TÜRKÇE
ENGLISH
Information
| Code | FBE808 |
| Name | |
| Term | 2023-2024 Academic Year |
| Semester | . Semester |
| Duration (T+A) | 3-0 (T-A) (17 Week) |
| ECTS | 8 ECTS |
| National Credit | 3 National Credit |
| Teaching Language | Türkçe |
| Level | Doktora Dersi |
| Type | Normal |
| Mode of study | Yüz Yüze Öğretim |
| Catalog Information Coordinator |
Course Goal / Objective
This course is an introduction to science communication and the interaction of science communication and teaching. It also focuses on how to communicate scientific research to general audiences as well as K-12 specific audiences.
Course Content
Science communication theories and the contribution of science communication in science teaching.
Course Precondition
None
Resources
Articles
Notes
Bowater, L., & Yeoman, K. (2012). Science Communication (1st ed.). Wiley. Retrieved from https://www.perlego.com/book/1003173/science-communication-a-practical-guide-for-scientists-pdf
Course Learning Outcomes
| Order | Course Learning Outcomes |
|---|---|
| LO01 | Students will be able to explain the basic theories and concepts in science communication studies. |
| LO02 | Students will be able to think critically about the political dimension of science communication in an increasingly globalized context. |
| LO03 | Students will be aware of the diversity of audiences for science communication. |
| LO04 | Students will learn about the various channels through which science can be communicated. Describe the process of creating strategic messages for K-12. |
| LO05 | will be able to define the types of public access in terms of science teaching. |
| LO06 | They will be able to transform their research into a public outreach experience for K-12. |
Relation with Program Learning Outcome
| Order | Type | Program Learning Outcomes | Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLO01 | Bilgi - Kuramsal, Olgusal | Define scientific research and analysis methods used in science | 5 |
| PLO02 | Yetkinlikler - Öğrenme Yetkinliği | Researches and applies effective teaching strategies within the framework of ethics in order to provide students with knowledge and skills related to science education. | |
| PLO03 | Bilgi - Kuramsal, Olgusal | Explains the development and learning theories within the scope of science education. | |
| PLO04 | Belirsiz | Describes instructional strategies, methods and techniques on the level of expertise on the basis of undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications | 4 |
| PLO05 | Belirsiz | Explains the interaction between disciplines related to the field. | 5 |
| PLO06 | Belirsiz | Explains the knowledge in the subject areas of science education at the level of expertise. | |
| PLO07 | Bilgi - Kuramsal, Olgusal | Relate knowledge of science education with information in different fields. | |
| PLO08 | Beceriler - Bilişsel, Uygulamalı | Conducts advanced research in the field. | 5 |
| PLO09 | Bilgi - Kuramsal, Olgusal | Criticize the practices related to science education at national and international level. | 5 |
| PLO10 | Bilgi - Kuramsal, Olgusal | Plans and conducts a scientific research. | 4 |
| PLO11 | Bilgi - Kuramsal, Olgusal | Apply teaching methods and techniques on the basis of undergraduate qualifications. | |
| PLO12 | Bilgi - Kuramsal, Olgusal | Manages a study that requires expertise in the field independently. | |
| PLO13 | Bilgi - Kuramsal, Olgusal | Makes teamwork or leadership in situations that require resolution of problems related to the field. | |
| PLO14 | Beceriler - Bilişsel, Uygulamalı | Questions scientific and social issues with new perspectives. | 5 |
| PLO15 | Yetkinlikler - İletişim ve Sosyal Yetkinlik | It develops education and training activities in the field of Science Education and manages actions to change it when necessary, examines social relations in the process and the norms that guide these relations with a critical perspective. | |
| PLO16 | Beceriler - Bilişsel, Uygulamalı | Generates new and original ideas about the field, uses creative and critical thinking skills. | |
| PLO17 | Yetkinlikler - Bağımsız Çalışabilme ve Sorumluluk Alabilme Yetkinliği | Provides a scientific study in the field of science education, supported by qualitative and quantitative data, in writing, orally and visually, to experts or non-specialists. | |
| PLO18 | Yetkinlikler - Bağımsız Çalışabilme ve Sorumluluk Alabilme Yetkinliği | Uses information and communication technologies effectively | |
| PLO19 | Yetkinlikler - Bağımsız Çalışabilme ve Sorumluluk Alabilme Yetkinliği | Use the languages of the European language portfolio to understand the information in the field and to communicate verbally and in writing | |
| PLO20 | Yetkinlikler - Öğrenme Yetkinliği | Acts in accordance with social, scientific, cultural and ethical values when conducting a scientific research or project or interpreting a study.. |
