Science communication 2014-gelmez burakgazi-168-93-2

http://scx.sagepub.com/
Science Communication
http://scx.sagepub.com/content/36/2/168
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1075547013505847
2013
2014 36: 168 originally published online 24 OctoberScience Communication
Sevinc Gelmez Burakgazi and Ali Yildirim
Fourth and Fifth Graders for Science Learning
Accessing Science Through Media: Uses and Gratifications Among
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Science CommunicationAdditional services and information for
http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://scx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://scx.sagepub.com/content/36/2/168.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Oct 24, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Mar 27, 2014Version of Record>>
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on April 25, 2014scx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on April 25, 2014scx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Science Communication
2014, Vol. 36(2) 168–193
© 2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1075547013505847
scx.sagepub.com
Article
Accessing Science
Through Media: Uses and
Gratifications Among
Fourth and Fifth Graders
for Science Learning
Sevinc Gelmez Burakgazi1 and Ali Yildirim1
Abstract
This qualitative phenomenological study aims to investigate fourth and fifth
graders’ uses of mass media (TV, newspapers, Internet, magazines) and to
assess their various features as sources for science learning. The data were
collected from 47 purposefully selected students through focus groups and
were analyzed through qualitative analysis using uses and gratifications theory
as a conceptual framework. The results indicated that students were active
in choosing and utilizing media to meet their cognitive, affective, personal
integrative, and social integrative needs. Furthermore accessibility, content,
and presentation were the key factors in influencing students’ motivation of
use of the media.
Keywords
science communication, science learning, mass media, uses and gratifications
theory, qualitative analysis
1Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey in the name of Kocaeli University, Izmit,
Turkey
Corresponding Author:
Sevinc Gelmez Burakgazi, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Middle
East Technical University, Universiteler Mah. Dumlupinar Cad., 06800, Ankara, Turkey.
Email: sevincgelmez@gmail.com
505847SCX36210.1177/1075547013505847Science CommunicationGelmez Burakgazi andYildirim
research-article2013
at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on April 25, 2014scx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Gelmez Burakgazi and Yildirim 169
Introduction
Science information is disseminated through a wide range of channels. From
childhood to adult life, we learn science both in school and beyond. A huge
amount of science-related knowledge is acquired outside of traditional learn-
ing environments (Falk & Dierking, 2010). The mass media are the most
readily available and sometimes the only source of information in this case
(Nelkin, 1995). Sources that are mainly used in informal learning environ-
ments such as newspapers, TV, magazines, Internet, and science centers are
no replacement for a formal science education, but this does not mean they do
not have any value (Bell, Lewenstein, Shouse, & Feder, 2009; Friedman &
Mappen, 2011). In fact, as Gilbert (2007) notes, education systems are slow
to keep up with progress in the field of science. Apropos of this, Gordon,
Brigdlall, and Meroe (2004) claim that schools cannot manage the task of
disseminating science learning alone and accordingly might benefit from col-
laboration with other institutions.
The media, as a well-known science information resource, have an impor-
tant influence on attitudes toward science (Lee & Scheufele, 2006). Its role in
science education is threefold: First, the media make science more accessible
to students (Osborne & Collins, 2000). Second, outside the school, the media
are the most readily available and sometimes the only source of information
on scientific issues (Nelkin, 1995). Third, people already pick up most of
their science knowledge through the media (Detjen, 1995). The media’s role
in science education has gradually been increasing (Dierking, 2005; Fenichel
& Schweingruber, 2010).
For Weitkamp (2010), science-related information may be disseminated
through both fiction (novels, films, etc.) and nonfiction (newspapers, maga-
zines, etc.) media. The media may also be categorized as traditional (TV,
radio, newspaper, magazines) and new/alternative (Internet) media (Gross,
2003). Changes in science and technology news coverage bring about changes
in how these resources are used. One reason for students’ increased interest
in extracurricular sources of science information could be that science infor-
mation presented on TV, in magazines, and in newspapers is more entertain-
ing now than it had been in the past. Turkey is a country where youngsters
spend a considerable amount of time on TV and home Internet use. Radio,
newspaper, and magazine consumption lags behind TV and Internet usage.
For this reason, Turkey is an especially interesting place to study young peo-
ple’s science learning from media. This transition in media coverage is also
changing audiences’ preferences. Science and Engineering Indicators (http://
www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/), for example, reported shifts among adults
and young people alike in the United States. According to the report, younger
audiences mainly use Internet for news and information, including science

