Cited by 282

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Public's Bounded Understanding of Science

Bromme, Rainer, Goldman, Susan R.·2014·Educational Psychologist

Abstract

This introduction to the special issue Understanding the Public Understanding of Science: Psychological Approaches discusses some of the challenges people face in understanding science. We focus on people's inevitably bounded understanding of science topics; research must address how people make decisions in science domains such as health and medicine without having the deep and extensive understanding that is characteristic of domain experts. The articles reflect two broad streams of research on the public understanding of science—the learning orientation that seeks to improve understanding through better instruction and the communications orientation that focuses on attitudes about science and trust in scientists. Challenges to understanding science include determining the relevance of information, the tentativeness of scientific truth, distinguishing between scientific and nonscientific issues, and determining what is true and what is false. Studying the public understanding of science can potentially contribute to psychological theories of thinking and reasoning in modern societies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00461520.2014.921572

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. 10.1002/sce.20432 · DOI
  2. 10.1177/0963662506070159 · DOI
  3. 10.1007/s11051-010-9860-2 · DOI
  4. 10.1177/0963662506071287 · DOI
  5. Besley J., 2014, National Science Board (Eds.), Science and engineering indicators 2014 (pp. 7-1–7-55).
  6. 10.2190/EC.41.1.c · DOI
  7. Britt M. A., Educational Psychologist, 49
  8. Bromme R., 2000, Practising interdisciplinarity, 115, 10.3138/9781442678729-008 · DOI
  9. 10.1080/21548455.2013.849017 · DOI
  10. 10.1093/ijpor/edl003 · DOI
  11. 10.1126/science.1232329 · DOI
  12. 10.1080/00461520.2011.587722 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Collins H. M., 1998, The golem: What you should know about science
  14. 10.1080/10410236.2013.831685 · DOI
  15. 10.1002/tea.20312 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/03057260208560187 · DOI
  17. 10.1002/sce.20414 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002 · DOI
  19. 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x · DOI · Paper page
  20. Goldman S. R., 2004, Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research, 317
  21. Goldman S. R., 2010, Bringing reading research to life, 257
  22. Goldman S. R., Reading at a crossroads? Disjunctures and continuities in current conceptions and practices
  23. Goldman S. R., 2002, The psychology of science text comprehension, 19
  24. 10.1002/RRQ.027 · DOI
  25. Goldman S. R., 2013, Reading: From words to multiple texts, 180
  26. 10.1007/s11412-013-9182-3 · DOI
  27. Hillocks G., 2011, Teaching argument writing, Grades 6–12: Supporting claims with relevant evidence and clear reasoning
  28. 10.1017/CBO9780511563737 · DOI
  29. 10.2307/3132137 · DOI
  30. Kahneman D., 2011, Thinking, fast and slow
  31. Keil F. C., 2008, Brooklyn Law Review, 73, 1035
  32. 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01108.x · DOI
  33. 10.1007/978-94-007-1793-0 · DOI
  34. Knorr-Cetina K., 1981, The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science
  35. 10.1002/sce.1011 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Layton D., 1993, Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education
  37. Maier M., Educational Psychologist, 49
  38. 10.1002/tea.21061 · DOI
  39. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States, 2013, Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states
  40. 10.3732/ajb.0900041 · DOI
  41. 10.3366/epi.2004.1.1.61 · DOI
  42. 10.1002/wcc.259 · DOI
  43. 10.1126/science.1232065 · DOI
  44. Powells J. D., 2011, The inquisition of climate science, 10.7312/powe15718 · DOI
  45. 10.1080/03057260108560166 · DOI
  46. Sandoval W. A., Educational Psychologist, 49
  47. 10.1080/0163853X.2013.813835 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.004 · DOI
  49. 10.1002/acp.3018 · DOI
  50. Schwan S., Educational Psychologist, 49
  51. 10.7282/T3RX9945 · DOI
  52. 10.2307/1884852 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Sinatra G. M., Educational Psychologist, 49
  54. 10.1080/07370008.2013.771106 · DOI
  55. Stadtler M., 2013, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 3448
  56. 10.1080/07370008.2013.769996 · DOI · Paper page
  57. 10.1080/0163853X.2013.855535 · DOI
  58. Taylor R. S., 2011, Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 282

Metadata

Authors
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R.
Venue
Educational Psychologist
Published
2014-04-03
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
59-69
ISSN
  • 0046-1520
  • 1532-6985
Cited by
282
References
4
Language
en

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