Abstract
Modern life requires individuals with little formal educational background in the sciences to daily make science and technology-based decisions, ranging from vaccinating one’s children and consuming genetically modified food to buying a house near a nuclear power plant. The main information source for many such decisions are contemporary media that have become the public’s primary reference concerning science and technology. Indeed, these media increasingly shape public engagement with science. This chapter addresses the role of new media in personal and civic decision-making. It argues that many of its characteristics – abundance of content, interactivity, mobility, and multimediality – act as a double-edged sword, providing enhanced affordance over traditional media, while rendering it more difficult for a non-expert audience to reach informed, science-related decisions. Higher and lower thinking skills are discussed as they pertain to the usage of new media while taking into account public deliberation and distributive justice concerns.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Note that this differs from our conventional understanding of interactivity in educational technology, referring to interface-mediated, two-way flow of information between user and technology.
- 2.
February 2017, using an incognito mode
Bibliography
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (abridged ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132.
Berends, I. E., & Van Lieshout, E. C. (2009). The effect of illustrations in arithmetic problem-solving: Effects of increased cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 345–353.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals (Vol. 1, 19th ed.). New York: David McKay.
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69.
Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110.(Supplement 3, 14096–14101.
Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40–41.
Campbell, F. A., Goldman, B. D., Boccia, M. L., & Skinner, M. (2004). The effect of format modifications and reading comprehension on recall of informed consent information by low-income parents: A comparison of print, video, and computer-based presentations. Patient Education and Counseling, 53(2), 205–216.
Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy blooms digitally. Tech & Learning, 1, 1–6.
Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091.
Georgas, H. (2014). Google vs. the library (part II): Student search patterns and behaviors when using Google and a federated search tool. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 14(4), 503–532.
Granka, L. A., Joachims, T., & Gay, G. (2004). Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW search. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (trans: Reg, W.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hannak, A., Sapiezynski, P., Molavi Kakhki, A., Krishnamurthy, B., Lazer, D., Mislove, A., & Wilson, C. (2013). Measuring personalization of web search. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.
Israeli Ministry of Science. (2017). Public perceptions and attitudes in Israel: Science, technology and space. Tel Aviv: GeoCatography for the Israeli Ministry of Science, Technology and Space.
Jansen, B. J., & Spink, A. (2006). How are we searching the World Wide Web? A comparison of nine search engine transaction logs. Information Processing & Management, 42(1), 248–263.
Jansen, B. J., Spink, A., & Saracevic, T. (2000). Real life, real users, and real needs: A study and analysis of user queries on the web. Information Processing & Management, 36(2), 207–227.
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226.
Ladwig, P., Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Shaw, B. (2010). Narrowing the nano discourse? Materials Today, 13(5), 52–54.
Laslo, E., Baram-Tsabari, A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2011). A growth medium for the message: Online science journalism affordances for exploring public discourse of science and ethics. Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 12(7), 847–870.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1–19.
Mejlgaard, N., Bloch, C., Degn, L., Nielsen, M. W., & Ravn, T. (2012). Locating science in society across Europe: Clusters and consequences. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 741–750.
Napoli, P. M., & Obar, J. A. (2014). The emerging mobile Internet underclass: A critique of mobile Internet access. The Information Society, 30(5), 323–334.
National Science Board. (2016). Science and engineering indicators.
NetMarketShare. (2017). Desktop search engine market share. Retrieved July, 2017, from https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=4&qpcustomd=0
Newhagen, J. E., & Rafaeli, S. (1996). Why communication researchers should study the Internet: A dialogue. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(4), 0–0.
OECD. (2015). Draft science framework.
Orr, D., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2018). Science and politics in the polio vaccination debate on facebook: A mixed-methods approach to public engagement in a science-based dialogue. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1500
Orr, D., Baram-Tsabari, A., & Landsman, K. (2016). Social media as a platform for health-related public debates and discussions: The Polio vaccine on Facebook. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 5(1), 34.
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. (2007). In google we trust: Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 801–823.
Peters, H. P., Dunwoody, S., Allgaier, J., Lo, Y. Y., & Brossard, D. (2014). Public communication of science 2.0. EMBO reports, e201438979.
Petersen, T. (2011). Lasswell’s problem and Hovland’s dilemma: Split-ballot experiments on the effects of potentially emotionalizing visual elements in media reports. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23, 251. edq051.
Pincus, H., Wojcieszak, M., & Boomgarden, H. (2017). Do multimedia matter? Cognitive and affective effects of embedded multimedia journalism. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(3), 747–771.
Rakedzon, R., Segev, E., Chapnik, N., Yosef, R., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators. PLoS One.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.
Rawls, J. (2001). In E. Kelly (Ed.), Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Salathé, M., & Khandelwal, S. (2011). Assessing vaccination sentiments with online social media: Implications for infectious disease dynamics and control. PLoS Computational Biology, 7(10), e1002199.
Schejter, A. M., & Tirosh, N. (2016). Media policy and theories of justice. In A justice-based approach for new media policy: In the paths of righteousness (pp. 51–59). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schejter, A. M., & Yemini, M. (2007). Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue: Network neutrality, the first amendment and John Rawls’s theory of justice. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 14, 137.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156.
Segev, E. (2010). Google and the digital divide: The bias of online knowledge. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing
Selin, C., Rawlings, K. C., de Ridder-Vignone, K., Sadowski, J., Altamirano Allende, C., Gano, G., et al. (2017). Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 634–649.
Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In S. M. McMurring (Ed.), Tanner lectures on human values (Vol. I, pp. 197–220). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sen, A. (1990). Justice: Means versus freedoms. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19(2), 111–121.
Sen, A. (2004). Elements of a theory of human rights. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32(4), 315–356.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Snow, C. E., & Dibner, K. A. (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. National Academies Press.
Wikipedia. (2017). Languages used on the Internet. Retrieved June, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_used_on_the_Internet
Wilson, R., Payne, M., & Smith, E. (2003). Does discussion enhance rationality? A report from transportation planning practice. Journal of the American Planning Society, 69(4), 354–367.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baram-Tsabari, A., Schejter, A.M. (2019). New Media: A Double-Edged Sword in Support of Public Engagement with Science. In: Kali, Y., Baram-Tsabari, A., Schejter, A.M. (eds) Learning In a Networked Society. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14610-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14610-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14609-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14610-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)