National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 6 Research Agenda
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

References

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2011). Health Literacy Interventions and Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26(3), 413-439.

Ahern, L., Connolly-Ahern, C., and Hoewe, J. (2016). Worldviews, issue knowledge, and the pollution of a local science information environment. Science Communication, 38(2), 228-250.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl and J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Al Sayah, F., Majumdar, S., Williams, B., Robertson, S., and Johnson, J. (2012). Health literacy and health outcomes in diabetes: A systematic review. Journal of Internal Medicine, 28(3), 444-452.

Allen, B.L. (2003). Uneasy Alchemy: Citizens and Experts in Louisiana’s Chemical Corridor Disputes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., and Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35-54.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics and Technology. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

American Medical Association. (1999). Health literacy: Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281(6), 552-557.

Ancker, J.S., and Kaufman, D. (2007). Rethinking health numeracy: A multidisciplinary literature review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(6), 713-721.

Anderson, M. (2015). The Race Gap in Science Knowledge. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/15/the-race-gap-in-science-knowledge [June 2016].

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Arnold, C., Davis, T., Berkel, H., Jackson, R., Nandy, I., and London, S. (2001). Smoking status, reading level, and knowledge of tobacco effects among low-income pregnant women. Preventive Medicine, 32(4), 313-320.

Bäckstrand, K. (2003). Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy makers, and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 3(4), 24-41.

Bairoch, P. (1982). International industrialization levels from 1750 to 1980. Journal of European Economic History, 11(2), 269-325.

Baker, D.W., Williams, M.V., Parker, R.M., Gazmararian, J.A., and Nurss, J. (1999). Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Education and Counseling, 38(1), 33-42.

Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Bandura, A. (2010). Self-efficacy. In I.B. Weiner and W.E. Craighead (Eds.) The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (4th ed., pp. 1534-1536). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Bang, M., and Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008-1026.

Barron, B., Gomez, K., Pinkard, N., and Martin, C.K. (2014). The Digital Youth Network: Cultivating Digital Media Citizenship in Urban Communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Barton, A.C. (2003). Teaching Science for Social Justice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bauer, M.W. (2009). The evolution of public understanding of science—Discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology, & Society, 14(2), 221-240.

Bauer, M.W., and Bonfadelli, H. (2002). Controversy, mass media coverage, and public knowledge. In M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy (pp. 149-175). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bauer, M.W., and Falade, B.A. (2014). Public understanding of science: Survey research around the world. In M. Bucchi and B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (2nd ed., pp. 140-159). New York: Routledge.

Bauer, M.W., Durant, J., and Evans, G. (1994). European public perceptions of science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6(2), 163-186.

Bauer, M.W., Durant, J., and Gaskell, G. (1997). Europe ambivalent on biotechnology. Nature, 387, 845-847.

Bauer, M.W., Petkova, K., and Boyadjieva, P. (2000). Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the “science war.” Science Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 30-51.

Bauer, M.W., Allum, N., and Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95.

Bauer, M.W., Shukla, R., and Kakkar, P. (2012a). Public Understanding of Science in Europe 1989-2005. Mannheim, Germany: GESIS. Available: http://www.gesis.org/eurobarometer-dataservice/search-data-access/eb-trends-trend-files/eb-pus-1989-2005 [July 2016].

Bauer, M.W., Shukla, R., and Allum, N. (2012b). Towards cultural indicators of science with global validity. In M.W. Bauer, R. Shukla, and N. Allum (Eds.), The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe (pp. 39-54). New York: Routledge.

Beaton, A.E., Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Gonzalez, E.J., Smith, T.A., and Kelly, D.L. (1996). Science Achievement in the Middle School Years: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.

Bereiter, C. (2002). Liberal education in a knowledge society. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal Education in a Knowledge Society (pp. 11-34). Chicago, IL: Open Court.

Berkes, F. (2009). Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39(4), 151-156.

Berkman, N.D., Dewalt, D.A., and Pignone, M.P. (2004). Literacy and health outcomes. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment, 87, 1-8.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Berkman, N.D., Sheridan, S., and Donahue, K. (2011a). Health Literacy Interventions and Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 199. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK82434 [June 2016].

Berkman, N.D., Sheridan, S., Donahue, K., Halpern, D., and Crotty, K. (2011b). Low health literacy and health outcomes: An updated systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 155(2), 97-107.

Besley, J.C. (2010). Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favor-ability and acceptance. Science Communication, 32(2), 256-280.

Besley, J.C. (2016). The National Science Foundation’s science and technology survey and support for science funding, 2006-2014. Public Understanding of Science, e1-e16.

Besley, J.C., and Oh, S.-H. (2014). The impact of accident attention, ideology, and environmentalism on American attitudes toward nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 35(5), 949-964.

Bohensky, E., and Maru, Y. (2011). Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: What have we learned from a decade of international literature on “integration.” Ecology and Society, 16(4), 6.

Bolsen, T., Druckman, J., and Cook, F. (2014). How frames can undermine support for scientific adaptations: Politicization and the status-quo bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(1), 1-26.

Bonney, R., Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K.V., and Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977-984.

Bonney, R., Shirk, J.L., Phillips, T.B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H.L., Miller-Rushing, A.J., and Parrish, J.K. (2014). Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343(6178), 1436-1437.

Bord, R., O’Connor, R., and Fisher, A. (2000). In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), 205-218.

Boston University. (2016). Health Literacy Tool Shed. Boston, MA: Boston University. Available: http://healthliteracy.bu.edu [July 2016].

Braman, D., Kahan, D., Jenkins-Smith, H., Tarantola, T., and Silva, C. (2012). Geoengineering and the science communication environment: A cross-cultural experiment. GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works, 199.

Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 1-6.

Brossard, D., and Nisbet, M.C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low-information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24-52.

Brossard, D., and Scheufele, D.A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 33(6115), 40-41.

Brossard, D., and Shanahan, J. (2006). Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Science Communication, 28(1), 47-63.

Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., and Bonney, R. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1099-1121.

Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A., Kim, E., and Lewenstein, B.V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546-558.

Brown, P. (1992). Popular epidemiology and toxic waste contamination: Lay and professional ways of knowing. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33(3), 267-281.