170 Science Communication 36(2)
and technology information, and their Internet usage increases with educa-
tion level and income. The Internet has also become a dominant source of
current news, science and technology information, and other specialized
information.
Notable among decades of studies examining the dissemination of science-
related knowledge through media is Hook and Brake’s (2010) reference to
direct and indirect learning, as discussed through obvious and incidental
learning from television. In a related study, Brossard and Shanahan (2006)
identified and tested the 31 terms most often used in the U.S. media. They
were not able to find statistical evidence to conclude that either newspaper
consumption or television exposure affected scientific literacy. They did,
however, find a positive relationship between media and scientific literacy
when controlling for age, gender, and science education. This study impli-
cates that the media coverage is linked to scientific literacy for certain indi-
viduals, if not for all.
According to Hook and Brake (2010), the Internet, as a new medium,
sometimes provides unintentional information via popular sites such as
Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and YouTube. However, they maintained that
science learning through the Internet is still significant because those who
belong to a group or have any other interest in, connection to, or knowledge
of science may reach each other easily. Trench’s (2008) research deals with
the trend toward the Internet as a primary element in science communication,
arguing that Internet communication is thoroughly integrated into scientific
practice. In the United States, the Internet was determined to be a much more
helpful tool for accessing science information than any other medium
(National Science Board, 2004).
Uses and gratifications theory (UGT) suggests that media users play an
active role in choosing and using the media that best fulfills their needs.
According to O’Donohoe (1993), “The mass media constitute a resource on
which audiences draw to satisfy various needs. In its conception of an active,
goal-directed audience, it is consistent with emerging views of the advertis-
ing consumer” (p. 52).
This theory puts forward that people actively select and use media for
purposes of gratification. Katz, Gurevitch, and Haas (1973) list 35 basic
human needs based on an extensive analysis of the literature and organize
them into five categories:
1. Cognitive needs: Strengthening information, knowledge, and
understanding
2. Affective needs: Strengthening aesthetic, pleasurable, and emotional
experiences

3. Personal integrative needs: Strengthening credibility, confidence, sta-
bility, and status
4. Social integrative needs: Strengthening contact with family, friends,
and the world
5. Tension release needs: Escaping and diversion
As with adults, young children as consumers of media are not passive recipients
of science information. Previous research in this area has paid little attention to
the role of mass media on young students’ science learning and the media’s
characteristics as science information sources, which is the focus of this research
(Gelmez-Burakgazi, 2012). However, current studies underline the effect of
positive childhood science experiences on adult interest in science (Elsley &
McMellon, 2010; Osborne, Collins, & Simon, 2003; Oskala, Keaney, Chan, &
Bunting, 2009). On the other hand, it is remarkable that there exist many studies
relating a decline in attitudes toward science from the age of 11 years onward
(Breakwell & Beardsell, 1992), from Grade 5 through Grade 11 (Baykul, 1990),
from elementary to high school level (Piburn & Baker, 1993); in interest toward
science among school-age students (Gilbert, 2008); and in enthusiasm toward
science even through the ages of 5 to 11 years (Pell & Jarvis, 2001), from Grade
4 to Grade 8 (Bulus-Kirikkaya, 2011). Therefore, this study aims to investigate
students’ perceptions and experiences of using science information sources at
this critical age level (10-12) to enlarge and enrich their learning of science. The
specific research questions included the following:
Research Question 1: How do fourth- and fifth-grade students use mass
media in science learning?
Research Question 2: What characteristics make mass media effective
for fourth- and fifth-grade students in science learning?
Method
Utilizing a qualitative phenomenological approach, this study aims to explore
the meaning of experiences, conceptions, and emotions (Creswell, 2007;
Moustakas, 1994; Yildirim & Simsek, 2008) of students in science learning
through sources not directly related to the academic curricula.
The data were gathered through focus groups with purposefully selected
students in four elementary schools (two public schools, two private schools)
in Ankara, Turkey, in 2011. Patton (2002) states, “The logic and the power of
purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich cases indepth” (p. 230).
Besides its strengths like enhancing the credibility of the study “because sub-
jects can reliably inform the research question” (Houser, 2011, p. 424), ease of
access to the targeted population, and being less time-consuming, purposeful

