This qualitative phenomenological study aims to investigate fourth and fifth graders’ uses of mass media (TV, newspapers, Internet, magazines) and to assess their various features as sources for science learning. The data were collected from 47 purposefully selected students through focus groups and were analyzed through qualitative analysis using uses and gratifications theory as a conceptual framework. The results indicated that students were active in choosing and utilizing media to meet their cognitive, affective, personal integrative, and social integrative needs. Furthermore accessibility, content, and presentation were the key factors in influencing students’ motivation of use of the media.
AlexanderD. (2000). The learning that lies between play and academics in after-school programs. Wellesley, MA: National Institute on Out-of-School Time. Retrieved from http://niost.org/pdf/learning_article.pdf
2.
BaykulY. (1990). To what extent the students’ attitudes towards mathematics and science subjects were changed in the Turkish schools in grades five through eleven, the factors which might have some significant relation with the student performance in student selection exam. Ankara, Turkey: OSYM.
3.
BellP.LewensteinB.ShouseA. W.FederM. A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
4.
BirkokM. C. (2008). Alternate media usage in education as a socialization tool: Movies. International Journal of Human Sciences, 5(2), 1-12.
5.
BlumlerJ.KatzE. (Eds.). (1974). The uses of mass communications. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA.CockingR. (1999). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
7.
BreakwellG. M.BeardsellS. (1992). Gender, parental, and peer influences upon science attitudes and activities. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 183-197.
8.
BrossardD.ShanahanJ. (2006). Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Science Communication, 28, 47-63.
9.
BrownE.CairnsP. (2004). A grounded investigation of game immersion. In CHI’04 extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1297-1300). Washington, DC: ACM. Retrieved from http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~pcairns/papers/Immersion.pdf
BubelaT.NisbetM. C.BorcheltR.BrungerF.CritchleyC.EinsiedelE.CaulfieldT. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27, 514-518.
12.
Bulus-KirikkayaE. (2011). Grade 4 to 8 primary school students’ attitudes towards science: Science enthusiasm. Educational Research and Reviews, 6, 374-382.
13.
ButlerB. (1995). Using www mosaic to support classroom-based education: An experience report. Interpersonal Computing and Technology Journal, 3, 17-52.
ClarkD. B. (2000). Evaluating media-enhancement and source authority on the internet: The knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 859-871.
16.
CreswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DenzinN. K. (2009). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
20.
DetjenJ. (1995). The media’s role in science education: The public is interested in news about science and the environment. BioScience, 45(Suppl.), 58-63.
21.
DierkingL. D. (2005). Lessons without limit: How free-choice learning is transforming science and technology education. História, Ciências, Saúde–Manguinhos, 12, 145-160.
ElsleyS.McMellonC. (2010). Starting young? Links between childhood and adult participation in culture and science—a literature review. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Government Social Research. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/314482/0099915.pdf
24.
FalconerL. (2013) Situated learning in virtual simulations: Researching the authentic dimension in virtual worlds. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 24, 285-300.
25.
FalkJ. H.DierkingL. D. (2010). The 95 percent solution. American Scientist, 98, 486-493.
FriedmanA. J.MappenE. F. (2011). SENCER-ISE: Establishing connections between formal and informal science educators to advance STEM learning through civic engagement. Retrieved from http://seceij.net/seceij/summer11/friedman_sencer.html
28.
GeertzC. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Basic Books.
29.
Gelmez-BurakgaziS. (2012). Connecting science communication to science education: A phenomenological inquiry into multimodal science information sources among 4th and 5th graders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
30.
GilbertJ. K. (Eds.). (2007). Visualization in science education. Dordtrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
31.
GilbertJ. K. (2008). Science communication: Towards a proper emphasis on the social aspects of science and technology. Alexandrıa Revista de Educação em Ciência e Tecnologia, 1(1), 3-25.
32.
GordonE. W.BrigdlallB. L.MeroeA. S. (2004). Supplementary education: The hidden curriculum of high academic achievement. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
33.
GregoryJ.MillerS. (2000). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. Cambridge, England: Basic Books.
34.
GrossL. (2003). The gay global village in cyberspace. In CouldryN.CurranJ. (Eds.), Contesting media power (pp. 259-272). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefiled.
35.
Hakverdi-CanM.DanaT. M. (2012). Exemplary science teachers’ use of technology. Tojet, 11(1), 94-112.
36.
HookN.BrakeM. (2010). Science in popular culture. In BrakeM.WeitkampE. (Eds.), Introducing science communication (pp. 29-51). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
HouserJ. (2011). Nursing research: Reading, using, and creating evidence. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Barlett.
39.
HummelC. K.FreelandM.CraftE.McKellipsP. (2011). Employing immersion theory as a public affairs instructional tool in frontier conflict regions. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18, 661-681.
40.
KatzE.GurevitchM.HaasH. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38, 164-181.
41.
KoerberA.McMichaelL. (2008). Qualitative sampling methods: A primer for technical communicators. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22, 454-473.
42.
LeeC.ScheufeleD. A. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 819-834.
43.
LincolnY.GubaE. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York, NY: Sage.
44.
MetzgerM. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2078-2091.
45.
MoustakasC. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
National Foundation for Educational Research. (2011). Exploring young people’s views on science education. London, England: Wellcome Trust.
47.
National Science Board. (2004). Science and engineering indicators: 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
48.
NelkinD. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
49.
O’DonohoeS. (1993). Advertising uses and gratifications. European Journal of Marketing, 28(8/9), 52-75.
50.
OsborneJ.CollinsS. (2000). Pupils’ and parents’ views of the school science curriculum: A study funded by the Wellcome Trust. London, England: King’s College London.
51.
OsborneJ.CollinsS.SimonS. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-1079.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
54.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
PellT.JarvisT. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of ages from five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 847-862.
56.
PiburnM. D.BakerD. R. (1993). If I were the teacher . . . Qualitative study of attitude towards science. Science Education, 77, 393-406.
SalomonG. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647-658.
59.
SenemogluN. (2001). Gelişim, öğrenme ve öğretim [Development, learning and teaching]. Ankara, Turkey: Gazi Kitabevi.
60.
TrenchB. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In ChengD.ClaessensM.GascoigneT.MetcalfeJ.SchieleB.ShiS. (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 119-135). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
61.
WeitkampE. (2010). Writing science. In BrakeM.WeitkampE. (Eds.), Introducing science communication: A practical guide (pp. 79-104). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
YildirimA.SimsekH. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (4th ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