Brown, P. (1993). When the public knows better: Popular epidemiology challenges the system. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 35(8), 16-41.

Brulle, R.J., and Pellow, D.N. (2006). Environmental justice: Human health and environmental inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 103-124.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Bucchi, M., and Neresini, F. (2008). Science and public participation. In E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd ed., pp. 449-473). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bybee, R., McCrae, B., and Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865-883.

Cacciatore, M.A., Scheufele, D.A., and Corley, E.A. (2011). From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(3), 385-404.

Cacciatore, M.A., Binder, A.R., Scheufele, D.A., and Shaw, B.R. (2012a). Public attitudes toward biofuels: Effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use. Politics and the Life Sciences, 31(1-2), 36-51.

Cacciatore, M.A., Scheufele, D.A., and Shaw, B.R. (2012b). Labeling renewable energies: How the language surrounding biofuels can influence its public acceptance. Energy Policy, 51, 673-682.

Campbell, D.T., and Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Campbell, F., Goldman, B., Boccia, M., and Skinner, M. (2004). The effect of format modifications and reading comprehension on recall of informed consent information by low-income parents: A comparison of print, video, and computer-based presentations. Patient Education and Counselling, 53(2), 205-216.

Carl, N., and Cofnas, N. (2016). Scientific literacy, optimism about science and conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 299-302.

Carnoy, M., and Rothstein, R. (2013). What Do International Tests Really Show about U.S. Student Performance? Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Cashman, S., Adeky, S., Allen, A.J., Corburn, J., Israel, B., Montano, J., Rafelito, A., Rhodes, S., Swanston, S., Wallerstein, N., and Eng, E. (2008). The power and the promise: Working with communities to analyze data, interpret findings, and get to outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1407-1417.

Center on Education Policy. (2007). Choices, Changes, and Challenges: Curriculum and Instruction in the NCLB Era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

Chin, M.H., Walters, A.E., Cook, S.C., and Huang, E.S. (2007). Interventions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare. Medical Care Research and Review, 64(Suppl. 5), S7-S28.

China Research Institute for Science Popularization. (2010). Chinese Public Understanding of Science and Attitudes towards Science and Technology. Beijing: China Research Institute for Science Popularization.

Clapp, R.W. (2002). Popular epidemiology in three contaminated communities. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 584(1), 35-46.

Coben D. (2000). Numeracy, mathematics and adult learning. In I. Gal (Ed.), Adult Numeracy Development: Theory, Research, Practice (pp. 33-50). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Coben D. (2003). Adult Numeracy: Review of Research and Related Literature. London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy.

Cohn, J.P. (2008). Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience, 58(3), 192-197.

Committee on the Objectives of a General Education in a Free Society. (1945). General Education in a Free Society: Report of the Harvard Committee. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Available: https://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic996234.files/generaleducation032440mbp.pdf [July 2016].

Committee to Enquire into the Position of Natural Science in the Educational System of Great Britain. (1918). Report of the Committee Appointed by the Prime Minister to Enquire into the Position of Natural Science in the Educational System of Great Britain. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. Available: https://archive.org/details/reportofcommitte00greauoft [July 2016].

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Conrad, C.C., and Hilchey, K.G. (2011). A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: Issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 176(1-4), 273-291.

Cooper-Robbins, S.C., Bernard, D., McCaffery, K., Brotherton, J.M., and Skinner, S.R. (2010). “I just signed”: Factors influencing decision-making for school-based HPV vaccination of adolescent girls. Health Psychology, 29(6), 618-625.

Corburn, J. (2007). Community knowledge in environmental health science: Co-producing policy expertise. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(2), pp. 150-161.

Cossons, N. (1993). Let us take science into our culture. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 18(4), 337-342.

Council of Canadian Academies. (2014). Science Culture: Where Canada Stands: Expert Panel on the State of Canada’s Science Culture. Ottawa, Canada: Council of Canadian Academies.

Crowell, A., and Schunn, C. (2015). Unpacking the relationship between science education and applied scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 46(1), 129-140.

Dainton, F.S. (1968). The Dainton Report: An Inquiry into the Flow of Candidates into Science and Technology. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

Davis, I.C. (1935). The measurement of scientific attitudes. Science Education, 19(3), 117-122.

Davis, R.C. (1958). The Public Impact of Science in the Mass Media: A Report on a Nationwide Survey for the National Association of Science Writers. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

Davis, T.C., Long, S.W., Jackson, R.H., Mayeaux, E.J., George, R.B., Murphy, P.W., and Crouch, M.A. (1993). Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: A shortened screening instrument. Family Medicine, 25(6), 391-395.

Davis, T.C., Wolf, M., Bass, P., Middlebrooks, M., Kennen, E., Baker, D., Bennett, C., Durazo-Arvizu, R., Bocchini, A., Savory, S., and Parker, R. (2006). Low literacy impairs comprehension of prescription drug warning labels. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(8), 847-851.

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.

DeBoer, G.E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.

Delgado, R., and Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York University Press.

Delli Carpini, M., Cook, F., and Jacobs, L. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344.

DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

DeWalt, D., and Hink, A. (2009). Health literacy and child health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Pediatrics, 124(3), S265-S274.

DeWalt, D., Berkman, N., Sheridan, S., Lohr, K., and Pignone, M. (2004). Literacy and health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19(12), 1228-1239.

DeWalt, D., Malone, R., Bryant, M., Kosnar, M., Corr, K., Rothman, R., Sueta, C., and Pignone, M. (2006). A heart failure self-management program for patients of all literacy levels: A randomized, controlled trial. BMC Health Services Research, 6, 30.

DeWalt, D., Boone, R., and Pignone, M. (2007). Literacy and its relationship with self-efficacy, trust, and participation in medical decision making. American Journal of Health Behavior, 31(Suppl. 1), S27-S35.

Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry. New York: Holt.

Dewey, J. (1934). The supreme intellectual obligation. Science Education, 18(1), 1-4.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Doble, J. (1995). Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 4(2), 95-118.

Drew, J.A. (2005). Use of traditional ecological knowledge in marine conservation. Conservation Biology, 19(4), 1286-1293.

Druckman, J., and Bolsen, T. (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 659-688.

Drummond, C., and Fischhoff, B. (2015). Development and validation of the scientific reasoning scale. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, e1-e13.