sampling had also pitfalls as explained by Koerber and McMichael (2008):
difficulty in generalizing to other subjects and selection bias. In order to mini-
mize the first weakness, the researchers have avoided broader generalizations
of the findings. The second weakness, selection bias, “is not a concern if clear
criteria are used and researcher is aware of his or her biases” (Houser, 2011, p.
424). The criterion used in this study was “having an interest in science,”
because the students with an interest in learning science would have richer
experiences of learning from a variety of information sources and would pro-
vide more detailed and in-depth perspectives into the research questions.
Based on this criterion, researchers collaborated with teachers and school
administrations in selecting information-rich students. Through this process,
the researchers intentionally reached a sample of students that were different
from the larger body of students who may not be as interested in science. This
intentional selection was necessary based on the purpose of the study since the
relationship between media and science literacy may not be observed in all
students (Brossard & Shanahan, 2006), but at the same time, this selection
leads to a serious limitation in generalization of the results to all students.
Twenty-three students from fifth-grade classes (14 girls, 9 boys) and 24
students from the fourth-grade classes (12 girls, 12 boys) were selected for
the focus groups, based on their experience with the phenomenon at hand.
Students’ ages ranged from 10 to 12 as the literature indicated declines in
attitudes and interests toward science at this critical age level (Baykul, 1990;
Breakwell & Beardsell, 1992; Bulus-Kirikkaya, 2011; Gilbert, 2008; Pell &
Jarvis, 2001; Piburn & Baker, 1993).
At the beginning of the focus groups, participants were asked some demo-
graphic information questions (age, science grade at past term, parents’ education
level, age, job; and their TV, Internet, magazine, and newspaper access in home
contexts). All of the participants’ science scores for the past term were 5 on a
scale of 5. Therefore, the participants were high-achieving students. Public
schools represented low- and medium-socioeconomic families, whereas families
inprivateschoolswerefrommedium-andhigh-socioeconomicfamilies.Participants
mainly came from highly educated families. Most of the parents had college (N =
67) and graduate degrees (master’s/PhD; N = 21). Some of the parents had high
school degree (N = 6). All the participants had TV and Internet access at home.
In the semistructured interview format, open-ended questions were
employed to examine students’ use of media in learning science. The interview
schedule was validated by expert review in terms of depth, scope, appropriate-
ness to the participants, and compatibility with the research questions. The inter-
view questions were checked by three individuals: a professor in the area of
curriculum and instruction who is also a well-known researcher using qualita-
tive inquiry, a person with a PhD in science education, and a PhD candidate who
is studying elementary school students. Following the revisions within the

context of expert review, the schedule was piloted with one fourth- and one
fifth-grade student. Eight focus groups were run with six students participating
in each, except for the fifth-grade focus group in Private School A conducted
with five students. Focus groups were organized separately for fourth and fifth
graders. Each focus group lasted approximately 130 minutes, with a break
dividing the session into two parts. The interaction in focus groups was recorded
to prevent the potential threat of data loss due to only taking notes.
Multiple data sources (four schools, two grade levels) and investigators
(two researchers) were employed to triangulate the outcomes, as suggested
by Patton (1990). The use of multiple data sources has led the researchers to
gather data from a variety of students, thereby to see a broader picture of the
science learning phenomenon. In addition to this, involvement of two
researchers enhanced the validity of the research (Denzin, 2009) as they con-
trolled and cross-checked data collection and analysis phases together.
For qualitative data analysis, significant statements were selected for a
more thorough explanation, key themes were identified, and an exhaus-
tive description of the phenomenon was presented (Creswell, 1998;
Moustakas, 1994). Accordingly, the analysis process pursued the follow-
ing steps: (a) close reading, (b) coding, (c) thematizing, (d) exploring
patterns, and (e) description and interpretation. Table 1 presents an exam-
ple of coding system.
Table 1. An Example of Index of Coding Systems for Content.
Needs Uses
Features of mass media
sources
Cognitive needs Doing homework/project
requirements
Accessibility
Content quality
Affective needs In science classes Providing Interesting
Information
Credible
Personal integrative
needs
Conducting individual science
related research
Addressing to the level
Providing permanent
knowledge
Social integrative needs Updated
Relevance to life
Content presentation
Comprehensible
Fun/enjoyable
Brief
Audio/visual support
Awakening curiosity