Week Plan
| Week | Topic | Preparation | Methods |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Concepts of Communication | Sylbuss Communication sociology. | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 2 | Science communication? | • Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183-202. • Mulder, H., Longnecker, N., & Davis, L.S. (2008). The State of Science Communication Programs at Universities Around the World. Science Communication, 30, 277 - 287. • Dijkstra, A. M., de Bakker, L., van Dam, F., & Jensen, E. A. (2020). Setting the scene. In F. van Dam, L. de Bakker, A. M. Dijkstra, & E. A. Jensen (Eds.), Science communication. An introduction (pp. 1-17). World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte Ltd. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789811209888_0001 • Stocklmayer, S., & Bryant, C. (2012). Science and the public—What should people know? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 81-101. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.543186 | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 3 | Framing and priming | • Berland, L.K. and Hammer, D. (2012), Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49: 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446 • Carver, R. B.; Wiese, E. F. & Breivik, J. (2014). Frame Analysis in Science Education: A Classroom Activity for Promoting Media Literacy and Learning about Genetic Causation, International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 4:3, 211-239, DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2013.797128 • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054 • Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2017). Using Frames to Make Scientific Communication More Effective. In K. H. Jamieson, D. M. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.38 • Önceleme: http://yenimedya.info/2020/04/11/priming/ • Çerçeveleme: http://yenimedya | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 4 | Science Communication and science teaching | • Baram-Tsabari, A. and Osborne, J. (2015), Bridging science education and science communication research. J Res Sci Teach, 52: 135-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21202 • Kohen, Z. and Dori, Y.J. (2019), Toward narrowing the gap between science communication and science education disciplines. Rev Educ, 7: 525-566. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3136 • Nielsen, K. H. (2013). Scientific communication and the nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2067-2086. • Strauss, J., Shope III, R. E., & Terebey, S. (2005). Science Communication Versus Science Education: The Graduate Student Scientist As A K-12 Classroom Resource. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 2(6). https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v2i6.1831 Ek okumalar • Falade, B. A., & Bauer, M. W. (2018). ‘I have faith in science and in God’: Common sense, cognitive polyphasia and attitudes to science in Nigeria. Public Understanding of Science, 27(1), 29-46. • Meyer, G. (2016). In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 433-446. • Bauer, M. W. (2009). The evolution of public understanding of science—discourse and comparative evidence. Science, technology and society, 14(2), 221-240. | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 5 | Out-of-School Learning and science communication | Banks, J., Au, K., Ball, A. F., Bell, P., Gordon, E., Gutierrez, K., … Zhou, M. (2007). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-Long, Life-Wide, Life-Deep. The LIFE Center (The Learning in Informal and Formal Environments Center), University of Washington National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington, D.C., United States: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12190 Needham, C., McCallie, E., Bell, L., Lohwater, T., Falk, J., Lehr, J., … Wiehe, B. (2009). Many Experts, Many Audiences: Public Engagement with Science and Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Washington, D.C., United States. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/eth_fac/12/ | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 6 | Social media in science teaching | Klar S, Krupnikov Y, Ryan JB, et al. (2020) Using social media to promote academic research: Identifying the benefits of twitter for sharing academic work. PLoS ONE 15(4): e0229446. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229446. Mueller-Herbst JM, Xenos MA, Scheufele DA, et al. (2020) Saw It on Facebook: The Role of Social Media in Facilitating Science Issue Awareness. Social Media and Society 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120930412. Huber, B., Barnidge, M., Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Liu, J. (2019). Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 759–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519869097 Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2015). Social Media: Defining, Developing, and Divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(1), 46-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2015.972282 QUEST: toolkit for science communication on social media https://questproject.eu/toolkits/ Bucchi, M., & Saracino, B. (2016). “Visual Science Literacy” Images and Public Understanding of Science in the Digital Age. Science Communication, 38(6), 812-819. | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 7 | Inclusive science communication | Dawson, E. (2014). Equity in informal science education: Developing an access and equity framework for science museums and science centres. Studies in Science Education, 50(2), 209-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.957558 Dawson, E. (2014). “Not designed for us”: How science museums and science centers socially exclude low-income, minority ethnic groups. Science Education, 98(6), 981-1008. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21133 DiCenzo, C., Menezes, S., Smith, H., Murray-Johnson, K., Azizi, M., & McDuffie, K. (2021). Inclusive science communication starter kit. Metcalf Institute, University of Rhode Island. https://inclusivescicomm.org/resources/ Falling Walls Foundation. (2020). Breaking the wall to astronomy for the vision-impaired. YESTEM Project UK Team. (2020). The Equity Compass: A tool for supporting socially just practice. https://www.yestem.org Ek okumalar Judd, K., & McKinnon, M. (2021). A Systematic Map of Inclusion, Equity and Diversity in Science Communication Research: Do We Practice what We Preach? Frontiers In Communication, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.744365 Milani, E., Ridgway, A., Wilkinson, C. & Weitkamp, E. (2021). Reaching Underserved Audiences: How Science Communicators are Making New Connections Using Innovative Techniques. https://www.rethinkscicomm.eu/projectdeliverables/ https://youtu.be/eWcUEnDbku8 | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 8 | Midterm exam | Prepare to mid-term | Ölçme Yöntemleri: Ödev |
| 9 | Movies, Science, Fiction, Art | https://youtu.be/oLCTJQ-GCLQ https://youtu.be/i73J7rNEJsk Gouyon, J. B. (2016). Science and film-making. Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 17-30. Rose, C. (2003). How to teach biology using the movie science of cloning people, resurrecting the dead, and combining flies and humans. Public Understanding of Science, 12(3), 289-296. Asimov, I. (1965, June). Future? Tense! The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, 100-109. Reinsborough, M. (2017). Science fiction and science futures: Considering the role of fictions in public engagement and science communication work. Journal of Science Communication, 16(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16040307 https://youtu.be/1SuJlqtB6UQ https://youtu.be/kT4RhR6Pvfc https://youtu.be/64XSRbal-YA https://youtu.be/Jz7shk3ymzs https://youtu.be/96jYktj1l14 [1] Vint, S. (2021). Science fiction. MIT Press. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/book/9374190 [2] ASU Center for Science and the Imagination: https://csi.asu.edu/about-us/ [3] Shelley, M. (2017). Frankenstein: Annotated for scientists, engineers, and creators of all kinds. D. H. Guston, E. Finn, & J. S. Robert (Eds.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1818) Further reading Reinsborough, M. (2017). Science fiction and science futures: Considering the role of fictions in public engagement and science communication work. Journal of Science Communication, 16(04), C07. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16040307 [1] Kirby, D. & Ockert, I. (2021). Science and technology in film: Themes and representations. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (3rd ed., pp. 77-96). Routledge. [2] Haynes, R. D. (1994). From Faust to Strangelove. Johns Hopkins University Press. [3] Haynes, R. D. (2016). Whatever happened to the ‘mad, bad’ scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514535689 [4] Chin, J. M. & Workewych, L. (2016). The CSI Effect. In Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935352.013.28 | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 10 | Culture and Science capital | Archer, L., DeWitt, J., & Willis, B. (2014). Adolescent boys’ science aspirations: Masculinity, capital, and power. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21122 Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21227 Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 881–908. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211433290 Jensen, E., & Wright, D. (2015). Critical Response to Archer et al. (2015) “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Science Education, 99(6), 1143–1146. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21208 Ek okuma Guenther, L., Weingart, P., & Meyer, C. (2018). “Science is everywhere, but no one knows it”: assessing the cultural distance to science of rural South African publics. Environmental Communication, 12(8), 1046-1061. | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 11 | Science communication and gender | Mostafa T (2019) Why don’t more girls choose to pursue a science career? PISA in Focus. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/02bd2b68-en. [12] Chimba, M., & Kitzinger, J. (2010). Bimbo or boffin? Women in science: An analysis of media representations and how female scientists negotiate cultural contradictions. Public Understanding of Science, 19(5), 609–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508098580 [13] Crettaz von Roten, F. (2011). Gender Differences in Scientists’ Public Outreach and Engagement Activities. Science Communication, 33(1), 52–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010378658 [14] Demailly Z, Brulard G, Selim J, et al. (2020) Gender differences in professional social media use among anaesthesia researchers. British Journal of Anaesthesia 124(3): e178–e184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2019.12.030. [15] Ke Q, Ahn YY and Sugimoto CR (2017) A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. PLoS ONE 12(4): e0175368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175368 Lewenstein, B. (2019). The need for feminist approaches to science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 18(4), C01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18040301 Mitchell, M., & McKinnon, M. (2019). ‘Human’ or ‘objective’ faces of science? Gender stereotypes and the representation of scientists in the media. Public Understanding of Science, 28(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518801257 Previs, K. K. (2016). Gender and Race Representations of Scientists in Highlights for Children: A Content Analysis. Science Communication, 38(3), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016642248 | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 12 | Science communication for decision makers | https://youtu.be/TIuoMxs0CwU https://youtu.be/0FF270a8194 https://youtu.be/-geJu46wHiA Suhay, E., Cloyd, E., Heath, E., & Nash, E. (2019). Recommended Practices for Science Communication with Policymakers [Report]. American University School of Public Affairs, AAAS, & Durham University. https://www.american.edu/spa/scicomm/recommended-practices-intro.cfm Suhay, E. (2017). The Politics of Scientific Knowledge. In Nussbaum, J. F. (Ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.107 | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 13 | Who are the publics for science communication? | Burns, M., & Medvecky, F. (2018). The disengaged in science communication: How not to count audiences and publics. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2), 118-130. Guenther, L., Weingart, P., & Meyer, C. (2018). “Science is everywhere, but no one knows it”: assessing the cultural distance to science of rural South African publics. EnvironmentalCommunication, 12(8), 1046-1061. Bucchi, M. (1996). When scientists turn to the public: Alternative routes in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 375. Andrews, E., Weaver, A., Hanley, D., Shamatha, J., & Melton, G. (2005). Scientists and public outreach: Participation, motivations, and impediments. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), 281-293. | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 14 | Scientific literacy and science communication. | Thomas, Geoffrey;, and John Durant. 1987. ‘Issues and Perspectives Why Should We Promote the Public Understanding of Science ?’ Scientific Literacy Papers: A Journal of Research in Science, Education and Research | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 15 | Educational games and science communication | https://www.scicommbites.org/post/the-gamification-of-science-communication https://www.meeplemountain.com/articles/board-games-as-science-communication/ https://www.seamonster.co.za/visualisation-gamification-and-science-communication/ | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Anlatım, Soru-Cevap, Tartışma |
| 16 | Term exam | Projects and articles. | Öğretim Yöntemleri: Soru-Cevap, Anlatım, Tartışma |
| 17 | Term exam | Prepare to exam | Ölçme Yöntemleri: Proje / Tasarım, Ödev |
Student Workload - ECTS
| Works | Number | Time (Hour) | Workload (Hour) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Course Related Works | |||
| Class Time (Exam weeks are excluded) | 14 | 3 | 42 |
| Out of Class Study (Preliminary Work, Practice) | 14 | 9 | 126 |
| Assesment Related Works | |||
| Homeworks, Projects, Others | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Mid-term Exams (Written, Oral, etc.) | 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Final Exam | 1 | 18 | 18 |
| Total Workload (Hour) | 197 | ||
| Total Workload / 25 (h) | 7,88 | ||
| ECTS | 8 ECTS | ||