The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science
Abstract
Ninety‐one Grade 12 science students were asked to read five popular reports of science. The students were within 4 months of graduation, and all were taking at least one course of senior biology, chemistry, or physics. On average, the students had completed about four high school science courses. The reports were chosen from widely available published work appearing in newspapers, science magazines, and general interest magazines. The tasks given to students required them to interpret the pragmatic meaning of the reports, that is, the meaning of the reports in relation to the goals and intentions of the authors and the context set by the reports. The students interpreted statements in the reports with a bias towards truth ascription by attributing to the statements a higher degree of certainty than was expressed by the authors. Also, no more than one half of the students accurately understood the scientific status and role of statements when that understanding required contextualized interpretation on the basis of the relationships among statements in the reports. Implications for the development of scientific literacy follow from the fact that these students were top science students, yet they did not fully grasp the fundamentals of interpreting texts that are major sources of new scientific knowledge for most laypeople.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts
Searle, J. R. (1979) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609213 · Cited by 3,502
Grice, H. P. (1957) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2182440 · Cited by 2,824
Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.448 · Cited by 192
Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts
Myers, G. (1991) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/01638539109544772 · Cited by 146
Cited by
Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(200005)84:3<287::aid-sce1>3.0.co;2-a · Cited by 2,323
The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/095006999290570 · Cited by 619
Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research
Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690305018 · Cited by 566
Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy
Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.3660310915 · Cited by 265
Text genre as a factor in the formation of scientific literacy
Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2005) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20063 · Cited by 110
Metadata
- Authors
- Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-11
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 947-967
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2079150255
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 11.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/tea.3660310909
- The paper
- Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310909
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.