与他人相处融洽；（2）使用证据做出设计决策。这些叙述的平庸性使其解构的时机已经成熟。作者从儿童对工程能力的理解入手，将工程作为一种有争议的实践：(1)确定这些看似无害的叙述和实践中的紧张关系；(2)说明儿童在驾驭紧张关系时的创造力和劳动；(3)展示宏观层面的种族化、技术官僚主义和西方科学主义叙述的运作及其在地方实践中的重新配置；(4)拒绝基于赤字的观点，因为这种观点会通过将责任归咎于教师或学生来构建课堂斗争。对实践的建议包括将分歧正常化、提供共同决策的工具、拓宽证据的含义以及共同构建仁慈的含义。有争议的实践视角凸显了历史化叙事在当地实践生产中的持续存在，并将小学工程学描述为一项持续的成就，为小学教育的既定实践开辟了不那么容易获得的可能性空间。然而，如果不明确注意反驳在这些环境中适用于少数民族青年的种族化叙事，这些空间就会紧缩，限制了社会变革的潜力。
{"title":"“Getting along” and “using evidence”: Elementary engineering as contentious practice","authors":"Heidi B. Carlone, Megan Lancaster","doi":"10.1002/tea.21976","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21976","url":null,"abstract":"Elementary engineering, as an emergent or “contentious” practice, is fertile ground for cultural analysis. Contentious practice (Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2001). <jats:italic>History in person</jats:italic>: <jats:italic>Enduring struggles</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>contentious practice</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>intimate identities</jats:italic>. School of American Research Press) highlights how historically enduring narratives of science, engineering, schooling, and minoritized youth get taken up, figured, and refigured in local practice. The study's research questions were: What classroom cultural narratives of “good engineers” were important for fifth‐grade, minoritized children's engineering design work? How did local and macro‐level cultural narratives about science and engineering, elementary schooling, and minoritized students intersect? How were multi‐leveled cultural narratives consequential for children's engineering work? Using ethnographic methods, researchers analyzed videos, field notes, and interviews with 20 students and their teacher, focusing on engineering design discussion and activities. The authors identified two key narratives: good engineers (1) get along well with others and (2) use evidence to make design decisions. The banality of these narratives makes them ripe for deconstruction. By beginning with children's meanings of engineering competence and framing engineering as contentious practice, the authors: (1) identify the tensions in these seemingly innocuous narratives and practices; (2) illustrate children's creativity and labor in navigating tensions; (3) demonstrate the workings of macro‐level racialized, technocratic, and Western scientistic narratives and their reconfigurations in local practice; and (4) reject deficit‐based perspectives that would frame classroom struggles by assigning blame to the teacher or students. Recommendations for practice include normalizing disagreement, providing tools for joint decision‐making, broadening meanings of evidence, and co‐constructing meanings of kindness. A contentious practice lens highlights the ever‐presence of historicized narratives in local productions of practice and renders elementary engineering as an ongoing accomplishment, opening spaces of possibility less readily available to established practices of elementary schooling. However, without explicit attention to countering racialized narratives applied to minoritized youth in such settings, these spaces tighten up, limiting the potential for social change.","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142224098","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"TRANSforming language use in science education through trans and queer studies","authors":"Ayça K. Fackler, Gary W. Wright","doi":"10.1002/tea.21981","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21981","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142184667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stefanie L. Marshall, Ain A. Grooms, Joshua Childs
Access to computer science education (CSEd) has greatly expanded in recent years. Starting with the Computer Science for All Initiative, launched in 2016 under President Obama, CSEd has expanded across the U.S. with over half of high schools offering at least one computer science course. Although there has been growth in computer science course offerings, disparities exist when it comes to ‘who’ enrolls in CSEd courses, and ‘where’ those courses are being offered. These disparities highlight that while funding and support for CSEd has increased, little is known about the capacity of states to operationalize (and implement) policies to achieve equitable CSEd. Furthermore, how recent changes at the federal and state level(s) are directly impacting minoritized populations' access, participation, and engagement in CSEd. This commentary focuses on the state‐level capacity to implement equity‐focused CSEd policies that can lead to improvements in student opportunities and outcomes. We argue that state CSEd leaders engage at the intersection of four areas: (1) growing state investment in CSEd, (2) increasingly polarizing political environments, (3) securing human and fiscal resources to implement CSEd policy with fidelity, and (4) supporting Culturally Responsive Computing that sustains equitable teaching and learning practices in schools and classrooms. This commentary also serves as a Call to Action for STEM education researchers to listen closely and carefully to the communities served by CSEd research, including students, families, and educators.
