The science of citizen science: a systematic literature review on educational and scientific outcomes

Citizen Science is an ever-growing field of public engagement with science, and recent years have seen an increasing number of studies examining its potential. This study reviews this research to determine the educational and scientific outcomes of Citizen Science. A literature search produced 1,240 articles that were subsequently coded according to their main focus. Articles fell into one of three main categories: (a) empirical scientific articles, (b) narrative project descriptions, and (c) theoretical and technical conceptualizations. Hundred and forty-eight studies investigated educational outcomes of participation in Citizen Science such as effects on interest in science or motivation. These studies were examined further to assess the achievement of educational outcomes of Citizen Science. In terms of changing epistemological beliefs, for example, Citizen Science seems to have little effect. Overall, there is currently a lack of empirical studies to assess the educational outcomes comprehensively. In contrast, many empirical scientific articles answered research questions in different scientific disciplines based on Citizen Science data and many studies confirmed a high level of Citizen Science data quality providing information on the scientific outcomes. Implications for future research on Citizen Science are discussed

Laypersons searching for medical information on the web: The role of metacognition. In

Today, the WWW is a very prominent resource of healthrelated information, both, for medical experts and laypersons (e.g. Fox, 2003). The latter often retrieve these information to make an informed decision. However, one canno

Solving Information-based Problems: Searching, Selecting and Evaluating Information

Brand-Gruwel, S., & Stadtler, M. (2011). Solving information-based problems: Evaluating sources and information. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 175-179. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.008The focus of this special section is on the processes involved when solving information-based problems. Solving these problems requires from people that they are able to define the information problem, search and select usable and reliable sources and information and synthesise information into a coherent body of knowledge. An important aspect throughout the whole search process is the critical evaluation of sources and information. Evaluation processes are of particular importance when searching information on the Internet, because of the masses of information, and the open publication principle of the Internet. The articles in the present special section take different perspectives in studying the evaluation processes. Influencing factors such as students’ domain specific prior knowledge, metatextual knowledge, and students’ epistemic beliefs are addressed

Information easiness affects non-experts’ evaluation of scientific claims about which they hold prior beliefs

Usually, non-experts do not possess sufficient deep-level knowledge to make fully informed evaluations of scientific claims. Instead, they depend on pertinent experts for support. However, previous research has shown that the easiness by which textual information on a scientific issue can be understood seduces non-experts into overlooking their evaluative limitations. The present study examined whether text easiness affects non-experts’ evaluation of scientific claims even if they possess prior beliefs about the accuracy of these claims. Undergraduates who strongly believed that climate change is anthropogenic read argumentative texts that were either easy or difficult to understand and that supported a claim either consistent or inconsistent with their beliefs. Results are consistent with the hypothesis that text easiness affects non-experts’ judgment of scientific claims about which they hold prior beliefs—but only when these claims are in accordance with their beliefs. It seems that both text difficulty and belief inconsistency remind non-experts of their own limitations

How Reading Goals and Rhetorical Signals Influence Recipients ’ Recognition of Intertextual Conflicts

Becoming aware of conflicting information is an integral part of comprehending multiple documents on a scientific issue. We examined whether memory for conflicts and its application in an essay task could be enhanced by a combination of reading goals and text signals. Two highcoherence-orienting reading goals (reading to write a summary or an argumentation) were contrasted with a low coherence-orienting goal (composing a list of key words). Moreover, for half of the participants texts contained rhetorical connectors signaling the existence of conflicts, whereas the other half did not. A total of 184 undergraduates read multiple documents on a controversial medical issue. As expected, reading with high-coherence goals facilitated conflict recognition more than a low-coherence goal. The facilitative effect of signaling was particularly pronounced in the summary group. Moreover, participants in the signalingcondition and in the high-coherence goal conditions wrote the most integrated essays subsequent to reading