Evaluation of abilities in interpreting media reports of scientific research

Abstract

With development of ‘scientific literacy’ in mind, this study explored early secondary school pupils' written evaluations of media reports of contemporary science research in a classroom setting. Their abilities of evidence evaluation were contrasted with those of people with greater experience of science education-college science students and science graduates. The vast majority of each of these three groups distinguished between established facts and areas of uncertainty in media reports. A similar proportion of pupils and students (40%) showed logical but limited reasoning in recognizing the problems of extrapolating from insufficient evidence, with pupils perhaps aided by the pedagogical context. In contrast, 80% of science graduates reasoned logically invoking methodological limitations of the research evidence presented. There was little distinction between the nature and extent of pupils' and students' responses, except that only amongst pupils was personal experience invoked in reasoning. Results suggest that, at present, only through extensive experience of formal science education do skills of evidence evaluation develop fully. However, pupils and students exhibit the potential for abilities to be developed further through explicit teaching.