Always
Often
Sometimes
Never
Watching science
programs on TV
Reading science topics
on newspaper
Reading science
magazines
Numberofresponses(n=47)
0
10
20
30
Doing science related
activities on internet
Figure 1. Students’ use of media sources for science-related purposes.
In presentation of the findings, thick descriptions were used to enable the
readers to draw their own conclusions (Geertz, 1973; Lincoln Guba, 1985).
Detailed explanations of the participants, procedures, and results were pro-
vided to enrich the transferability and replicability of the study.
Results
The results indicated that students chiefly used Internet, science magazines,
and TV (see Figure 1) as science information sources in doing homework,
conducting individual and group research for science assignments, and in
science classes. Most of the students (N = 27) reported that accessibility was
the most important aspect of their choice of media. In addition to content
quality, the presentation of interesting topics, real-life relevance, age-
appropriateness, the frequency with which it was updated, and the cultivation
of reputations for trustworthiness were other key factors in students’ use of
media sources. In the following section, results are presented under the head-
ings of TV, science magazines, newspapers, and the Internet.
TV
Analysis of the interviews conducted with students revealed that television
content was perceived as effective in the sense of presenting authentic,
updated, and interesting information that was repeatable, as programs could
be recorded and watched again. Myth Busters and Ultimate Survival were the
TV programs mentioned in the context of science-focused programs they
watched.

TV was among the sources perceived as accessible. Students saw TV as a
source of authentic news that was relevant to their daily lives. By way of
illustration, S38 (fifth grader, Private School A) commented as follows:
It [science on TV] is permanent because real things happen there [on TV]. To me,
it is interesting and sometimes fun.
Learning science from television was enjoyable for students as content
was disseminated both audibly and visually. Students claimed that when they
watched something on TV they felt like they were within the scene they were
watching. As S21 (fourth grader, Private School B) explained,
For example a lunar eclipse, solar eclipse . . . We already know them but . . . I’ve
never seen a solar eclipse in my life. I watched one in a documentary and I felt like
I’ve seen it. How does that happen? These kinds of programs do really help [to
learn science].
Similarly, comparing TV with her textbook, S15 (fourth grader, Private
School A) commented,
In the textbook there are not many realistic-looking pictures of fossils but long
texts. That’s why textbooks capture my interest less. But the TV is both audio and
visual, and at the same time they [programs] are animated, which is really
interesting.
As summarized in Figure 2, students stated that science on TV was inter-
esting, easy to understand, and fun. What is more, they explained that they
learned different things from science programs than what was being taught in
school, and this supplemental education further piqued their curiosity and
motivated them to dig deeper. Moreover, some students explained that if they
desired to learn more about something they came across on TV, they used the
Internet or science books or asked questions of their teachers and families.
Students described TV is effective as a science learning tool because of its
visuals and its potential to pique curiosity, especially when quality programs
are selected, though students did report difficulty understanding some pro-
grams. Other reported drawbacks of TV as a learning tool included the broad-
casting of programs that distracted the students, of programs too similar in
theme to one another, and of children’s educational programs during the
school day, as well as the complaint that the information was presented too
quickly. One of the fourth-grade students commented that she had difficulty

in retaining the information she learned from TV, which could have to do
with the impediments reported above.
The analysis further revealed, however, that 13 students in four focus
groups disapproved of TV as it did not address them at their levels. Some
students did not find it helpful to use the TV for learning science, explaining
that it was uncommon to see scientists on TV and that little science-related
information could be found on TV that students in this research had access to.
Some representative quotes are provided below:
I don’t use TV much for science learning purposes. On TV, in general, I hardly see
scientists but mostly some people speaking. (S5, fourth grader, Public School A)
It is hard for me to find science-related programs on TV. That’s why I don’t use
the TV [to learn science]. (S19, fourth-grader, Private School B)
Figure 2. Effective and ineffective features of TV as a science information source.
Note. “+” symbolizes effective features; “−” symbolizes ineffective features of the mass media
sources. Features on the both sides were placed alphabetically.

