Understanding understanding: a model for the public learning of radioactivity

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 267-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Alsop

While much of the work in the public understanding of science has focused on the public's appreciation of science and their familiarity with key scientific concepts, understanding the processes involved in learning science has largely been ignored. This article documents a study of how particular members of the public learn about radiation and radioactivity, and proposes a model to describe their learning—the Informal Conceptual Change Model [ICCM]. ICCM is a multidimensional framework that incorporates three theoretical dimensions—the cognitive, conative, and affective. The paper documents each of these dimensions, and then illustrates the model by drawing upon data collected in a case study. The emphasis of the analysis is on understanding how the members of the public living in an area with high levels of background radiation learn about the science of this potential health threat. The summarizing comments examine the need for a greater awareness of the complexities of informal learning.

2011 ◽  
pp. 308-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Tan Wee Hin ◽  
R. Subramaniam

The opening of a virtual annex by science centers has given rise to a new genre of learning in Web-based education. Seeking to enhance the outreach effectiveness of nonformal science education initiatives among students and the public, these virtual science centers fulfill a useful role in promoting the public understanding of science. The example of the Singapore Science Center is used as a case study to explore the topic in significant depth. A commentary is also presented on some of the issues, controversies, and problems encountered in this new learning environment. Some possible solutions and recommendations are suggested in light of our experiences.


1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan G. Gross

In the public understanding of science, rhetoric has two distinct roles: it is both a theory capable of analysing public understanding and an activity capable of creating it. In its analytical role, rhetoric reveals two dominant models of public understanding: the deficit model and the contextual model. In the deficit model, rhetoric acts in the minor role of creating public understanding by accommodating the facts and methods of science to public needs and limitations. In the contextual model, rhetoric and rhetorical analysis play major roles. Rhetorical analysis provides an independent source of evidence to secure social scientific claims; in addition, it supplies the grounds for a rhetoric of reconstruction, one that reconstitutes the fact and facts of science in the public interest.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Kirby

Online content is changing the way the public accesses and understands science. The staggering number of often conflicting online sources about science makes it difficult for the lay public to know where to turn in search of accurate scientific information. This project will examine how the nature of online content might be affecting how the public learns about science. Through textual content analyses, it will examine the chain of communication (scientists→online media→public) and document how scientific information evolves. Okanagan Specialty Fruits’ Arctic apple, a genetically modified organism (GMO) that has had the polyphenol oxidase (PPO) gene silenced, will be used as a case study. Three primary themes guide my research: the public understanding of science (PUS), the communication of risk and uncertainty, and social epistemology. The primacy of the PUS movement in public venues for science makes it an important theory for my project, while theories of risk/uncertainty and social epistemology will inform my analysis. My results suggest that: 1) stories about science often include over and understatements of uncertainties and risks; 2) online media stories apply rhetorical frames when reporting scientific information, but the way in which framing is used appears to be reflective of whether the author wishes to persuade their audience; and 3) the rhetorical frames used by online stories about science are not typically integrated into the public’s commentary in a meaningful way, supporting the notion that audiences are active rather than passive and that the public seeks out content that complements their pre-existing beliefs.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Alperin ◽  
Charles J Gomez ◽  
Stefanie Haustein

The growing presence of research shared on social media, coupled with the increase in freely available research, invites us to ask whether scientific articles shared on platforms like Twitter diffuse beyond the academic community. We explore a new method for answering this question by identifying 11 articles from two open access biology journals that were shared on Twitter at least 50 times and by analyzing the follower network of users who tweeted each article. We find that diffusion patterns of scientific articles can take very different forms, even when the number of times they are tweeted is similar. Our small case study suggests that most articles are shared within single-connected communities with limited diffusion to the public. The proposed approach and indicators can serve those interested in the public understanding of science, science communication, or research evaluation to identify when research diffuses beyond insular communities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document