Scientific concepts and core ideas are fundamental for scientific inquiry and research. However, they are not always understood by non-scientists who encounter science in the media, conversations with friends, and other daily contexts. To assess how non-scientists reason with science in daily life, we extend the work described by Drummond and Fischhoff by developing an everyday scientific reasoning scale and demonstrating its ability to predict the use and application of daily scientific information. This article features three studies describing the development, validation, and use of the everyday scientific reasoning scale. Findings demonstrate an association between respondents’ scores on the everyday science reasoning scale and their level of education and suggest that using daily scenarios for framing science facilitates the process of understanding scientific concepts. These results have important implications for communicating science in society and engaging diverse populations with science.
Baram-TsabariALewensteinBV (2013) An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication35: 56–85.
2.
Barel-Ben DavidYGartyESBaram-TsabariA (2020) Can scientists fill the science journalism void? Online public engagement with science stories authored by scientists. PLoS ONE15(1): e0222250.
3.
BauerHH (1994) Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
4.
BauerMW (2009) The evolution of public understanding of Science-discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology and Society14(2): 221–240.
5.
BauerMWAllumNMillerS (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science16(1): 79–95.
6.
BenczeLPouliotCPedrettiESimonneauxLSimonneauxJZeidlerD (2020) SAQ, SSI and STSE education: Defending and extending “science-in-context.”Cultural Studies of Science Education15(3): 825–851.
7.
BrayBFranceBGilbertJK (2012) Identifying the essential elements of effective science communication: What do the experts say?International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement2(1): 23–41.
8.
BrossardDLewensteinBV (2009) A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science. In: KahlorLStoutP (eds) Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication. London: Routledge, pp. 11–39.
9.
BrownellSEPriceJVSteinmanL (2013) Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education12(1): E6–E10.
10.
BucchiMTrenchB (2014) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 2nd edn.London: Routledge.
11.
BurnsMMedveckyF (2018) The disengaged in science communication: How not to count audiences and publics. Public Understanding of Science27(2): 118–130.
12.
CappsDKCrawfordBA (2013) Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: Are they happening?Journal of Science Teacher Education24(3): 497–526.
13.
ČavojováVŠrolJBallová MikuškováE (2020) How scientific reasoning correlates with health-related beliefs and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic?Journal of Health Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320962266
14.
ClaussenSOsborneJ (2013) Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital and its implications for the science curriculum. Science Education97(1): 58–79.
15.
DiamantopoulosAWinklhoferHM (2001) Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research38(2): 269–277.
16.
DrummondCFischhoffB (2017) Development and validation of the Scientific Reasoning Scale. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making30(1): 26–38.
17.
FunkCGottfriedJMitchellA (2017) Science News and Information Today. Pew Research Center.
18.
GolumbicYNBaram-TsabariAFishbainB (2016) Increased knowledge and scientific thinking following participation of school students in air-quality research. In: Proceedings of Indoor Air 2016. Available at: https://www.isiaq.org/docs/Papers/Paper832.pdf
19.
GolumbicYNFishbainBBaram-TsabariA (2020) Science literacy in action: Understanding scientific data presented in a citizen science platform by non-expert adults. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement10(3): 232–247.
20.
HuLTBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
21.
HuxsterJKSlaterMHLeddingtonJLoPiccoloVBergmanJJonesM, et al. (2018) Understanding “understanding” in Public Understanding of Science. Public Understanding of Science27: 756–771.
22.
JasanoffS (2014) A mirror for science. Public Understanding of Science23(1): 21–26.
23.
KallerudERambergI (2002) The order of discourse in surveys of public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science11(3): 213–224.
24.
KindPOsborneJ (2017) Styles of scientific reasoning: A cultural rationale for science education?Science Education101(1): 8–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21251
25.
KlahrDDunbarK (1988) Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science12(1): 1–48.
26.
KuhnD (2002) What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In: GoswamiUC (ed.) Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell, pp. 371–393.
27.
LedenLHanssonLRedforsA (2017) From black and white to shades of grey. Science & Education26(5): 483–511.
28.
Ministry of Science (2018) Perceptions and attitudes of the Israeli public on science, technology and space. Tel Aviv: GeoCatography.
29.
MorrisBJCrokerSMasnickAMZimmermanC (2012) The emergence of scientific reasoning. In: KloosHMorrisBAmaralJ (eds) Current Topics in Children’s Learning and Cognition. London: InTech, pp. 61–82. https://doi.org/10.5772/53885
30.
MulderHAJLongneckerNDavisLS (2008) The state of science communication programs at universities around the world. Science Communication30(2): 277–287.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.17226/23595
33.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.17226/23674
34.
National Research Council (2012) A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
35.
National Science Board (2006) Science and Engineering Indicators. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation.
36.
National Science Board (2018) Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation.
37.
PasekJ (2018) It’s not my consensus: Motivated reasoning and the sources of scientific illiteracy. Public Understanding of Science27(7): 787–806.
38.
RobertsDABybeeRW (2014) Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In: LedermanNGAbellSK (eds) Handbook of Research on Science Education, Vol. II. London: Routledge, pp. 559–572.
39.
RoosJM (2014) Measuring science or religion? A measurement analysis of the National Science Foundation sponsored science literacy scale 2006–2010. Public Understanding of Science23(7): 797–813.
40.
RyderJ (2001) Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education36(1): 1–44.
41.
ShahPMichalAIbrahimARhodesRRodriguezF (2017) What makes everyday scientific reasoning so challenging? In: RossB (ed.) Psychology of Learning and Motivation—Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 66. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 251–299.
42.
SharonAJBaram-TsabariA (2020) “Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life?”Science Education104(5): 873–94.
43.
TalTDierkingLD (2014) Editorial learning science in everyday life. Journal of Research in Science Teaching51(3): 251–259.
44.
WoolleyJSDealAMGreenJHathenbruckFKurtzSAParkTKH, et al. (2018) Undergraduate students demonstrate common false scientific reasoning strategies. Thinking Skills and Creativity27: 101–113.
45.
ZeidlerDLSadlerTDApplebaumSCallahanBE (2009) Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching46(1): 74–101.
46.
ZimmermanC (2005) The development of scientific reasoning skills: what psychologists contribute to an understanding of elementary science learning. Final report to the National Research Concil.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