TV, as a mass media resource, targets people of all ages. Because of this,
students also criticized TV for lacking programs directed at their specific age
and education levels. However, at the same time, TV was praised as an up-to-
date resource with interesting and relevant science-related content.
Science Magazines
Students reported learning about many interesting topics in science maga-
zines and pointed out that these topics were sometimes complementary to
what they were learning in school. As different from the public schools in the
study, magazines emerged to be one of the main science information sources
in private schools. Furthermore, the results revealed that science magazines
contained quality and trustworthy knowledge presented in an age-appropriate
style and that it was easy to retain what was learned. Most of the students
explained that they found the topics covered in science magazines interesting
and that they enjoyed reading them while also learning something new. Two
students articulated the relationship between this feeling and retention of
information:
They [science magazines] are fun and you learn various things. They talk to you at
your level and you can understand better. So this makes the information permanent
in your mind. (S5, fourth grader, Public School A)
I think they [science magazines] are really fun because they are for us. They
address us, as S42 said. Like the name: “Science and Child” . . . They’re
understandable; we’re having fun, and so it becomes permanent in our minds. It
also makes us more curious about science, and there are many experiments I’d like
to try too. (S45, fifth grader, Private School B)
Unlike with TV, there were not many drawbacks identified regarding the
content of science magazines. As an outlier comment, one of the fourth-grade
students from Private School B complained that science magazines focused
more on animals than on humans in their coverage.
In relation to the presentation of content in science magazines, students
claimed that learning science from magazines provoked their curiosity. They
appreciated colorful pictures, compelling visuals printed in high quality, and
brief explanatory text in science magazines, as demonstrated in Figure 3.
The analysis of the data also revealed that students followed up on the
things they found interesting in science magazines with further research. Five
students said they searched through archived magazines with their supple-
ments, and some of them cut out pictures and hung them up in their rooms or
glued them to their personal notebooks. They also shared the information
they found interesting with their classmates and teachers.

The analysis further indicated that some science magazines were more
useful to students than others. The magazine Science and Child created a
lively experience for students, with many colorful visuals, games, and comics
in it. Moreover, the material published was in line with school curricula but
Figure 3. Effective and ineffective features of science magazines as science
information source.

offered different perspectives to students. Integrating what her friends said
about science magazines, S35 (fifth grader, Public School B) concluded,
I think the best example of all these features in it is Science and Child. Because
with this magazine, we do fun things, learn different things and wonder about
them. We feel like we want to buy it again and learn about science more and more.
According to the interviewees, the effective content presentation features
(e.g., comprehensibility, fun/enjoyment, succinctness, visual support, thought
provocation) are not accompanied by many drawbacks. However, three fifth
graders from Private School B notably criticized National Geographic Kids
for its small typeface, which made it difficult for them to read and understand
the contents.
Newspapers
Content was cited by students as a reason for using newspapers as a resource
for science-related information. They agreed that science information in
newspapers was up-to-date, trustworthy, and interesting. They added that
what they learned in newspapers was different from what they were learning
through school science curriculum. Information in newspapers was actually
considered more trustworthy and frequently updated than information from
some other sources by the students. By way of illustration, S45 (fifth grader,
Private School B) noted the following:
The newspaper updates itself every day. I learn recent science-related news from
the newspapers. It’s also more reliable than the Internet. That’s why I like
newspapers better.
Between science magazines and newspapers, the students preferred sci-
ence magazines since they were directed at their age-group. Analysis of the
data revealed that students had not yet developed newspaper reading habits.
However, students confirmed that some parents shared interesting informa-
tion they came across in the newspapers with them.
Students claimed that since newspapers targeted a broad readership, it was
sometimes difficult for them to understand the science content in them. Apart
from not addressing the level of the students, newspapers were also reported
not to include sufficient science coverage, focusing instead on “adult” issues.
As the following student put it,
There isn’t much science-related news in the newspaper anymore. Instead of
science issues, the news is about murder, voting, and detectives, so I don’t read it.
(S23, fourth grader, Private School B)

S16 (fourth grader, Private School A) made the interesting comment that
topics covered in newspapers were also available on TV, and accordingly,
she preferred watching TV. Furthermore, some of the students described
newspapers as old-fashioned, one step behind the Internet and TV, which
might even update their information continuously.
Overall, as also exemplified in Figure 4, both fourth- and fifth-grade stu-
dents complained about problematic content presentation in newspapers. The
biggest criticism was of a lack of visual support. This was combined with the
observation that the information in newspapers was not directed at their age-
group and thus not readily comprehensible for the students. For reasons along
these lines, students explained that they did not prefer to read newspapers in
order to learn science.
Internet
In comparison to other media sources examined, the majority of the students
in this study stated that they were more likely to use the Internet. Students in
Figure 4. Effective and ineffective features of newspapers as science information
source.