{"title":"Do we have the capacity? The policy imperative for equity‐focused K‐12 computer science education","authors":"Stefanie L. Marshall, Ain A. Grooms, Joshua Childs","doi":"10.1002/tea.21978","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21978","url":null,"abstract":"Access to computer science education (CSEd) has greatly expanded in recent years. Starting with the Computer Science for All Initiative, launched in 2016 under President Obama, CSEd has expanded across the U.S. with over half of high schools offering at least one computer science course. Although there has been growth in computer science course offerings, disparities exist when it comes to ‘who’ enrolls in CSEd courses, and ‘where’ those courses are being offered. These disparities highlight that while funding and support for CSEd has increased, little is known about the capacity of states to operationalize (and implement) policies to achieve equitable CSEd. Furthermore, how recent changes at the federal and state level(s) are directly impacting minoritized populations' access, participation, and engagement in CSEd. This commentary focuses on the state‐level capacity to implement equity‐focused CSEd policies that can lead to improvements in student opportunities and outcomes. We argue that state CSEd leaders engage at the intersection of four areas: (1) growing state investment in CSEd, (2) increasingly polarizing political environments, (3) securing human and fiscal resources to implement CSEd policy with fidelity, and (4) supporting Culturally Responsive Computing that sustains equitable teaching and learning practices in schools and classrooms. This commentary also serves as a Call to Action for STEM education researchers to listen closely and carefully to the communities served by CSEd research, including students, families, and educators.","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142184673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Madison R. Payne, Nicole D. LaDue, Daryl Dugas, Duangkamon Winitkun, Stephanie Schmidt
Persistence across undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs is exceptionally low. Recent studies have shown that social support and sense of belonging are particularly important for students who are historically underrepresented in STEM, yet few interventions have directly targeted or investigated these factors. This qualitative study investigates low‐income, high‐achieving undergraduate STEM students' perceptions of their belonging in the context of a 2‐year peer social support group intervention. Interview analysis of 11 participants demonstrates that these STEM students attribute their sense of belonging to feelings or displays of comfort, commonality, community, and concerted effort. The peer group facilitated increases in participants' social support and sense of belonging by allowing participants to build friendships, recognize shared experiences, connect to their campus, build confidence with peers, and feel supported in their non‐academic and academic struggles. Although the program's main objective was to build participants' sense of belonging, the social support provided through the peer group also acted as a mechanism for increasing information‐related social capital. We recommend the implementation of similar non‐academic, supportive social spaces to increase the sense of belonging and overall persistence of low‐income STEM students.