Dudo, A., Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D., Morgan, M., and Signorielli, N. (2010). Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research, 38(6), 754-777.

Dunn, A.G., Leask, J., Zhou, X., Mandl, K.D., and Coiera, E. (2015). Associations between exposure to and expression of negative opinions about human papillomavirus vaccines on social media: An observational study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(6), e144.

Durant, J.R., Evans, G.A., and Thomas, G.P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(6228), 11-14.

Durant, J., Bauer, M., Midden, C., Gaskell, G., and Liakopoulos, M. (2000). Two cultures of public understanding of science. In M. Dierkes and C.V. Grote (Eds.), Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science, and Technology (pp. 131-156). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.

Einsiedel, E., and Eastlick, D. (2000). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective. Science Communication, 21(4), 323-343.

Ellis, J., Mullan, J., Worsley, A., and Pai, N. (2012). The role of health literacy and social networks in arthritis patients’ health information-seeking behavior: A qualitative study. International Journal of Family Medicine, 1(Art. 397039), 1-6.

Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values, 20(4), 408-437.

Epstein, S. (1996). Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Epstein, S. (2008). Patient groups and health movements. In E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 499-539). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

European Commission. (1995). White Paper on Education and Training. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

European Commission. (1997). European Opinions on Modern Biotechnology: Eurobarometer 46.1. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_108_en.pdf [July 2016].

European Commission. (2004). Europe Needs More Scientists: Report by the High-Level Group on Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

European Commission. (2013). Special Eurobarometer 401: Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), Science and Technology. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_401_en.pdf [June 2016].

Evans, C., Abrams, E., Reltsrna, R., Roux, K., Salmonsen, L., and Marra, P.P. (2005). The neighborhood nest-watch program: Participant outcomes of a citizen-science ecological research project. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 589-594.

Evans, G., and Durant, J. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4(1), 57-74.

Feinstein, N.W. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168-185.

Feinstein, N.W., Allen, S., and Jenkins, E. (2013). Outside the pipeline: Reimagining science education for nonscientists. Science, 340(6130), 314-317.

Feldman, L., and Hart, P. (2016). Using policitcal efficacy messages to increase climate activism: The mediating role of emotions. Science Communication, 38(1), 99-127.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Fessenden-Raden, J., Fitchen, J., and Heath, J. (1987). Providing risk information in communities: Factors influencing what is heard and accepted. Science, Technology & Human Values, 12(3/4), 94-101.

Finger, M. (1994). From knowledge to action? Exploring the relationships between environmental experiences, learning, and behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 141-160.

Fiske, S., and Taylor, S. (1991). Social Cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fourez, G. (1997). Scientific and technological literacy as social practice. Social Studies of Science, 27(6), 903-936.

Frank, M. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. The Physiologist, 32(5), 245-248.

Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., Howard, J., Kempner, J., Ottinger, G., and Hess, D. (2010). Undone science: Charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(4), 444-473.

Frickel, S., Torcasso, R., and Anderson, A. (2015). The organization of expert activism: Shadow mobilization in two social movements. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 20(3), 305-323.

Fung, T., Choi, D., Scheufele, D., and Shaw, B. (2014). Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception. Energy Policy, 73, 344-355.

Funk, C., and Rainie, L. (2015). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society [July 2016].

Funtowicz, S.O., and Ravetz, J.R. (1995). Science for the Post Normal Age. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Gabel, L.L. (1976). The Development of a Model to Determine Perceptions of Scientific Literacy. Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbus: Ohio State University.

Gaskell, G., Allum, N.C., and Stares, S.R. (2003). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002. Brussels, Belgium: Europa. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_177_en.pdf [July 2016].

Gaskell, G., Allum, N.C., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., and Bardes, J. (2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 24(1), 185-194.

Gastil, J., and Dillard, J. (1999). Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Communication, 16(1), 3-23.

Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 167-187.

Gauchat, G. (2015). The political context of science in the United States: Public acceptance of evidence-based policy and science funding. Social Forces, 94(2), 723-746.

Ginsburg, L., Manly, M., and Schmitt, M.J. (2006). The Components of Numeracy, Occasional Paper. Boston, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.

Glanz, K., and Rimer B. (1995). Theory at a Glance: A Guide to Health Promotion Practice. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute.

Goidel, K., and Nisbet, M. (2006). Exploring the roots of public participation in the controversy over embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Political Behavior, 28(2), 175-192.

Golbeck, A.L., Ahlers-Schmidt, C., Paschal, A., and Dismuke, S.E. (2005). A definition and operational framework for health numeracy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29(4), 375-376.

Goldacre, B. (2006). Bad science: How to put your relationship to the universe into a seasonal perspective. The Guardian, December 23. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/dec/23/badscience.christmas2006 [July 2016].

Goldacre, B. (2008). Bad Science. London: Harper Collins.

Goldman, S., and Snow, C.E. (2015). Adolescent literacy: Development and instruction. In A. Pollatsek and R. Treiman (Eds.), Handbook on Reading (pp. 463-478). New York: Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Goodman, M., Finnegan, R., Mohadjer, L., Krenzke, T., and Hogan, J. (2013). Literacy, Numeracy, and Problem Solving in Technology-rich Environments among U.S. Adults: Results from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies 2012: First Look. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Gore, P., Madhavan, S., Curry, D., McClung, G., Castigilia, M., Rosenbluth, S., and Smego, R. (1999). Predictors of childhood immunization completion in a rural population. Social Science & Medicine, 48(8), 1011-1027.

Greenberg, M., and Wartenberg, D. (1991). Communicating to an alarmed community about cancer clusters: A fifty state study. Journal of Community Health, 16(2), 71-82.

Gunther, A., and Liebhart, J. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 449-466.

Guy, S., Kashima, Y., Walker, I., and O’Neill, S. (2014). Investigating the effects of knowledge and ideology on climate change beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(5), 421-429.

Hanushek, E., and Woessman, L. (2016). Knowledge capital, growth, and the East Asian miracle. Science, 351(6271), 344-345.

Hargreaves, I., and Ferguson, G. (2000) Who’s Misunderstanding Whom? Science, Society, and the Media. Swindon, UK: Economic and Social Research Council.