this study explained that they mainly used Internet sites like Google and
Wikipedia for science-related research purposes. In one of the public schools,
students stated that they used a Facebook group that their class teacher had
opened for sharing science-related information. However, in public schools,
the Internet was chiefly in use for presentation purposes, for example, access-
ing sites of My Slide Place (slaytyerim.com) and Watch Slides (slaytizle
.com) with reference to science courses. Pupils in private schools in particu-
lar reported using the Internet as a primary source in school contexts. Students
used the Internet to access science information as it generally provided
detailed and interesting science information. As observed by two students,
The Internet has the most detailed information. It’s the only way for me to access
the information I need. (S25, fifth grader, Public School A)
I think science information on the Internet is understandable because we can
access every single detail, and I find it very meaningful to learn something from
different angles. (S4, fourth grader, Public School A)
Comparing the Internet with TV, S43 further explained that she preferred
to use the Internet rather than TV because she found it easier to retain infor-
mation she learned:
I prefer using the Internet [for science-related research] to TV. Because TV speaks
directly but you search [for information] on the Internet and I think this [type of
learning] is more long-lasting.
Furthermore, science-related information on the Internet aroused students’
curiosity about science and directed them to pursue more information inde-
pendently, as articulated by one student:
It [the Internet] grabs my interest and raises my curiosity. When I learn something,
I want to know more and so I surf the Internet [for more information] and read
more. (S17, fourth grader, Private School A)
Along with its effective features, Internet content was also criticized over
its credibility and for the level of science-related information it presents. To
begin with, students who participated in this study mentioned that they did
not trust all the information on the Internet and that they often needed to
double check its content. Alternatively, in coping with problems such as
validity and authenticity, S21 (fourth grader, Private School B) explained
that he stuck with the websites suggested to him by his family, teachers, and
friends. Students also explained that they had difficulty deciding which

information they should use, which caused them to sometimes feel the
Internet was a waste of time. The comments by several students are as
follows:
I usually don’t believe what I find. For example, I remember one text that seemed
pointless to me. I checked it on other sites as well, and when I compared them they
handled the subject in the same way. If things are similar on various sites, then I
think it’s true and I use it in my homework. (S24, fourth grader, Private School B)
It sometimes takes too much time to find reliable information that speaks to our
age-group. So, I think researching from the Internet is just a waste of Time. (S46,
fifth grader, Private School B)
Despite its advantages, the Internet was often criticized for its occasional
poor quality, for being unnecessarily long, and for its overly advanced infor-
mation about science. Students mainly complained that the content of web-
sites was sometimes complex, with vague wording, in addition to being
difficult to judge its credibility. The public school students also noted that the
dominance of English sometimes made it difficult to comprehend the details
of the information presented:
Some of the information I have accessed through the Internet is in English and
difficult to understand with the unfamiliar words. . . . It’s not fun anymore. Reading
is fine but when I can’t read and understand these words, it [accessing science
information on the Internet] starts to get boring. (S25, fifth grader, Public School A)
The information on the Internet is hard to understand because it’s for such a wide
variety of people [making it difficult to locate age-appropriate material]. (S32,
fifth grader, Public School B)
According to the students, their access to Internet content was also limited
by its presentation in small fonts, as articulated by S26 (fifth grader, Public
School A):
When you Google something, there is lots of tiny information that I can’t read. I
think this is wrong. OK, it provides a huge amount of information, but who reads
all these long texts? Maybe some people do it, but I do not.
Likewise, S14 (fourth grader, Private School A) concurred: “Who wants
to read thousands of lines without pictures?”
Briefly, as summarized in Figure 5, content presentation on the Internet is
considered enjoyable, which awakens students’ curiosity. However, the pre-
sentation style was often an obstacle, with its inclusion of long texts with
complex words and foreign terms.

Discussion
Students access science information by multiple means. The details of their
motivations and methods require in-depth analysis. This analysis involves
detailing effective or ineffective features of mass media sources based on
student reporting and describing how these features are utilized for science
learning. Students in this study draw on mass media resources both within
and outside the school setting for various science learning purposes. In this
study, students’ use of TV, Internet, newspapers, and science magazines has
been examined. The results indicate that the Internet was at the forefront of
the media resources examined, which was consistent with the findings of
Butt, Clery, Abeywardana, and Phillips (2010) and Bubela et al. (2009).
First of all, students’ media use differed according to school type, that is,
public and private school student habits differed within the classroom.
Internet and science magazines were the primary science learning resources
in private school classrooms. Next, in contexts outside of school, the Internet
Figure 5. Effective and ineffective features of the Internet as a science information
source.