{"title":"“I feel listened to and heard”: How social support fosters a sense of belonging for low‐income STEM majors","authors":"Madison R. Payne, Nicole D. LaDue, Daryl Dugas, Duangkamon Winitkun, Stephanie Schmidt","doi":"10.1002/tea.21977","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21977","url":null,"abstract":"Persistence across undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs is exceptionally low. Recent studies have shown that social support and sense of belonging are particularly important for students who are historically underrepresented in STEM, yet few interventions have directly targeted or investigated these factors. This qualitative study investigates low‐income, high‐achieving undergraduate STEM students' perceptions of their belonging in the context of a 2‐year peer social support group intervention. Interview analysis of 11 participants demonstrates that these STEM students attribute their sense of belonging to feelings or displays of comfort, commonality, community, and concerted effort. The peer group facilitated increases in participants' social support and sense of belonging by allowing participants to build friendships, recognize shared experiences, connect to their campus, build confidence with peers, and feel supported in their non‐academic and academic struggles. Although the program's main objective was to build participants' sense of belonging, the social support provided through the peer group also acted as a mechanism for increasing information‐related social capital. We recommend the implementation of similar non‐academic, supportive social spaces to increase the sense of belonging and overall persistence of low‐income STEM students.","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142184668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Soraya Kresin, Kerstin Kremer, Andreas Nehring, Alexander Georg Büssing
The rise of social media platforms and subsequent lack of traditional gatekeeping mechanisms have enabled the proliferation of scientific disinformation. Users attempting to properly evaluate scientific information and disinformation are immensely obstructed by media communication mechanisms such as filter bubbles and echo chambers. Given the recent approaches to reconceptualizing the nature of science represented by facets of media communication mechanisms, we report results from seven focus groups of 26 tenth‐grade students (M = 15 years; 58% female, 38% male, 4% nonbinary) investigating such mechanisms as applied to climate change content on social media. Using qualitative content analysis, we identified the students' awareness and conceptions of mechanisms such as filter bubbles and echo chambers on a continuum between rather simple and elaborate. The findings suggest that the students have a general awareness of most mechanisms based on their own experiences and describe additional media communication mechanisms, such as bots, microtargeting, and, particularly, algorithms, which appear specifically relevant in dealing with scientific disinformation on social media. Based on the results, we derive a set of needs for science educational learning materials and science media literacy to prepare students to tackle scientific disinformation on social media.
{"title":"Students' awareness and conceptions of science‐related communication mechanisms on social media","authors":"Soraya Kresin, Kerstin Kremer, Andreas Nehring, Alexander Georg Büssing","doi":"10.1002/tea.21973","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21973","url":null,"abstract":"The rise of social media platforms and subsequent lack of traditional gatekeeping mechanisms have enabled the proliferation of scientific disinformation. Users attempting to properly evaluate scientific information and disinformation are immensely obstructed by media communication mechanisms such as filter bubbles and echo chambers. Given the recent approaches to reconceptualizing the nature of science represented by facets of media communication mechanisms, we report results from seven focus groups of 26 tenth‐grade students (M = 15 years; 58% female, 38% male, 4% nonbinary) investigating such mechanisms as applied to climate change content on social media. Using qualitative content analysis, we identified the students' awareness and conceptions of mechanisms such as filter bubbles and echo chambers on a continuum between rather simple and elaborate. The findings suggest that the students have a general awareness of most mechanisms based on their own experiences and describe additional media communication mechanisms, such as bots, microtargeting, and, particularly, algorithms, which appear specifically relevant in dealing with scientific disinformation on social media. Based on the results, we derive a set of needs for science educational learning materials and science media literacy to prepare students to tackle scientific disinformation on social media.","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141870404","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Students frequently turn to the internet for information about a range of scientific issues. However, they can find it challenging to evaluate the credibility of the information they find, which may increase their susceptibility to mis‐ and disinformation. This exploratory study reports findings from an instructional intervention designed to teach high school students to engage in scientific online reasoning (SOR), a set of competencies for evaluating sources of scientific information on the internet. Forty‐three ninth grade students participated in eleven instructional activities. They completed pre and post constructed response tasks designed to assess three constructs: evaluating conflicts of interest, relevant scientific expertise, and alignment with scientific consensus. A subset of students (n = 6) also completed pre and post think‐aloud tasks where they evaluated websites of varying credibility. Students' written responses and screen‐capture recordings were scored, coded, and analyzed using a mixed‐methods approach. Findings from the study demonstrate that after the intervention: (1) students' assessment scores improved significantly on all three tasks, (2) students improved in their ability to distinguish between sources of online scientific information of varying credibility, and (3) more students used online reasoning strategies and outside sources of information. Areas for student growth are also identified, such as improving coordinated use of credibility criteria with online reasoning strategies. These results suggest that teaching criteria for the credibility of scientific information, along with online reasoning strategies, has the potential to help students evaluate scientific information encountered on the internet.
