All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Teaching Millennials to Engage THE Environment instead of THEIR Environment: A Pedagogical Analysis
Unformatted Document Text:  particularly ignorant when it comes to the awareness and understanding of science and technical issues. Though science writers once saw their craft improving in quality and quantity, 4 a more recent survey found this trend significantly reversed as newsrooms cut specialty reporters in response to economic pressures. 5 A 2009 Pew Research Center report found that 85 percent of American scientists thought the public did not know enough about science and 76 percent cited a lack of context in news media coverage of science. 6 An earlier Pew report found that Americans acquired most (89 percent) of their information concerning science and technology from media, 7 a distressing finding, considering concerns about the news media’s ability to cover routine scientific developments. 8 Supporting this finding, Suleski found that less than .005 percent of non-medical science journals received any press coverage at all. 9 Despite the high levels of interest in science news, 10 news organizations tend to treat the reportage of science as a niche or beat subject, leading to uneven coverage by beat reporters (at larger newspapers), general assignment reporters, and wire stories. 11 Despite an increase in the number of newspaper sections devoted to science in the 1980s, 12 the number of sections declined from 95 sections in 1989 to only 47 in 1992. 13 Science is a difficult subject to cover, and several studies have examined the accuracy of scientific news reports. Tankard and Ryan found that scientists judged only 8.8 percent of science articles to be error-free, compared to 40 to 59 percent error-free stories in other types of stories. 14 Tichenor, Olien, Harrison and Donohue found that only 40 percent of scientists surveyed agreed with the statement that science news is generally accurate. 15 Dunwoody and Scott found that 51 percent of scientists surveyed offered criticism of science reporting for containing inaccuracy and distortion. 16 And the 3

Authors: Stevens, Rick. and Crow, Deserai.
first   previous   Page 3 of 21   next   last



background image
particularly ignorant when it comes to the awareness and understanding of science and 
technical issues. Though science writers once saw their craft improving in quality and 
quantity,
 a more recent survey found this trend significantly reversed as newsrooms cut 
specialty reporters in response to economic pressures.
A 2009 Pew Research Center report found that 85 percent of American scientists 
thought the public did not know enough about science and 76 percent cited a lack of 
context in news media coverage of science.
 An earlier Pew report found that Americans 
acquired most (89 percent) of their information concerning science and technology from 
media,
 a distressing finding, considering concerns about the news media’s ability to 
cover routine scientific developments.
 Supporting this finding, Suleski found that less 
than .005 percent of non-medical science journals received any press coverage at all.
Despite the high levels of interest in science news,
 news organizations tend to 
treat the reportage of science as a niche or beat subject, leading to uneven coverage by 
beat reporters (at larger newspapers), general assignment reporters, and wire stories.
Despite an increase in the number of newspaper sections devoted to science in the 
1980s,
 the number of sections declined from 95 sections in 1989 to only 47 in 1992.
Science is a difficult subject to cover, and several studies have examined the 
accuracy of scientific news reports. Tankard and Ryan found that scientists judged only 
8.8 percent of science articles to be error-free, compared to 40 to 59 percent error-free 
stories in other types of stories.
 Tichenor, Olien, Harrison and Donohue found that only 
40 percent of scientists surveyed agreed with the statement that science news is generally 
accurate.
 Dunwoody and Scott found that 51 percent of scientists surveyed offered 
criticism of science reporting for containing inaccuracy and distortion.
 And the 
3


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 3 of 21   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.