Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 147–166 | Cite as

Scientific media education in the classroom and beyond: a research agenda for the next decade

  • Grace Reid
  • Stephen P. Norris
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Scientific media education is the ability to draw on a knowledge of the media and science, in order to choose, understand, evaluate, and respond to representations of science across diverse media genres. We begin this manuscript by reviewing research that shows scientific media education is one of the most important content areas that could be taught in and out of the science classroom. We then set out to identify a research agenda that will help make scientific media education a key content area in both formal and informal science learning environments. In particular, we identified research avenues that will allow us to better understand: (1) limitations in current practices of scientific media education; (2) what scientific media education should look like in the future; and (3) ways we might overcome barriers to implementing a new and improved scientific media education.

Keywords

Science education Media education Media literacy Science media Educational research 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (1990). Scientific/technological literacy, critical reasoning, and classroom practice. In S. P. Norris & L. M. Phillips (Eds.), Foundations of literacy policy in Canada (pp. 127–145). Calgary: Detselig Enterprises Ltd.Google Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G., Orpwood, G., & Fensham, P. (2011). Scientific literacy for a knowledge society. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 28–44). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Alvermann, D. E., Moon, J. S., & Hagood, M. C. (1999). Popular culture in the classroom: Teaching and researching critical media literacy. Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  4. American Pregnancy Association. (2011). Smoking and your baby: Need help putting down that cigarette? Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/smoking.html.
  5. Benotsch, E., Kalichman, S., & Weinhardt, L. (2004). HIV-AIDS patients’ evaluation of health information on the Internet: The digital divide and vulnerability to fraudulent claims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 1004–1011. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernstein, L., Bosch, P., Canziani, O., Chen, Z., Christ, R., Davidson, O., … & Yohe, G. (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).Google Scholar
  7. Bodmer, W. (1985). The public understanding of science. London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
  8. Boykoff, M., & Boykoff, J. (2004). Balance as bias: Global alarming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125–136. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2010). Media use and perceptions of DNA evidence. Science Communication, 32, 93–117. doi: 10.1177/1075547009340343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brodie, M., Foehr, U., Rideout, V., Baer, N., Miller, C., Flournoy, R., & Altman, D. (2001). Communicating health information through the entertainment media. Health Affairs, 20, 192–199. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.20.1.192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooker, W., & Jermyn, D. (Eds.). (2003). The audience studies reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, J. (1998). Media literacy perspectives. Journal of Communication, 48, 44–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buckingham, D. (1998). Media education in the UK: Moving beyond protectionism. Journal of Communication, 48, 33–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02735.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, I. B. (1952). The education of the public in science. Impact of Science on Society, 3, 67–101.Google Scholar
  15. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K-12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.Google Scholar
  16. DiBella, S. M., Ferri, A. J., & Padderud, A. B. (1991). Scientists’ reasons for consenting to mass media interviews: A national survey. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 740–749. doi: 10.1177/107769909106800415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dixon, G. N., & Clarke, C. E. (2003). Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication, 35, 358–382. doi: 10.1177/1075547012458290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2000). Understanding evidence in investigations: The way to a more relevant curriculum. In J. Sears & P. Sorensen (Eds.), Issues in science teaching (pp. 60–69). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24, 661–679. doi: 10.1080/09500690110110133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Efthimiou, C. J., & Llewellyn, R. A. (2007). Cinema, Fermi problems and general education. Physics Education, 42, 253–261. doi: 10.1088/0031-9120/42/3/003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Emmerich, R. (Director). (2004). The day after tomorrow [Motion picture]. United States: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.Google Scholar
  22. Forces International. (n.d.). Smoking? Protection against neural tube defects? Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/neural.htm.
  23. Freudenrich, C. (2000). Sci-fi science: Using science fiction to set the context for science learning. The Science Teacher, 67, 42–45.Google Scholar
  24. Glasser, T. L. (1992). Objectivity and news bias. In E. D. Cohen (Ed.), Philosophical issues in journalism (pp. 176–183). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Greenwood, D. J., Whyte, W. F., & Harkavy, I. (1993). Participatory action research as a process and as a goal. Human Relations, 43, 175–192. doi: 10.1177/001872679304600203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J., & BeyLeveld, D. (1999). The media and public understanding of biotechnology: A survey of scientists and journalists. Science Communication, 20, 373–384. doi: 10.1177/1075547099020004002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language (pp. 128–138). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  28. Ho, S. S., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2011). Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes towards nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts. Science Communication, 33, 167–200. doi: 10.1177/1075547010380386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hobbs, R. (1998). The seven great debates in the media literacy movement. Journal of Communication, 48, 16–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02734.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hyams, P. (Producer & Director). (1984). 2010: The year we made contact [Motion picture]. Unites States: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.Google Scholar
  31. Inglis, F. (1990). Media theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Jarman, R., & McClune, B. (2002). A survey of the use of newspapers in science instruction by science teachers in Northern Ireland. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 997–1020. doi: 10.1080/09500690210095311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jarman, R., & McClune, B. (2007). Developing scientific literacy: Using news media in the classroom. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kachan, M., Guilbert, S., & Bisanz, G. (2006). Do teachers ask students to read news in secondary science?: Evidence from the Canadian context. Science Education Policy, 90, 496–521. doi: 10.1002/sce.20113.Google Scholar
  35. Kirby, D. A. (2003). Scientists on the set: Science consultants and the communication of science in visual fiction. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 261–278. doi: 10.1177/0963662503123005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kitzinger, J. (2004). Framing abuse: Media influence and understanding of sexual violence against children. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kubey, R. (1998). Obstacles to the development of media education in the United States. Journal of Communication, 48, 58–69. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02737.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leavis, F., & Thompson, D. (1933). Culture and environment: The training of critical awareness. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
  39. Lewis, J., & Jhally, S. (1998). The struggle over media literacy. Journal of Communication, 48, 109–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02741.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. The Communication Review, 7, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de França Doria, M., Haynes, K., & Vincent, K. (2006). Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 435–457. doi: 10.1177/0963662506063796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lutz, M. (1996). The identification of science content in STS teaching that are really essential. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Science/technology/society as reform in science education (pp. 219–226). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  43. Madha, O. (Director). (2008). Burn up [Television mini-series]. United Kingdom and Canada: British Broadcasting Corporation and Global Television Network.Google Scholar
  44. Maier, M., Rothmund, T., Retzbach, A., Otto, L., & Besley, J. C. (2014). Informal learning through science media usage. Educational Psychologist, 49, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2014.916215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Masterman, L. (1997). A rationale for media education. In R. Kubey (Ed.), Media literacy in the information age: Current perspectives (pp. 15–68). New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  46. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College London.Google Scholar
  47. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  48. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  49. National Science Board. (2012). [Chapter 7] Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. In National Science Board (Ed.), Science and engineering indicators (p. 7–51). Arlington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  50. Norris, S. P. (1997). Intellectual independence for nonscientists and other content-transcendent goals of science education. Science Education, 81, 239–258. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2<217:AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students’ interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 123–145. doi: 10.1177/09636625030122001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Osborne, J., & Collin, S. (2000). Pupils’ and parents’ views of the school science curriculum. London: King’s College London.Google Scholar
  53. Peters, H. P. (1995). The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: Co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media, Culture and Society, 17, 31–48. doi: 10.1177/016344395017001003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peterson, A., Anderson, A., Allan, S., & Wilkinson, C. (2009). Opening the black box: Scientists’ views on the role of news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 512–530. doi: 10.1177/0963662507084202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Polman, J. L., & Hope, J. M. G. (2014). Science news stories as boundary objects affecting engagement with science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 315–341. doi: 10.1002/tea.21144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reid, G. (2009). The climate change docudrama: Challenges in simultaneously entertaining and informing audiences. In T. Boyce & J. Lewis (Eds.), Climate change and the media (pp. 65–79). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  57. Reid, G. (2012). The television drama-documentary (dramadoc) as a form of science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 984–1001. doi: 10.1177/0963662511414982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659–667. doi: 10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stewart, C. N. (2003). Press before paper—When media and science collide. Nature Biotechnology, 21, 353–354. doi: 10.1038/nbt0403-353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. The National Telemedia Council. (1992). The National Telemedia Council. Telemedium [Currently The Journal of Media Literacy], 38, 12.Google Scholar
  61. Wiertelak, E. P. (2002). And the winner is: Inviting Hollywood into the neuroscience classroom. The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 1, A4–A17.Google Scholar
  62. Williams, R. (1961). The long revolution. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
  63. Wilson, K. M. (2000). Drought, debate, and uncertainty: Measuring reporters’ knowledge and ignorance about climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 1–13. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/9/1/301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Windschuttle, K. (1984). The media: A new analysis of the press, television, radio and advertising in Australia. Ringwood: Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  65. Zimmerman, C., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., Klein, J. S., & Klein, P. (2001). Science at the supermarket: A comparison of what appears in the popular press, experts’ advice to readers, and what students want to know. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 37–58. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department General Education, Faculty of Teaching and LearningMount Royal UniversityCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Department of Educational Policy Studies, Faculty of Education, Centre for Research in Youth, Science Teaching and Learning (CRYSTAL)University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options