Harrison, J.L. (2011). Parsing “participation” in action research: Navigating the challenges of lay involvement in technically complex participatory science projects. Society and Natural Resources, 24(7), 702-716.

Hart, P.S., and Nisbet, E.C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723.

Hart, P.S., Nisbet, E.C., and Myers, T.A. (2015). Public attention to science and political news and support for climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 5, 541-545.

Haun, J.N., Valerio, M.A., McCormack, L.A., Sørensen, K., and Paasche-Orlow, M.K. (2014). Health literacy measurement: An inventory and descriptive summary of 51 instruments. Journal of Health Communication, 19(Suppl. 2), 302-333.

Hawthorne, G. (1997). Preteenage drug use in Australia: The key predictors and school-based drug education. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20(5), 384-395.

Henderson, B., Osborne, J., MacPherson, A., and Wild, A. (2015). Beyond construction: Five arguments for the role of critique in teaching science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1668-1697.

Hess, D., Breyman, S., Campbell, N., and Martin, B. (2008). Science, technology, and social movements. In E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 473-498). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hines, J., Hungerford, H., and Tomera, A. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8.

Hirsch, E.D. (1987). Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Hirst, P.H. (1965). Liberal education and the nature of knowledge. Philosophical Analysis and Education, 2, 113-140.

Hirst, P.H., and Peters, R.S. (1970). The Logic of Education. London: Routledge.

Ho, S.S., Brossard, D., and Scheufele, D.A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171-192.

Ho, S.S., Scheufele, D.A., and Corley, E.A. (2010). Making sense of policy choices: Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12(8), 2703-2715.

Ho, S.S., Scheufele, D.A., and Corley, E.A. (2011). Factors influencing public risk-benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing. Public Understanding of Science, 22(5), 606-623.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Hsu, S.J. (2004). The effects of an environmental education program on responsible environmental behavior and associated environmental literacy variables in Taiwanese college students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35(2), 37-48.

Huntington, H. (2000). Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: Methods and applications. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1270-1274.

Hurd, P. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13-16.

Institute of Medicine. (2004). Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. L. Nielsen-Bohlman, A.M. Panzer, and D.A. Kindig (Eds.). Committee on Health Literacy, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine. (2011). Innovations in Health Literacy Research: Workshop Summary. C. Vancheri (Rapporteur). Roundtable on Health Literacy, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine. (2012). How Can Health Care Organizations Become More Health Literate? Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/13402.

Irwin, A., and Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Israel, B.A., Parker, E.A., Rowe, Z., Salvatore, A., Minkler, M., López, J., and Potito, P.A. (2005). Community-based participatory research: Lessons learned from the Centers for Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(10), 1463-1471.

Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223-244.

Jasanoff, S. (2009). Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jastak, S., and Wilkinson, G. (1984). Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Jayanti, R., and Burns, A. (1998). The antecedents of preventive health care behavior: An empirical study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(1), 6-15.

Kahan, D.M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology, 36, 1-43.

Kahan, D.M. (in press). “Ordinary science intelligence”: A science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change. Journal of Risk Research.

Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., and Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-90.

Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H., and Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 147-174.

Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Larrimore Ouellette, L., Braman, D., and Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732-735.

Kaplan, L. (2000). Public participation in nuclear facility decisions: Lessons from Hanford. In D.L. Kleinman (Ed.), Science, Technology and Democracy (pp. 67-83). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Kata, A (2010). A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine, 28, 1709-1716.

Keller, D., Wright, J., and Pace, H. (2008). Impact of health literacy on health outcomes in ambulatory care patients: A systemic review. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 42(9), 1272-1281.

Kempton, W., Boster, J., and Hartley, J. (1995). Environmental Values in American Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kickbusch, I.S. (2001). Health literacy: Addressing the health and education divide. Health Promotion International, 16(3), 289-297.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Kinchy, A., Jalbert, K., and Lyons, J. (2014). What is volunteer water monitoring good for? Fracking and the plural logics of participatory science. Political Power and Social Theory, 27(2), 259-289.

Kirsch, I.S. (2001). The International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS): Understanding What Was Measured. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Available: https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-01-25-Kirsch.pdf [July 2016].

Kirsch, I.S., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., and Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Kitcher, P. (2010). The climate change debates. Science, 328(5983), 1230-1234.

Kleinman, D.L. (2000). Democratizations of science and technology. In D.L. Kleinman (Ed.) Science, Technology, and Democracy (pp. 139-166). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Kleinman, D.L., Kinchy, A.J., and Handelsman, J. (Eds.). (2005). Controversies in Science and Technology: From Maize to Menopause (vol. 1). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Klopfer, L.E. (1969). Case Histories and Science Education. San Francisco, CA: Wadsworth.

Knight, A.J. (2009). Perceptions, knowledge and ethical concerns with GM foods and the GM process. Public Understanding of Science, 18(2), 177-188.

Koeppen, K., Hartig, J., Klieme, E., and Leutner, D. (2008). Current issues in competence modeling and assessment. Journal of Psychology, 216(2), 61-73.

Koh, H.K., and Rudd, R.E. (2015). The arc of health literacy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 314(12), 1225-1226.

Kollmuss, A., and Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.

Korean Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity (2013). Survey of Public Attitudes towards and Understanding of Science and Technology 2012. Seoul, Korea: KOFAC.

Kronberger, N., Holtz, P., and Wagner, W. (2012). Consequences of media information uptake and deliberation: Focus groups’ symbolic coping with synthetic biology. Public Understanding of Science, 21(2), 174-187.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.

Ladwig, P., Dalrymple, K.E., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A., and Corley, E.A. (2012). Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 761-774.

Lakshminarayanan, S. (2007). Using citizens to do science versus citizens as scientists. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 2.

Laugksch, R.C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.

Laugksch, R.C., and Spargo, P.E. (1996). Construction of a paper-and-pencil test of basic scientific literacy based on selected literacy goals recommended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 331-359.

Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., and Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and Some Implications for Science Education. Nafferton, UK: Studies in Education.

Layton, D., Jenkins, E., and Donnelly, J. (1994). Scientific and technological literacy: Meanings and rationales. In Innovations in Science and Technology Education (vol. VI). Paris, France: UNESCO.

Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Lee, C.J., Scheufele, D.A., and Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and effect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 240-267.

Lee, S., and Roth, W.M. (2003). Science and the “good citizen”: Community-based scientific literacy. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 28(3), 403-424.

Lehrer, J. (2010). The truth wears off: Is there something wrong with the scientific method? The New Yorker, Dec. 13, 52-57.

Liang, X., Ho, S.S., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A., Xenos, M.A., Hao, X., and He, X. (2013). Value predispositions as perceptual filters: Comparing public attitudes toward nanotechnology in the United States and Singapore. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 582-600.

Liang, X., Ho, S.S., Brossard, D., Xenos, M.A., Scheufele, D.A., Anderson, A.A., Hao, X., He, X. (2015). Value predispositions as perceptual filters: Comparing of public attitudes toward nanotechnology in the United States and Singapore. Public Understanding of Science, 24(5), 582-600.

Liu, X., Tang, S., and Bauer, M.W. (2012). Comparing the public understanding of science across China and Europe. In M.W. Bauer, R. Shukla, and N. Allum (Eds.), The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. New York: Routledge.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville. (2007). The Race to the Top: A Review of Government’s Science and Innovation Policies. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. Available: http://www.rsc.org/images/sainsbury_review051007_tcm18-103118.pdf [July 2016].

Losh, S.C. (2010). Stereotypes about scientists over time among U.S. adults: 1983 and 2001. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 372-382.

Lowell, B.L., and Salzman, H. (2007). Into the Eye of the Storm: Assessing the Evidence on Science and Engineering Education, Quality, and Workforce Demand. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Machtinger, E., Wang, F., Chen, L., Rodriguez, M., Wu, S., and Schillinger, D. (2007). A visual medication schedule to improve anticoagulation control: A randomized, controlled trial. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 33(10), 625-635.

Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Holme, J.J., and Nao, K. (2010). Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, V.S., Gonzalez, E.J., Smith, T., Chrostowski, S., Garden, R., and O’Connor, K. (2000). TIMSS 1999: International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at Eighth Grade. Boston, MA: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I., Gonalez, E.J., and Chrostowski, S. (2004). TIMSS 2003: International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Boston, MA: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I., and Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007: International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Boston, MA: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I., Foy, P., and Stanco, G. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Science. Boston, MA: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

McComas, K., Besley, J.C., and Steinhardt, J. (2014). Factors influencing U.S. consumer support for genetic modification to prevent crop disease. Appetite, 78(1), 8-14.

McCurdy, R. (1958). Toward a population literate in science. The Science Teacher, 25, 366-368.

Mercier, H., and Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57-74.

Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Midden, C., Boy, D., Einsiedel, E., Fjoestad, B., Liakopoulos, M., Miller, J.D., and Wagner, W. (2002). The structure of public perceptions. In M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The Making of a Great Controversy (pp. 203-223). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Millar, R., and Osborne, J.F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future. London: King’s College London.

Miller, J.D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29-48.

Miller, J.D. (1998). The measurement of scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(1), 203-223.

Miller, J.D. (2004). Public understanding of and attitudes toward scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 273-294.

Miller, J.D. (2010). Adult science learning in the Internet era. Curator, 53(2), 191-208.

Minkler, M., Vásquez, V.B., Tajik, M., and Petersen, D. (2008). Promoting environmental justice through community-based participatory research: The role of community and partnership capacity. Health Education & Behavior, 35(1), 119-137.

Moore, K. (2006). Powered by the people: Scientific authority in participatory science. In S. Frickel and K. Moore (Eds.), The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power (pp. 299-323). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Morris, N., MacLean, C., and Littenberg, B. (2006). Literacy and health outcomes: A cross-sectional study in 1002 adults with diabetes. BMC Family Practice, 7, 49.

Muñoz, A., Moreno, C., and Luján, J.L. (2012). Who is willing to pay for science? On the relationship between public perception of science and the attitude to public funding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 21(2), 242-253.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2010). Rising Above the Gathering Storm Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Assessment of Adult Literacy. (2003). National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). Washington, DC: The National Center for Education Statistics. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/naal [July 2016].

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/all [July 2016].

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012a). Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC): Literacy Domain. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/literacy.asp [July 2016].

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012b). The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2011. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012465.pdf [June 2016].

National Institute of Science and Technology Policy. (2012). Research on Changes in Public Awareness of Science and Technology: The Results of Interviews and Monthly Internet Surveys. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Education.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2015). Trust and Confidence at the Interfaces of the Life Sciences and Society: Does the Public Trust Science? A Workshop Summary. Board on Life Sciences, Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Board. (1989). Public literacy and attitudes toward science and technology. In Science and Engineering Indicators, 1989 (Ch. 8) (pp. 161-190). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Board. (1996). Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. In Science and Engineering Indicators, 1996 (Ch. 7, pp. 7.1-7.21). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Board. (2008). Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Board. (2012). Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. In Science and Engineering Indicators, 2012 (Ch. 7, pp. 7.1-7.51). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Board. (2016). Science and Engineering Indicators, 2016. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Nisbet, M.C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 90-112.

Nisbet, M.C., and Goidel, R. (2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 421-440.

Nisbet, M.C., Scheufele, D., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., and Lewenstein, B. (2002). Knowledge, reservation, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584-608.

Norris, S.P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: Toward a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79(2), 201-217.

Norris, S.P. (1997). Intellectual independence for nonscientists and other content-transcendent goals of science education. Science Education, 81(2), 239-258.

Norris, S.P., and Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.

Norris, S.P., Phillips, L., and Burns, D. (2014). Conceptions of scientific literacy: Identifying and evaluating their programmatic elements. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (pp. 1317-1344). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Nussbaum, M.C. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Nutbeam, D. (2008). The evolving concept of health literacy. Social Science Medicine, 67(12), 2072-2078.

Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., and Freed, G. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), e835-e842.

O’Connor, R.E., Bord, R.J., and Fisher, A. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 461-471.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

OECD. (2006). The PISA 2006 Assessment Framework for Science, Reading, and Mathematics. Paris, France: OECD.

OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World (vol. 1). Paris, France: OECD.

OECD. (2009). The PISA 2009 Assessment Framework: Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics, and Science. Available: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/44455820.pdf [July 2016].

