SEARCH UMSL Maps | Phonebook | A-Z | Calendar |
UMSL ADMISSIONS MY GATEWAY LIBRARIES CONTINUING EDUCATION FACULTY LIST Exchange

Science Literacy through Science Journalism
 

Draft Standards for Science Literacy


The following standards were generated by the SciJourn Research Group and are a work in progress.  They arise from discussions with science journalists and editors and our work with high school students. The standards focus primarily on content writing, emphasizing our notions of science literacy.  Click on the standards and examples from professional writers and trained student journalists, along with how editors query for these elements, will appear. Comments on the standards are welcome newmanal@umsl.edu. However, please do not reproduce, distribute or link to without permission.


The Standard

An Elaboration on the Standard

Articles are based on Multiple Sources

 

Sources are relevant and reliable.

 

When appropriate, various stakeholders are consulted.
 

   The goal of this standard is to recognize that science is an ongoing discussion and that various opinions or views help inform the research process. A more sophisticated analysis would lead a student to realize that even credible sources have certain biases or problems, which is another reason to favor multiple sources.

   It is important for students to understand the limitations of information. For example, quoting U.S. data from the Centers for Disease Control for a story on AIDS in Africa may not be as relevant as information from the World Health Organization.

   Some science stories naturally lead to questions of how “other” communities and society as a whole are affected. For example, a story on a new medical treatment could quote someone affected by the disease. A new technology to eliminate mercury from coal might include a comment from an industry representative. This underscores the connection between science and society.

ArrowExamples of Mulitple Sources

ArrowExamples of Relevant and Reliable

ArrowExamples of Various Stakeholders

Sources are Credible and Attributed
Except for accepted facts, ideas and theories, all assertions, numbers, details and opinions are attributed.

 

 

 

The names of the experts/organizations are given and their area of expertise/qualification is identified. Any biases or potential conflicts of interest are noted.

Copyright rules are followed and relevant URLs are given.

 

  For students used to textbooks and teacher lectures, this may be the greatest challenge. Any information that could be seen as new, not widely known, an opinion, or controversial should be attributed in some way. Attribution prevents the author from making blanket or false statements, especially by quoting credible sources. Attribution recognizes that information has a source (who may have a certain agenda), provides a pathway for the reader to verify and expand on something in the story (just as science journal articles must provide sufficient information to replicate the experiments), and establishes a historical record for where an opinion or concept started. Less formal than a reference, attribution includes individual names or organizations, websites, newspapers/TV shows, reports, and press releases. Attribution is particularly important because of the “talk radio” or the “high school social network” model of repeating “facts” that are never sourced.

 

   These details offers help the reader form an opinion on whether the information is trustworthy. In some cases, it may mean understanding who supports the work of a researcher or organization. It also imposes a discipline on the student to pay attention to details such as who supports certain types of work.

 

 

Following copyright rules protects the publisher from unwanted fees or legal action; URLs provide the reader with a source for more information.

ArrowExamples of Credible and Attributed

ArrowExamples of Identifying Experts/Organizations

Scientific information is Contextualized
The new discovery/technology is put into a broader context.

 

The import of the information is understood and sufficiently detailed; the article indicates which data/ideas are widely accepted and which are preliminary. [The article sensibly weights the import of findings and, where appropriate, uses qualified rather than declarative language.

   Brings a greater understanding to the story.

   A description of the broader context helps the author and the reader understand why they should care about the discovery/technology and why researchers are interested in the topic. It underscores the interconnection of science and society and the cumulative nature of scientific research.

 

   This asks students to understand the nature, limits and risks of a discovery,  emerging concept or technology. The reader also benefits because this goal helps determine the trustworthiness of the information and its importance. Does the new knowledge significantly change how experts view the topic or does it confirm what is known and believed? Researchers typically qualify their findings; reporters should do the same to reflect the uncertainty. Preliminary knowledge carries the risk of being wrong or unsuccessful in the long run. On the other hand, good science writers understand which ideas carry greater scientific weight and therefore are less likely to be drawn off into futile debates that are more social, political, or ideological in nature, such as whether global warming is real or intelligent design is a theory.

 

ArrowExamples of Contextualizing Information.

ArrowExamples of Import of the Information and Providing Sufficient Detail

Scientific information is Relevant to Readers
Reported findings are linked to local concerns and new applications are considered.

The lede (lead) and important information are forefronted and less important details placed lower in the story.

Readers’ implied questions are recognized and answered.

   Reporters have a duty to speak to their audience, whether it is fellow students or the teacher. It also underscores that science and technology affects each of us personally.

 

 

   This is an important element of journalism’s inverted triangle structure, but it also require the student to determine  the gist of the story, what details are most important and which facts help flesh out the story.

 

 
 Reporters’ questions should be critical and reflect those of the readers.

ArrowExamples of Relevant to Readers

ArrowExamples of Forefronting Important Information in the Lede

ArrowExamples of Answering Readers’ Implied Questions

Details are Factually Accurate and Answers the 5 W’s.
The article shows an understanding of the content and is able to explain concepts and information, including the experimental process.

Precise language is employed and scientific terms are used appropriately.

 

Quantitative measures are given in correct and comparable units.

 

The latest information is presented

   Students must pay attention to details, including ensuring the science is right and names are spelled correctly. The who, what, were, when and why should be present.

   The writer must appreciate the scientific process. In the long run, the new discovery or technology may be incorrect or fail (e.g,,cold fusion), but the initial reporting should be as accurate as possible. Depending on the story’s audience, the student author should provide sufficient information so that the reader understands the discovery and how scientists arrived at the finding. This requires the student to understand and digest the technical elements of the story.

   The author’s challenge is to explain scientific ideas simply without changing the science.  Consider the problem of astronauts “floating” in space vs. living in a low gravity environment. Or not differentiating between diabetes type I and type II. 

Nearly every story has a number—a percentage, cost, patients tested, etc. It is an important element of science practice. Quantitative measures can be given as analogies.

   Reporters strive to “break a story” or to be the first to analyze events. Students lack the resources to be first, but they should determine that their information and the issues are up-to-date. No one wants to promote a medical treatment that has been discarded. This encourages students to look at publication/announcement dates as a means to determine timeliness. 

ArrowExamples of Providing Factually Accurate Information and Answering the 5 W’s

ArrowExamples of Understanding the Content and Explaining Concepts and Information

ArrowExamples of Precise Language and Using Scientific Terms Appropriately

ArrowExamples of Quantitative Measures

ArrowExamples of Presenting the Latest Information

 

 

NSF Logo
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL-0822354.

UM-St. LouisCollege of Education
DIVERSITY, COMMUNITY, EXCELLENCE


Copyright(c) University of Missouri - St. Louis • One University Blvd. • St. Louis, MO 63121-4400