Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Providing Undergraduates with Opportunities to Explicitly Reflect on How News Articles Promote the Public (Mis)understanding of Science

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A well-informed populace is vitally important for the proper functioning of democracy. Media news articles constitute an essential means by which the public comes into contact with scientific issues. However, not all of the scientific information presented in news articles is trustworthy or accurate. Naturally, the situation becomes more complicated because most university science departments spend little empirical effort considering how to foster undergraduates’ scientific media literacy (SML). This article discusses the effect of a teaching-learning sequence (TLS) in (1) providing undergraduates with opportunities to explicitly reflect on the ways in which news articles promote the public (mis)understanding of science and (2) engaging them in argumentative classroom interactions (such as debates). It examines the written and oral arguments produced by 115 undergraduates (62 females and 53 males, 17–23 years old) in Colombia during a complete TLS supervised by the same instructor. The data used in this analysis were collected from students’ written responses and audio recordings. The findings suggest that the TLS can be a good start to show undergraduates some of the different ways in which news articles promote the public (mis)understanding of science and, thus, enrich their SML. The study contributes to the development of a research-based university science education that can inform the design of the SML curriculum for higher education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amano, T., González-Varo, J. P., & Sutherland, W. J. (2016). Languages are still a major barrier to global science. PLoS Biology, 14(12), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R. (2015). Critical thinking and/or argumentation in higher education. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 49–62). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archila, P. A. (2015). Using history and philosophy of science to promote students’ argumentation. A teaching–learning sequence based on the discovery of oxygen. Science & Education, 24(9), 1201–1226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archila, P. A. (2017). Using drama to promote argumentation in science education: The case of “Should’ve”. Science & Education, 26(3–4), 345–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archila, P. A. (2018). Evaluating arguments from a play about ethics in science: A study with medical learners. Argumentation, 32(1), 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & Truscott de Mejía, A.-M. (2018a). Introducing undergraduates to the nature of science through the co-construction of evolutionary trees. Evidence from a university biology course. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9758-z.

  • Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & Truscott de Mejía, A.-M. (2018b). Using formative assessment to promote argumentation in a university bilingual science course. International Journal of Science Education, 40(13), 1669–1695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & Truscott de Mejía, A.-M. (2018c). Fostering bilingual scientific writing through a systematic and purposeful code-switching pedagogical strategy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1516189.

  • Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & Truscott de Mejía, A.-M. (2018d). Using bilingual written argumentation to promote undergraduates’ bilingual scientific literacy: Socrative® as an immersive participation tool. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1522293.

  • Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & Truscott de Mejía, A.-M. (2019). Promoting undergraduates’ awareness of the importance of thinking critically about false or inaccurate scientific information presented in news articles. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 16(13), 3106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & Truscott de Mejía, A.-M. (2020). Using historical scientific controversies to promote undergraduates’ argumentation. Science & Education, 29(3), 647–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. J. (2002). Argumentative interactions, discursive operations and learning to model in science. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model (pp. 303–324). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. J. (2009). Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 127–144). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedford, D. (2010). Agnotology as a teaching tool: Learning climate science by studying misinformation. Journal of Geography, 109(4), 159–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belova, N., & Eilks, I. (2016). German teachers’ views on promoting scientific media literacy using advertising in the science classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1233–1254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, R. B., Waldahl, R., & Breivik, J. (2008). Frame that gene: A tool for analysing and classifying the communication of genetics to the public. EMBO Reports, 9(10), 943–947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, R. B., Rødland, E. A., & Breivik, J. (2013). Quantitative frame analysis of how the gene concept is presented in tabloid and elite newspapers. Science Communication, 35(4), 449–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, R. B., Wiese, E. F., & Breivik, J. (2014). Frame analysis in science education: A classroom activity for promoting media literacy and learning about genetic causation. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 4(3), 211–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cebrián-Robles, D. (2019). Identificación de noticias falsas sobre ciencia y tecnología por estudiantes del grado de Primaria. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 55, 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: Shaker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cifras & Conceptos. (2019). Panel de opinión. La voz de las regiones. Bogotá: Torre Blanca A. G.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, J. (2019). Understanding and countering misinformation about climate change. In I. Chiluwa & S. Samoilenko (Eds.), Handbook of research on deception, fake news, and misinformation online (pp. 281–306). IGI-Global: Hershey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. (2015). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 31–47). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginosar, A., & Tal, T. (2018). Teaching journalistic texts in science classes: The importance of media literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(3), 205–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, C. J., & Tims, A. R. (1982). Sensationalism in science issues: A case study. Journalism Quarterly, 59(1), 126–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1001–1015). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K. (2017). Science teaching in university science departments. Science & Education, 26(3–4), 201–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S.-S. (2014). Science and non-science undergraduate students’ critical thinking and argumentation performance in reading a science news report. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1023–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClune, B. (2017). Committing curriculum time to science literacy: The benefits from science based media resources. The Journal of Emergent Science, 12, 25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClune, B., & Jarman, R. (2010). Critical reading of science-based news reports: Establishing a knowledge, skills and attitudes framework. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 727–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClune, B., & Jarman, R. (2011). From aspiration to action: A learning intentions model to promote critical engagement with science in the print-based media. Research in Science Education, 41(5), 691–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molek-Kozakowska, K. (2013). Towards a pragma-linguistic framework for the study of sensationalism in news headlines. Discourse & Communication, 7(2), 173–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molek-Kozakowska, K. (2017). Stylistic analysis of headlines in science journalism: A case study of New Scientist. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 894–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A. (2006). Bad science in the headlines. Who takes responsibility when science is distorted in the mass media? EMBO Reports, 7(12), 1193–1196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mysliwiec, T. H., Shibley Jr., I., & Dunbar, M. E. (2004). Using newspapers to facilitate learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(3), 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveras, B., Márquez, C., & Sanmartí, N. (2013). The use of newspaper articles as a tool to develop critical thinking in science classes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 885–905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveras, B., Márquez, C., & Sanmartí, N. (2014). Students’ attitudes to information in the press: Critical reading of a newspaper article with scientific content. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 603–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford English Dictionary (OED). (2020). Online version. www.oed.com. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psillos, D. (2015). Teaching and learning sequences. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 1035–1038). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psillos, D., & Kariotoglou, P. (2016). Theoretical issues related to designing and developing teaching-learning sequences. In D. Psillos & P. Kariotoglou (Eds.), Iterative design of teaching-learning sequences (pp. 11–34). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ransohoff, D. F., & Ransohoff, R. M. (2001). Sensationalism in the media: When scientists and journalists may be complicit collaborators. Effective Clinical Practice, 4(4), 185–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, D. N. (2016). The consequences of reading inaccurate information. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4), 281–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. (2007). Analysing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2015). Cognitive labs. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 167–171). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rush, S. C. (2019). Implementing a qualitative video and audio analysis study using the Transana platform: Applications for research in education settings. SAGE Research Methods Cases. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526484437.

  • Sampson, V., & Schleigh, S. (2013). Scientific argumentation in biology: 30 classroom activities. Arlington: National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Baker, M. J. (2017). Dialogue, argumentation, and education: History, theory, and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, N. A. (2015). Examining the nexus of science communication and science education: A content analysis of genetics news articles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 397–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thier, M. (2008). Media and science. Developing skepticism and critical thinking. Science Scope, 32(3), 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsfati, Y., Cohen, J., & Gunther, A. C. (2011). The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication, 33(2), 143–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyser, R. W., & Cerbin, W. J. (1991). Critical thinking exercises for introductory biology courses. BioScience, 41(1), 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C. (2017). Improving how universities teach science. Lessons from the science education initiative. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the participating students for their cooperation. This work was financially supported by the Vice-Presidency of Research and Creation, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vice-Presidency of Research and Creation, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia

    Pablo Antonio Archila & Silvia Restrepo

  2. Department of Biological Sciences, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia

    Jorge Molina

  3. Department of Design, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia

    Giovanna Danies

  4. School of Education, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia

    Anne-Marie Truscott de Mejía

Authors
  1. Pablo Antonio Archila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorge Molina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giovanna Danies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne-Marie Truscott de Mejía
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Silvia Restrepo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pablo Antonio Archila.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Excerpts from news articles

1.1 Excerpt One

Primary source: Nature—published in January 2014.

Stimulus-triggered fate conversion of somatic cells into pluripotency (Available at: nature.com/articles/nature12968).

Secondary source: New Scientist—published in February 2014.

Extraordinary stem cell method tested in human tissue (Available at: newscientist.com/article/dn25004-extraordinary-stem-cell-method-tested-in-human-tissue/).

1.2 Excerpt Two

Primary source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS)—published on March 2014

Thirty-thousand-year-old distant relative of giant icosahedral DNA viruses with a pandoravirus morphology (Available at: pnas.org/content/111/11/4274).

Secondary source: New Scientist—published on March 2014

Biggest-ever virus revived from Stone Age permafrost (Available at: newscientist.com/article/dn25151-biggest-ever-virus-revived-from-stone-age-permafrost/).

1.3 Excerpt Three

Primary source: The New York Times—published in August 2016

Venezuela was the first nation in the world to be certified by the World Health Organization for eradicating malaria in its most populated areas, beating the United States and other developed countries to that milestone in 1961 (Available at: nytimes.com/2016/08/15/world/venezuela-malaria-mines.html?_r=).

Secondary source: El Tiempo—published in August 2016

A news article published this week by the New York Times shows that watery pits of mines of the neighboring country [Venezuela] are breeding ground for the mosquito that spreads malaria […] An important piece of information that the newspaper reports is that according to the World Health Organization, Venezuela was the first nation in the world to be certified for eradicating this virus, beating the United States and other developed countries to that milestone in 1961 (Available at: newscientist.com/article/dn25151-biggest-ever-virus-revived-from-stone-age-permafrost/).

1.4 Excerpt Four

Primary source: Science—published in September 2016

The microbial evolution and growth arena (MEGA–plate consists of a rectangular acrylic dish, 120 × 60 cm, in which successive regions of black-colored agar containing different concentrations of antibiotics are overlaid by soft agar allowing bacterial motility (Available at: science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6304/1147).

Secondary source: El Tiempo—published in September.

Scientists at Harvard University (USA) presented a model that shows the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics designed to stop or eliminate them. For their experiment, published this Friday in Science, the researchers created a four-foot (122 centimeters) long, two-foot (61 centimeters) wide rectangular “Petri” dish with nine horizontal compartments (Available at: eltiempo.com/vida/ciencia/resistencia-bacteriana-a-los-antibioticos-29267).

Appendix 2. Questionnaire

1.1 Part One

  1. 1.

    In your opinion, is the scientific community responsible for the way news articles present scientific information?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

  2. 2.

    Why did you make that decision?

1.2 Part Two

Having read the primary and secondary sources of the four excerpts and the reasons to consider them as examples of false or inaccurate scientific information presented in news articles, answer the following questions.

  1. 3.

    In your opinion, how misleading is Excerpt 1? Explain why.

    1. a.

      Not at all.

    2. b.

      Not too much.

    3. c.

      Somewhat.

    4. d.

      Fairly.

    5. e.

      Very.

  2. 4.

    In your opinion, how misleading is Excerpt 2? Explain why.

    1. a.

      Not at all.

    2. b.

      Not too much.

    3. c.

      Somewhat.

    4. d.

      Fairly.

    5. e.

      Very.

  3. 5.

    In your opinion, how misleading is Excerpt 3? Explain why.

    1. a.

      Not at all.

    2. b.

      Not too much.

    3. c.

      Somewhat.

    4. d.

      Fairly.

    5. e.

      Very.

  4. 6.

    In your opinion, how misleading is Excerpt 4? Explain why.

    1. a.

      Not at all.

    2. b.

      Not too much.

    3. c.

      Somewhat.

    4. d.

      Fairly.

    5. e.

      Very.

  5. 7.

    In your opinion, is the scientific community responsible for the way news articles present scientific information?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

  6. 8.

    Why did you make that decision?

1.3 Part Three

  1. 9.

    In your opinion, is the scientific community responsible for the way news articles present scientific information?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

  2. 10.

    Why did you make that decision?

Appendix 3. Survey

  1. 1.

    Apart from the Biology of Organisms course, have you ever received instruction in scientific media literacy?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

  2. 2.

    Apart from the Biology of Organisms course, have you ever received instruction in argumentation?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

  3. 3.

    Apart from the Biology of Organisms course, have you ever received instruction in critical thinking?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

  4. 4.

    Were the four excerpts easily understandable for you?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

  5. 5.

    Did the reading aloud activity contribute to your understanding of the four excerpts?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

  6. 6.

    Were the reasons why the scientific information was considered false or inaccurate provided at the end of each excerpt useful for you? Explain why or why not.

  7. 7.

    Did you have sufficient time for reading?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

  8. 8.

    Was the small-group debate useful for you to make a decision? Explain why or why not.

  9. 9.

    Was the whole-class debate useful for you to make a decision? Explain why or why not.

  10. 10.

    How often do you have the opportunity to explicitly reflect on the ways news articles promote the public misunderstanding of science in other university courses?

    1. a.

      Very frequently.

    2. b.

      Fairly frequently.

    3. c.

      Infrequently.

    4. d.

      Never.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Archila, P.A., Molina, J., Danies, G. et al. Providing Undergraduates with Opportunities to Explicitly Reflect on How News Articles Promote the Public (Mis)understanding of Science. Sci & Educ 30, 267–291 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00175-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00175-x

Search

Navigation