Advertisement

German Teachers’ Views on Promoting Scientific Media Literacy Using Advertising in the Science Classroom

  • Nadja BelovaEmail author
  • Ingo Eilks
Article

Abstract

A large part of the media landscape surrounding us consists of advertising. Therefore, skills for critically coping with advertising are indispensable. Students need to develop such skills for evaluating messages and facts from advertisements. They also need to learn about the mechanisms behind how advertisements are created and used to influence the public. Today, advertising for many products has a strong scientific component. However, learning with and about advertising does not play a prominent role in school science education. To date, advertising is almost exclusively discussed and evaluated within the humanities and social sciences, especially language education. The scientific components of advertising are not taken into account in these subjects. Engaged science teachers might prove to be the key to innovation when it comes to media education in the science classroom. This study explores both the opinions of German science teachers on the importance of scientific media literacy and their attitudes to implementing teaching units covering advertising in their science classes. Semistructured interviews with 12 secondary science teachers were conducted and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Two main types of teachers were identified, who have completely different views towards learning with and about advertising in science education.

Keywords

Advertising Media literacy Science education Socio-scientific issues Teachers 

References

  1. Alexander, J., Walsh, P., Jarman, R. & McClune, B. (2008). From rhetoric to reality: Advancing literacy by cross-curricular means. Curriculum Journal, 19(1), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belova, N. & Eilks, I. (2014). Promoting societal-oriented communication and decision making skills by learning about advertising in science education. Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4(1), 32–49.Google Scholar
  4. Biddle, B. J. & Anderson, D. S. (1986). Theory, methods, knowledge and research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 230–252). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Brucks, M., Armstrong, G. M. & Goldberg, M. E. (1988). Children’s use of cognitive defenses against television advertising: A cognitive response approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 471–482.Google Scholar
  6. Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity.Google Scholar
  7. Burrows, W. R. (1997). The great paper towel race. Science Activities, 34(3), 32–37.Google Scholar
  8. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Gräber & C. Bolte (Eds.), Scientific literacy—An international symposium (pp. 37–68). Kiel, Germany: IPN.Google Scholar
  9. Byrd-Bredbenner, C. (2002). Saturday morning children’s television advertising: A longitudinal content analysis. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 30, 382–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang Rundgren, S.-N. & Rundgren, C.-J. (2014). SSI pedagogic discourse: Embracing scientific media literacy and ESD to face the multimedia world. In I. Eilks, S. Markic & B. Ralle (Eds.), Science education research and education for sustainable development (pp. 157–168). Aachen, Germany: Shaker.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Constandinidou‐Semoglou, O. (2007). Early childhood education and adult‐oriented advertising discourse. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(3), 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, E. & Kirkpatrick, D. (2002). It’s all in the news: Critiquing evidence and claims. Science Scope, 25(5), 32–37.Google Scholar
  14. Eilks, I., Nielsen, J. A. & Hofstein, A. (2014). Learning about the role of science in public debate as an essential component of scientific literacy. In A. Tiberghien, C. Bruguière, P. Clément (Eds.), Topics and trends in current science education (pp. 85–100). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Elmose, S. & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Allgemeinbildung: Readiness for living in a risk society. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friestad, P. M. & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M. & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 971–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanuscin, D. (2002). Names and claims: Is it science or spin? Science Scope, 25(6), 36–38.Google Scholar
  19. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hobbs, R. (2003). Understanding teachers’ experiences with media literacy in the classroom. In B. Duncan & K. Tyner (Eds.), Visions/revisions: Moving forward with media education (pp. 100–108). Madison, WI: National Telemedia Council.Google Scholar
  21. Hofstein, A., Eilks, I. & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education: a pedagogical justification and the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1459–1483.Google Scholar
  22. Holbrook, J. & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jarman, R. & McClune, B. (2001). Use the news: A study of secondary teachers’ use of newspapers in the science classroom. Journal of Biological Education, 35(2), 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jarman, R. & McClune, B. (2002). A survey of the use of newspapers in science instruction by secondary teachers in Northern Ireland. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 997–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. John, D. R. (1999). Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kachan, M. R., Guilbert, S. M. & Bisanz, G. L. (2006). Do teachers ask students to read news in secondary science? Evidence from the Canadian Context Science Education, 90(3), 496–521.Google Scholar
  27. Kahn, S. (2005). Savvy consumers through science. Science and Children, 42(6), 30–34.Google Scholar
  28. Klafki, W. (2000). The significance of classical theories of Bildung for a contemporary concept of Allgemeinbildung. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 85–108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Klosterman, M. L., Sadler, T. D. & Brown, J. (2012). Science teachers’ use of mass media to address socio-scientific and sustainability issues. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. KMK. (2004). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie/Chemie/Physik für den Mittleren Bildungsabschluss [Educational Standards in Biology / Chemistry / Physics for the Middle education]. München, Germany: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