{"title":"Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning","authors":"Daniel R. Pimentel","doi":"10.1002/tea.21974","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21974","url":null,"abstract":"Students frequently turn to the internet for information about a range of scientific issues. However, they can find it challenging to evaluate the credibility of the information they find, which may increase their susceptibility to mis‐ and disinformation. This exploratory study reports findings from an instructional intervention designed to teach high school students to engage in <jats:italic>scientific online reasoning</jats:italic> (SOR), a set of competencies for evaluating sources of scientific information on the internet. Forty‐three ninth grade students participated in eleven instructional activities. They completed pre and post constructed response tasks designed to assess three constructs: evaluating conflicts of interest, relevant scientific expertise, and alignment with scientific consensus. A subset of students (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 6) also completed pre and post think‐aloud tasks where they evaluated websites of varying credibility. Students' written responses and screen‐capture recordings were scored, coded, and analyzed using a mixed‐methods approach. Findings from the study demonstrate that after the intervention: (1) students' assessment scores improved significantly on all three tasks, (2) students improved in their ability to distinguish between sources of online scientific information of varying credibility, and (3) more students used online reasoning strategies and outside sources of information. Areas for student growth are also identified, such as improving coordinated use of credibility criteria with online reasoning strategies. These results suggest that teaching criteria for the credibility of scientific information, along with online reasoning strategies, has the potential to help students evaluate scientific information encountered on the internet.","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141774544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jerrid Kruse, Sarah Voss, Jaclyn Easter, Isaiah Kent‐Schneider, Lucas Menke, David Owens, Kean Roberts, Lindsay Woodward
The goals of science education must be sufficiently broad to support learners navigating changing scientific, social, and media landscapes. This position paper builds upon existing scholarship to articulate a set of constructs useful for navigating the modern information landscape including constructs with a long history in science education (e.g., science content knowledge, science practices, nature of science) as well as those still relatively uncommon in science education (e.g., domain‐general epistemological beliefs, science disciplinary literacy, socioscientific reasoning, science media literacy, nature of technology, and critical consciousness). The paper first defines each construct, discusses how each construct supports navigating the modern information landscape, and explores research concerning the teaching and learning of each construct. Then, in the section “Application of Constructs to the Modern Information Landscape”, the paper succinctly explains how the constructs collectively combat particular struggles people may encounter. In addition to defining and articulating the constructs' utility, we explore strategies educators can use to integrate these constructs into their science teaching. Finally, we discuss implications for teaching, teacher education, and future research.
{"title":"Preparing students for the modern information landscape and navigating science–technology–society issues","authors":"Jerrid Kruse, Sarah Voss, Jaclyn Easter, Isaiah Kent‐Schneider, Lucas Menke, David Owens, Kean Roberts, Lindsay Woodward","doi":"10.1002/tea.21972","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21972","url":null,"abstract":"The goals of science education must be sufficiently broad to support learners navigating changing scientific, social, and media landscapes. This position paper builds upon existing scholarship to articulate a set of constructs useful for navigating the modern information landscape including constructs with a long history in science education (e.g., science content knowledge, science practices, nature of science) as well as those still relatively uncommon in science education (e.g., domain‐general epistemological beliefs, science disciplinary literacy, socioscientific reasoning, science media literacy, nature of technology, and critical consciousness). The paper first defines each construct, discusses how each construct supports navigating the modern information landscape, and explores research concerning the teaching and learning of each construct. Then, in the section “Application of Constructs to the Modern Information Landscape”, the paper succinctly explains how the constructs collectively combat particular struggles people may encounter. In addition to defining and articulating the constructs' utility, we explore strategies educators can use to integrate these constructs into their science teaching. Finally, we discuss implications for teaching, teacher education, and future research.","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141739955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：