OECD. (2012a). Assessment and Analytical Framework. Available: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA%202012%20framework%20e-book_final.pdf [July 2016].

OECD. (2012b). The PISA 2012 Mathematics Framework. Available: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/46961598.pdf [July 2016].

OECD. (2013). The PISA 2015 Draft Science Framework. Available: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Science%20Framework%20.pdf [July 2016].

OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do: Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading, and Science. (Vol. I., Revised edition, February 2014). Paris, France: OECD.

OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2003). Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow – Further results from PISA 2000. Paris, France: OECD.

O’Rourke, D., and Macey, G.P. (2003). Community environmental policing: Assessing new strategies of public participation in environmental regulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(3), 383-414.

Osborn, C., Paasche-Orlow, M., Davis, T., and Wolf, M. (2007). Health literacy: An overlooked factor in understanding HIV health disparities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(5), 374-378.

Osborn, C., Paasche-Orlow, M., Cooper Bailey, S., and Wolf, M. (2011). The mechanisms linking health literacy to behavior and health status. American Journal of Health Behavior, 35(1), 118-128.

Osborne, J., and Dillon, J. (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections (vol. 13). London: Nuffield Foundation.

Ottinger, G. (2010). Buckets of resistance: Standards and effectiveness of citizen science. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 35(2), 244-270.

Ottinger, G. (2013). Refining Expertise: How Responsible Engineers Subvert Environmental Justice Challenges. New York: New York University Press.

Ottinger, G. and Cohen, B.R. (2011). Technoscience and Environmental Justice Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ownby, R.L., Acevedo, A., Waldrop-Valverde, D., Jacobs, R.J., and Caballero, J. (2014). Abilities, skills and knowledge in measures of health literacy. Patient Education and Counseling, 95(2), 211-217.

Paasche-Orlow, M., and Wolf, M. (2007). The causal pathways linking health literacy to health outcomes. American Journal of Health Behavior, 31(Suppl. 1), S19-S26.

Paasche-Orlow, M., Riekert, K., Bilderback, A., Chanmugam, A., Hill, P., Rand, C., Brancati, F., and Krishnan, J. (2005). Tailored education may reduce health disparities in asthma self-management. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 172(8), 980-986.

Paasche-Orlow, M., Wilson, E., and McCormack, L. (2010) The evolving field of health literacy research. Journal of Health Communication, 15(Suppl. 2), 5-8.

Pardo, R., and Calvo, F. (2002). Attitudes toward science among the European public: A methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 11(2), 155-195.

Pardo, R., and Calvo, F. (2004). The cognitive dimension of public perceptions of science: Methodological issues. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 203-227.

Parker, R.M., Baker, D.W., Williams, M.V., and Nurss, J.R. (1995). The test of functional health literacy in adults: A new instrument for measuring patients’ literacy skills. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 10(10), 537-541.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Pelikan, J., Röthlin, F., and Ganahl, K. (2012). Comparative Report on Health Literacy in Eight EU Member States. Available: http://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/web/Institutes/FHML/CAPHRI/DepartmentsCAPHRI/InternationalHealth/ResearchINTHEALTH/Projects/HealthLiteracyHLSEU/MeasuringHealthLiteracyInEurope.htm [July 2016].

Pella, M.O., O’Hearn, G.T., and Gale, C.W. (1966). Referents to scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(3), 199-208.

Perrin, A., and Duggan, M. (2015). Americans’ Internet Access: 2000-2015. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/06/2015-06-26_internetusage-across-demographics-discover_FINAL.pdf [September 2016].

Peters, E. (2012). Beyond comprehension: The role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 31-35.

Pew Research Center. (2015). A Look at What the Public Knows and Does Not Know About Science. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/09/2015-09-10_science-knowledge_FINAL.pdf [July 2016].

Phadke, R. (2005). People’s science in action: The politics of protest and knowledge brokering in India. Society and Natural Resources, 18(4), 363-375.

Pleasant, A., Rudd, R., O’Leary, C., Paasche-Orlow, M., Allen, M., Alvarado-Little, W., Myers, L., and Parson, K. (2016). Considerations for a New Definition of Health Literacy. Discussion Paper. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine. Available: http://nam.edu/considerations-for-a-new-definition-of-health-literacy [July 2016].

Plutzer, E. (2013). The racial gap in confidence in science: Explanations and implications. Bulletin of Science Technology and Society, 33(5-6), 146-157.

Poland, G.A., and Jacobson, R.M. (2001). Understanding those who do not understand: A brief review of the anti-vaccine movement. Vaccine, 19, 2440-2445.

Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Powers, B.J., Olsen, M.K., Oddone, E.Z., Thorpe, C.T., and Bosworth, H.B. (2008). Literacy and blood pressure—do healthcare systems influence this relationship? A cross-sectional study. BMC Health Services Research, 8, 219-228.

Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science, 302(5652), 1912-1914.

Priest, S.H. (2001). Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication, 23(2), 97-110.

Priest, S.H., Bonfadelli, H., and Rusanen, M. (2003). The “trust gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 751-766.

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., and Norcross, J.C. (1992). In search of how people change. Applications to addictive behaviors. Journal of American Psychology, 47(9), 1102-1114.

Provasnik, S., Kastberg, D., Ferraro, D., Lemanski, N., Roey, S., and Jenkins, F. (2012). Highlights from TIMSS 2011: Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context (NCES 2013-009 Revised). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Rabinovich, A., Morton, T., and Birney, M. (2012). Communicating climate science: The role of perceived communicator’s motives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(1), 11-18.

Retzbach, J., Otto, L., and Maier, M. (2015). Measuring the perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence and its relationship to engagement with science. Public Understanding of Science [Epub ahead of print].

Roberts, D.A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. Abell and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roberts, J., and Toffolon-Weiss, M. (2001). Chronicles from the Environmental Justice Frontline. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Robinson, L., Calmes, D., and Bazargan, M. (2008). The impact of literacy enhancement on asthma-related outcomes among underserved children. Journal of the National Medical Association, 100(8), 892-896.

Roduta Roberts, M., Reid, G., Schroeder, M., and Norris, S. (2013). Causal or spurious? The relationship of knowledge and attitudes to trust in science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 22(5), 624-641.