  31. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lauri, M. A., Borg, J., Günnel, T. & Gillum, R. (2010). Attitudes of a sample of English, Maltese and German teachers towards media education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, M.-K. & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science–technology–society teaching on students’ attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1315–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Livingstone, S. & Helsper, E. J. (2006). Does advertising literacy mediate the effects of advertising on children? A critical examination of two linked research literatures in relation to obesity and food choice. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 560–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marks, R., Otten, J. & Eilks, I. (2010). Writing news spots about chemistry – A way to promote students’ competencies in communication and evaluation. School Science Review, 92(339), 99–108.Google Scholar
  36. Marks, R., Stuckey, M., Belova, N. & Eilks, I. (2014). The societal dimension in German science education – From the tradition to selected cases and recent developments. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(4), 285–296.Google Scholar
  37. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2386. Accessed 17 Oct 2014.
  38. McClune, B. & Jarman, R. (2012). Encouraging and equipping students to engage critically with science in the news: What can we learn from the literature? Studies in Science Education, 48(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McSharry, G. & Jones, S. (2002). Television programming and advertisements: Help or hindrance to effective science education? International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 487–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D. & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29, 584–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy. Paris, France: Author.Google Scholar
  42. Palmer, E. L. & McDowell, C. N. (1979). Program/commercial separators in children’s television programming. Journal of Communication, 29(3), 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative sampling and research methods. London, England: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Pitrelli, N., Manzoli, F. & Montolli, B. (2006). Science in advertising: Uses and consumptions in the Italian press. Public Understanding of Science, 15(2), 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Poon, C., Toh, F. & Tan, A. (2010). Bees in the news: Connecting classroom science to real-life issues. Science Scope, 33(9), 64–67.Google Scholar
  46. Rajagopal, A. (2006). Brand excellence: Measuring the impact of advertising and brand personality on buying decisions. Measuring Business Excellence, 10(3), 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reeve, S. L. (2002). Beyond the textbook. Science Scope, 25(6), 4–6.Google Scholar
  48. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Rozendaal, E., Buijzen, M. & Valkenburg, P. M. (2009). Do children’s cognitive defenses reduce their desire for advertised products? Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 34(3), 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rozendaal, E., Buijzen, M. & Valkenburg, P. M. (2012). Think-aloud process superior to thought-listing in increasing children’s critical processing of advertising. Human Communication Research, 38(2), 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rundgren, C.-J., Chang-Rundgren, S.-N., Tseng, Y.-H., Lin, P.-L. & Chang, C.-Y. (2012). Are you SLiM?—Developing an instrument for civic scientific literacy measurement (SLiM) based on media coverage. Public Understanding of Science, 21(6), 759–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sjöström, J. (2013). Towards Bildung-oriented chemistry education. Science & Education, 22(7), 1873–1890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stolz, M., Witteck, T., Marks, R. & Eilks, I. (2013). Reflecting socio-scientific issues for Science education coming from the case of curriculum development on doping in chemistry education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(4), 361–370.Google Scholar
  54. Stuckey, M., Lippel, M. & Eilks, I. (2012). Sweet chemistry: Learning about natural and artificial sweetening substances and advertising in chemistry lessons. Chemistry in Action, 98, 36–43.Google Scholar
  55. Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R. & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
  56. Stuckey, M., Heering, P., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A. & Eilks, I. (2015). The philosophical works of Ludwik Fleck and their potential meaning for teaching and learning science. Science & Education, 24(3), 281–298.Google Scholar
  57. Swanborn, P. G. (1996). A common base for quality control criteria in quantitative and qualitative research. Quality and Quantity, 30(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomas, K. M., O’Bannon, B. W. & Bolton, N. (2013). Cell phones in the classroom: Teachers’ perspectives of inclusion, benefits and barriers. Computers in the Classroom, 30(4), 295–308.Google Scholar
  59. Timmerman, B. (2002). Keeping science current. Science Scope, 25(6), 12–15.Google Scholar
  60. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27(1), 75–84.Google Scholar
  61. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2011). Media and information literacy. Curriculum for teachers. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001929/192971e.pdf. Accessed 5 Oct 2014.
  62. Van Driel, J., Bulte, A. M. W. & Verloop, N. (2007). The relationships between teachers’ general beliefs about teaching and learning and their domain specific curricular beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 156–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Villani, S. (2001). Impact of media on children and adolescents: A 10-year review of the research. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(4), 392–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ware, S. A. (2001). Teaching chemistry from a societal perspective. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 73(7), 1209–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Chemistry, Institute of Science Education (IDN), Didactics of ChemistryUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations