Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 167–182 | Cite as

Critical information literacy as core skill for lifelong STEM learning in the 21st century: reflections on the desirability and feasibility for widespread science media education

  • Martin Storksdieck
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Grace Reid and the late Stephen Norris argue in this issue the urgent need for widespread Science Media Education (SME) as an integral part of formal and informal science education. SME is to achieve two goals: First, allow learners to critically evaluate any media as a source for scientific information by understanding the socio-economic and socio-cultural context of how and why news and entertainment media are created, and secondly, utilize media as a legitimate and productive source for science education and science learning. While laudable, I will argue that SME as an integral part of STEM education is unrealistic, and offer instead that the broader concept of Information Literacy might be more easily achieved within the current strong movement to conceptualize STEM education via science and engineering practices and within the broad goals of strengthening learners’ 21st century skills.

Keywords

Science media education Information literacy Media literacy STEM learning 21st century skills 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barnett, M., & Kafka, A. (2007). Using science fiction movie scenes to support critical analysis of science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36, 31–35.Google Scholar
  2. Barriga, C. A., Shapiro, M. A., & Fernandez, M. L. (2010). Science information in fictional movies: Effects of context and gender. Science Communication, 32, 3–24. doi: 10.1177/1075547009340338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates, B. R. (2005). Public culture and public understanding of genetics: A focus group study. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 47–65. doi: 10.1177/0963662505048409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Besley, J. C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26, 347–367. doi: 10.1177/1075547005275443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2010). Media use and public perceptions of DNA evidence. Science Communication, 32, 93–117. doi: 10.1177/1075547009340343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bromme, R., & Thomm, E. (2015). Knowing who knows: Laypersons‘capabilities to judge experts‘pertinence for science topics. Cognitive Science,. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12252.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dal Cin, S., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2004). Narrative persuasion and overcoming resistance. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 175–191). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Dudo, A., Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D. A., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (2011). Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research, 38, 754–777. doi: 10.1177/0093650210384988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Falk, J. H., & Needham, M. D. (2013). Factors contributing to adult knowledge of science and technology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 431–452. doi: 10.1002/tea.21080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feldman, L., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2011). The science of satire: The daily show and the Colbert report as sources of public attention to science and the environment. In A. Amarasingam (Ed.), The Stewart/Colbert effect: Essays on the real impacts of fake news (pp. 25–46). Jefferson: McFarland and Company.Google Scholar
  12. Goldman, S. L. (1989). Images of technology in popular films: Discussion and filmography. Science, Technology and Human Values, 14, 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701–721. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hampp, C., & Schwan, S. (2014). The role of authentic objects in museums of the history of science and technology: Findings from a visitor study. International Journal of Science Education Part B: Communication and Public Engagement,. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2013.875238. Google Scholar
  15. Hardy, B. W., Gottfried, J. A., Winneg, K. M., & Jamieson, K. H. (2014). Stephen Colbert’s civics lesson: How Colbert Super PAC taught viewers about campaign finance. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 329–353. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2014.891138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hefter, M. H., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2014). Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions. Instructional Science, 42, 929–947. doi: 10.1007/s11251-014-9320-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kirby, D. A. (2008). Cinematic science: The public communication of science and technology in popular film. In B. Trench & M. Bucchi (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 67–94). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Ley, B. L., Jankowski, N., & Brewer, P. R. (2012). Investigating CSI: Portrayals of DNA testing on a forensic crime show and their potential effects. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 51–67. doi: 10.1177/0963662510367571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li, N., Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2014). Channeling science information seekers’ attention? A content analysis of top-ranked vs. lower-ranked sites in Google. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 562–575. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liang, X., Ho, S. S., Brossard, D., Xenos, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., Anderson, A. A., et al. (2015). Value predispositions as perceptual filters: Comparing of public attitudes toward nanotechnology in the United States and Singapore. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 582–600. doi: 10.1177/0963662513510858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marschall, J., Rahnke, M., Otto, L. & Maier, M. (2011). The representation of scientific evidence in German science TV shows and recipients’ understanding of science: Results from an online field experiment. Presentation at the 61st annual conference of the international communication association (ICA), Boston, USA.Google Scholar
  22. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  23. National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  25. National Research Council. (2012a). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  26. National Research Council. (2012b). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  27. National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council. (2014a). Developing assessments for the next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council. (2014b). STEM learning is everywhere: Summary of a convocation on building learning systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council. (2015a). Guide to implementing the next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. National Research Council. (2015b). Identifying and supporting productive STEM programs in out-of-school settings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nauroth, P., Gollwitzer, M., Bender, J., & Rothmund, T. (2014). Gamers against science: The case of the violent video games debate. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 104–116. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nauroth, P., Gollwitzer, M., Bender, J., & Rothmund, T. (2015). Social identity threat motivates science-discrediting online comments. PLoS One, 10, e0117476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nilsson, E., & Jakobsson, A. (2010). Simulated sustainable societies: Students’ reflections on creating future cities in computer games. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 33–55. doi: 10.1007/s10956-010-9232-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. doi: 10.1177/009365002236196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Perkowitz, S. (2007). Hollywood science: Movies, science, and the end of the world. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Retzbach, J., Retzbach, A., Maier, M., Otto, L., & Rahnke, M. (2013). Effects of repeated exposure to science TV shows on beliefs about scientific evidence and interest in science. Journal of Media Psychology, 25, 3–13. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. A Kaiser family foundation study. Accessed September 30 https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/8010.pdf.
  39. Sarewitz, D. (2010). Entertaining science. Nature, 466, 27. doi: 10.1038/466027a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 14040–14047. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213275110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shanahan, J., Morgan, M., & Stenbjerre, M. (1997). Green or brown? Television and the cultivation of environmental concern. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 41, 305–323. doi: 10.1080/08838159709364410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sjöberg, L., & Engelberg, E. (2010). Risk perception and movies: A study of availability as a factor in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 30, 95–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01335.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Storksdieck, M. (2015). Transforming undergraduate STEM education: Responding to opportunities, needs and pressures. In G. C. Weaver, W. D. Burgess, & A. L. Childress (Eds.), Transforming institutions: Undergraduate stem education for the 21st century. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2014). A question of credibility: Effects of source cues and recommendations on information selection on news sites and blogs. Communications—The European Journal of Communication Research, 39, 435–456. doi: 10.1515/commun-2014-0020.Google Scholar
  45. Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Appel, J., & Schielke, K. (2010). Information selection in the blogosphere: The effect of expertise, community rating, and age. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 802–807). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Research on Lifelong STEM LearningOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options