Rogers, E.M. (1948). Science courses in general education. In E.J. McGrath (Ed.), Science in General Education (pp. 1-22). Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown.

Ross, L., Frier, B., Kelnar, C., and Deary, I. (2001). Child and parental mental ability and glycemic control in children with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetic Medicine, 18(5), 364-369.

Ross, N., Medin, D., and Cox, D. (2007). Epistemological models and culture conflict: Menominee and Euro-American hunters in Wisconsin. Ethos, 35(4), 478-515.

Roth, W.M., and Calabrese Barton, A. (2004). Rethinking Scientific Literacy. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Roth, W.M., and Lee, S. (2002). Scientific literacy as collective praxis. Public Understanding of Science, 11(1), 33-56.

Roth, W.M., and Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 24, 76-89.

Rothman, R., DeWalt, D., Malone, R., Bryant, B., Shintani, A., Crigler, B., Weinberger, M., and Pignone, M. (2004). Influence of patient literacy on the effectiveness of a primary care-based diabetes disease management program. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(14), 1711-1716.

Rudd, R.E., Kirsch, I., and Yamamoto, K. (2004). Literacy and Health in America. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Available: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICHEATH.pdf [April 2016].

Rudd, R.E., McCray, A.T., and Nutbeam, D. (2012). Health literacy and definition of terms. In D. Begoray, D. Gillis, and G. Rowlands (Eds.), Health Literacy in Context (pp. 13-32). New York: Nova Science.

Rudolph, J.L. (2002). Scientists in the Classroom: The Cold War Reconstruction of American Science Education (1st Edition). New York: Palgave.

Rudolph, J.L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of “the scientific method” in American schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45(3), 341-376.

Rudolph, J.L., and Horibe, S. (2015). What do we mean by science education for civic engagement? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 805-820.

Rutherford, F.J., and Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional science literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36(1), 1-44.

Salzman, H. (2013). What shortages? The real evidence about the STEM workforce. Issues in Science and Technology, 29(4), 58-67.

Sanz-Menéndez, L., and Van Ryzin, G.G. (2013). Economic crisis and public attitudes toward science: A study of regional differences in Spain. Public Understanding of Science, 24(2), 167-182.

Sanz-Menéndez, L., Van Ryzin, G., and del Pino, E. (2014). Citizens’ support for government spending on science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 41(5), 611-624.

Scheufele, D.A. (2006). Messages and Heuristics: How Audiences Form Attitudes about Emerging Technologies. London: The Wellcome Trust.

Scheufele, D.A. (2011). Modern Citizenship or Policy Dead End? Evaluating the Need for Public Participation in Science Policy Making, and Why Public Meetings May Not Be the Answer. Paper #R-34. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Joan Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy. Available: http://shorensteincenter.org/modern-citizenship-or-policy-dead-end-dietram-scheufele [July 2016].

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Scheufele, D.A., and Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659-667.

Scheufele, D.A., Corley, E.A., Shih, T.J., Dalrymple, K.E., and Ho, S.S. (2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 91-94.

Schillinger, D., Hammer, H., Wang, F., Palacios, J., McLean, I., Tang, A., Youmans, S., and Handley, M. (2008). Seeing in 3-D: Examining the reach of diabetes self-management support strategies in a public health care system. Health Education Behavior, 35(5), 664-682.

Setälä, M., Grönlund, K., and Herne, K. (2010). Citizen deliberation on nuclear power: A comparison of two decision-making methods. Political Studies, 58(4), 688-714.

Shamos, M.H. (1995). The Myth of Scientific Literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Shen, B.S.P. (1975). Scientific literacy and the public understanding of science. In S.B. Day (Ed.), Communication of Scientific Information (pp. 44-52). Basel, Switzerland: Karger.

Shephard, K., Harraway, J., Lovelock, B., Skeaff, S., Slooten, L., Strack, M., Furnari, M., and Jowett, T. (2014). Is the environmental literacy of university students measurable? Environmental Education Research, 20(4), 476-495.

Sheridan S., Halpern, D., Viera, A., Berkman, N., Donahue, K., and Crotty, K. (2011). Interventions for individuals with low health literacy: A systematic review. Journal of Health Communication, 16(Suppl. 3), 30-54.

Shirk, J.L., Ballard, H.L., Wilderman, C.C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Minarchek, M., Lewenstein, B.V., Krasny, M.E., and Bonney, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: A framework for intentional design. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 29-48.

Siegel, H. (1988). Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking and Education. London: Routledge.

Sjøberg, L. (2002). Attitudes toward technology and risk: Going beyond what is immediately given. Policy Sciences, 35(4), 379-400.

Snow, C.E. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Snow, C.E. (2016). Literacy. Paper presented to Committee on Scientific Literacy and Public Perception of Science, March 7, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC.

Sørensen, K, Van den Broucke, S., Fullam, J., Doyle, G., Pelikan, J., Slonska, Z., and Brand, H. (2012). Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health, 12(80), 1-13.

Sørensen, K., Pelikan, J.M., Röthlin, F., Ganahl, K., Slonska, Z., Doyle, G., Fullam, J., Kondilis, B., Agrafiotis, D., Uiters, E., Falcon, M., Mensing, M., Tchamov, K., van den Broucke, S., and Brand, H. (2015). Health literacy in Europe: Comparative results of the European Health Literacy Survey (HLS-EU). European Journal of Public Health 25(6), 1053-1058.

Southwell, B.G. (2013). Social Networks and Popular Understanding of Science and Health: Sharing Disparities. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Spencer, H. (1884). What Knowledge Is of Most Worth. New York: JB Alden.

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407.

Steen, L.A. (2001). Mathematics and Democracy: The Case for Quantitative Literacy. Princeton, NJ: National Council on Education and the Disciplines.

Sturgis, P., and Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55-74.

Sturgis, P., and Allum, N.C. (2006). A Literature Review of Research Conducted on Public Interest, Knowledge, and Attitudes to Biomedical Science. Available: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_grants/documents/web_document/wtd038717.pdf [July 2016].

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Sturgis, P., Brunton-Smith, I., and Fife-Schaw, C. (2010). Public attitudes to genomic science: An experiment in information provision. Public Understanding of Science, 19(2), 166-180.

Sudore, R.L., and Schillinger, D. (2009). Interventions to improve care for patients with limited health literacy. Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management, 16(1), 20-29.

Sugawara, Y., Narimatsu, H., Hozawa, A., Shao, L., Otani, K., and Fukao, A. (2012). Cancer patients on Twitter: A novel patient community on social media. BMC Research Notes, 5, 699. Available: http://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-0500-5-699 [September 2016].

Sum, A., Kirsch, I., and Taggart, R. (2002). The Twin Challenges of Mediocrity and Inequality: Literacy in the U.S. from an International Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

The Royal Society. (2014). Vision for Science and Mathematics Education. London: The Royal Society.

Trochim, W. (2000). The Research Methods Knowledge Base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.

Turnbull, D. (1997). Reframing science and other local knowledge traditions. Futures, 29(6), 551-562.

Turnbull, D. (2003). Masons, Tricksters, and Cartographers: Comparative Studies in the Sociology of Scientific and Indigenous Knowledge. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Tytler, R., Duggan, S., and Gott, R. (2001). Public participation in an environmental dispute: Implications for science education. Public Understanding of Science, 10(4), 343-364.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014a). Civil Rights Data Collection Data Snapshot: College and Career Readiness (Issue Brief Number 3). Washington, DC: Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014b). Expansive Survey of America’s Public Schools Reveals Troubling Racial Disparities. Available: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/expansive-survey-americas-public-schools-reveals-troubling-racial-disparities [July 2016].

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). The Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004–077). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Varkey, A., Manwell, L., Williams, E., Ibrahim, S., Brown, R., Bobula, J., Horner-Ibler, B., von Wagner, C., Steptoe, A., Wolf, M., and Wardle, J. (2009). Health literacy and health actions: A review and a framework from health psychology. Health Education & Behavior, 36(5), 860-877.

Viswanath, K., and Finnegan, J.R. (1996). The knowledge gap hypothesis: Twenty-five years later. Annals of the International Communication Association, 19(1), 187-228.

von Wagner, C., Steptoe, A., Wolf, M.S., and Wardle, J. (2009). Health literacy and health actions: A review and a framework from health psychology. Health Education and Behavior, 36(5), 860-877.

Wallerstein, N., and Duran, B. (2006). Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312-323.

Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and Literacy: Learning in the Wireless Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Washington, S.H., and Pellow, D. (2016). Water crisis in Flint, Michigan: Interview with David Pellow, Ph.D. Environmental Justice, 9(2), 53-58.

Weiss, B.D., Mays, M.Z., Martz, W., Castro, K.M., DeWalt, D.A., Pignone, M.P., Mockbee, J., and Hale, F.A. (2005). Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: The Newest Vital Sign. Annals of Family Medicine, 3(6), 514-522.

Weissman, J. (2013). The Ph.D. bust: America’s awful market for young scientists—in 7 charts. Atlantic Monthly, February 20.

Wellcome Trust. (2013). Wellcome Trust Monitor: Wave 2. Available: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_grants/documents/web_document/wtp053113.pdf [May 2015].

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

Weller, J.A., Dieckmann, N.F., Tusler, M., Mertz, C.K., Burns, W.J., and Peters, E. (2013). Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A Rasch analysis approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(2), 198-212.

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246.

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., and Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967.

World Health Organization. (1998). Health Promotion Glossary. www.who.int/healthpromotion/about/HPR%20Glossary%201998.pdf [July 2016].

World Health Organization. (2009). 7th Global Conference on Health Promotion, Track 2: Health Literacy and Health Behavior. http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/7gchp/track2/en [July 2016].

World Values Survey. (2014). WVS Wave 6 2010-2014 Official Aggregate v.20150418. Available: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp [June 2016].

Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3), 281-304.

Xie, Y., and Killewald, A.A. (2012). Is American Science in Decline? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yeo, S., Cacciatore, M., and Scheufele, D. (2015). News selectivity and beyond: Motivated reasoning in a changing media environment. In O. Jandura, C. Mothes, T. Petersen, and A. Schielicke (Eds.), Publizistik und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung: Festschrift für Wolfgang Donsbach (pp. 83-104). Berlin, Germany: Verlag Springer.

Yin, H., Dreyer, B., van Schaick, L., Foltin, G., Dinglas, C., and Mendelsohn, A. (2008). Randomized controlled trial of a pictogram-based intervention to reduce liquid medication dosing errors and improve adherence among caregivers of young children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 162(9), 814-822.

Zarcadoolas, C., Pleasant, A., and Greer, D.S. (2005). Understanding health literacy: An expanded model. Health Promotion International, 20(2), 195-203.

Zhang, N., Terry, A., and McHorney, C. (2014). Impact of health literacy on medication adherence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 48(6), 741-751.

Zwickle, A., Koontz, T.M., Slagle, K.M., and Bruskotter, J.T. (2014). Assessing sustainability knowledge of a student population: Developing a tool to measure knowledge in the environmental, economic and social domains. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(4), 375-389.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23595.
×
Page 132
Next: Appendix A: Key Definitions and Statements about Literacy, Numeracy, Science Literacy, Health Literacy, and Health Numeracy »
Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00 Buy Ebook | $35.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Science is a way of knowing about the world. At once a process, a product, and an institution, science enables people to both engage in the construction of new knowledge as well as use information to achieve desired ends. Access to science—whether using knowledge or creating it—necessitates some level of familiarity with the enterprise and practice of science: we refer to this as science literacy.

Science literacy is desirable not only for individuals, but also for the health and well- being of communities and society. More than just basic knowledge of science facts, contemporary definitions of science literacy have expanded to include understandings of scientific processes and practices, familiarity with how science and scientists work, a capacity to weigh and evaluate the products of science, and an ability to engage in civic decisions about the value of science. Although science literacy has traditionally been seen as the responsibility of individuals, individuals are nested within communities that are nested within societies—and, as a result, individual science literacy is limited or enhanced by the circumstances of that nesting.

Science Literacy studies the role of science literacy in public support of science. This report synthesizes the available research literature on science literacy, makes recommendations on the need to improve the understanding of science and scientific research in the United States, and considers the relationship between scientific literacy and support for and use of science and research.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!