The Public's Bounded Understanding of Science

REFERENCES

• Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 518–542. doi: 10.1002/sce.20432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40–41. doi:10.1126/science.1232329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, H. M. & Pinch, T. (1998). The golem: What you should know about science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cummings, L. (2014). The “trust” heuristic: Arguments from authority in public health. Health Communication, pp. 1–14. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2013.831685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. doi:10.1080/03057260208560187
   Google Scholar
• Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95, 168–185. doi:10.1002/sce.20414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillocks, G. (2011). Teaching argument writing, Grades 6–12: Supporting claims with relevant evidence and clear reasoning. New York, NY: Heineman.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93, 1449–1475. doi:10.2307/3132137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Keil, F. C. (2008). Getting to the truth: Grounding incomplete knowledge. Brooklyn Law Review, 73, 1035–1052.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keil, F. C. (2010). The feasibility of folk science. Cognitive Science, 34, 826–862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. New York, NY: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, M., Rothmund, T., Retzbach, A., Otto, L. & Besley, J. (this issue). Informal learning through science media usage. Educational Psychologist, 49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Origgi, G. (2004). Is trust an epistemological notion? Episteme, 1, 61–72. doi:10.3366/epi.2004.1.1.61
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellegrino, J. (2013). Proficiency in science. Assessment challenges and opportunities. Science, 340, 320–323. doi:10.1126/science.1232065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powells, J. D. (2011). The inquisition of climate science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44. doi:10.1080/03057260108560166
   Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A., Sodian, B., Koerber, S., & Wong, J. (this issue). Developing children's early competencies to engage with science. Educational Psychologist, 49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioural model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 69, 99–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25, 359–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Multiple document comprehension: An approach to public understanding of science. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 122–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, R. S., & Ferrari, M., (2011). Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar