Improve curling literacy: how can we improve science literacy?
Is encouraging science literacy more than telling people what they need to know? A discussion at #scio12 led by Marie-Claire Shanahan (@mcshanahan) and Catherine Anderson (@genegeek)
- From the wiki: The idea of scientific literacy is a sometimes maligned idea, one that too often focuses on which scientific ideas the public doesn’t understand. But what happens when we think about it differently? What if scientific literacy is a fluid concept that lets us consider the skills and contextual understandings that people need to really engage with science, in the media and in their everyday lives? What does this kind of literacy mean for online science? This session will explore the scientific literacy skills and understandings that help people understand and engage with complex scientific controversies where simple scientific facts are not enough (such as the recent neutrino results). It will also ask how writers and bloggers can engage and encourage those skills and understandings in their reading community and how science education and outreach efforts can reflect this view of scientific literacy.
- Marie-Claire Shanahan and Catherine Anderson start the discussion with a discussion of types of literacy. Marie-Claire shares some perspective about the development of science literacy.
Substituting science for curling: after reading a story on curling, do you become curlingly literate? bit.ly/x6Gxvt #scio12- Substituting science for curling: after reading a story on curling, do you become curlingly literate? bit.ly/x6Gxvt #scio12
- Someone encountering curling for the first time is like someone encountering the term neutrino for the first time.
- Audience reflects on the different readings about curling:Personal story about curling: Reads like any other sport-lovers story. It is full of jargon.Breaking research in curling? The uninformed reader is dropped at the forefront of curling research. As an audience member says, if you never heard of curling before this discussion of melt water is above your level of understanding.It was interesting to hear 'we thought x' about curling but now we think 'y'. Kate Clancy still doesn't know what curling is but thought it was interesting.The investment a person puts into a jargon-laden story affects literacy. Some readers will check Wikipedia to clear up confusing comments if they are interested. But that interest drives the level of literacy.Some readers appreciate posts about the process of science. For example, with the faster-than-light neutrino coverage there were some great coverage of the issue that science is an ongoing process. You didn't need to know about neutrinos to follow the process of science.
- Audience members state that the process or philosophy of science is important to communicate. How can we get people to think about how science acquires new facts?