was a commonly used mass media resource by the fourth and fifth graders.
Private school students added that they also used TV and science magazines
for science learning outside the school. One possible explanation for such a
difference could be socioeconomic levels of students who attend private
school (Wimer, 2007). This could be as simple as a correlation between fami-
lies that can afford to enroll their children in private schools and those who
can afford to subscribe to premium television channels and magazines where
engaging and age-appropriate science content can be found. In the United
Kingdom, the Royal Society (2008) report also makes reference to the issue:
“There is strong evidence of a link between SES and attainment in science
among 5–11 year olds” (p. 4).
According to UGT, people use media to satisfy their specific needs (Katz
et al., 1973). One of the foundations of UGT is the active audience (Blumler
Katz, 1974). Accordingly, audience needs dictate their consumption deci-
sions. The students in this study also actively engaged with various media
resources in order to meet their social and psychological needs. Of the five
UGT categories cited by Katz et al. (1973), the results of this study demon-
strated that the students used mass media for cognitive, affective, personal
integrative, and social integrative needs.
To begin with, students employed the Internet and sometimes science
magazines to meet homework and project requirements. In addition to this
use, students draw on the Internet during the science classes. Uses of these
forms of media may have stemmed from the students’ cognitive needs, which
are explained by Katz et al. (1973) as “needs related to strengthening infor-
mation, knowledge, and understanding” (p. 166).
The use of mass media also related to students’ pursuit of science-related
knowledge on their own. Here, it is important to note that students did not
conduct individual science-related research unless required by their teachers
to do so. Nevertheless, they explained that within the context of school-
related homework and projects, they sometimes went further doing additional
research and reading. When they did this they mostly preferred the Internet
and science magazines, as these were both accessible and rich with informa-
tion. They also shared science information they found interesting in these
sources in class. This mode of media use thus incorporates aspects of their
cognitive, personal, and social integrative needs, as also explained by Katz
et al. (1973). That is, by conducting individual research, students not only
acquired information, knowledge, and understanding (cognitive needs) but
also boosted their emotional experience (affective needs) and made contact
with their friends and teachers (social integrative needs) in the process of
sharing.

TV, Internet, newspapers, and magazines were the media resources stu-
dents liked to use and share with their teachers and classmates. These
resources were selected primarily for their accessibility, which corroborates
the contention of Senemoglu (2001), who suggested that educational material
should be both accessible and usable. The finding of students’ desire to share
what they learned with others and “the need to participate in discussions with
friends” might be further explained by students’ personal (gaining prestige
and high standing) and social (contact with people) integrative needs, as sug-
gested by Katz et al. (1973, p. 172).
Apart from this, the results also revealed that key motivation for students’
use of mass media revolved around accessibility, content, and presentation.
Accordingly, resources that combined accessibility (TV, Internet) with
appeal (TV, Internet, science magazines), credibility (newspapers), content
appropriateness (science magazines), and frequency of update (TV, Internet,
newspapers) were preferable. Resources that presented their content in mem-
orable (TV, science magazines) and permanent (science magazines) ways
were also considered to be effective.
With regard to content presentation, comprehensibility (science maga-
zines), enjoyment (science magazines, Internet), clarity (TV, science maga-
zines), inclusion of visual aids (TV, science magazines), and ability to arouse
curiosity (TV, Internet, science magazines) were important factors that influ-
enced students’ selection of mass media resources.
Media sources were by and large regarded as current and directed at “a
wide array of people” by the students. Among them, the Internet was the most
highly regarded resource among others because of its convenience and acces-
sibility. This result corroborated the findings of a great deal of previous work
in this field (Butler, 1995; Clark, 2000; Falk Dierking, 2010; Horrigan,
2006; National Foundation for Educational Research, 2011). Clark (2000)
further emphasized the influence of the Internet as a science information
source: “This new resource provides rich opportunities to support the devel-
opment of scientific argumentation skills, going well beyond those available
in typical instruction” (p. 859). Students explained that they mainly used
Google, Wikipedia, and Facebook. However, in public schools, the Internet
was chiefly in use for presentation purposes, for example, accessing sites like
slaytyerim.com (My Slide Place) and slaytizle.com (Watch Slides) with ref-
erence to science courses. This finding is consistent with Hakverdi-Can and
Dana’s (2012) study that found teachers unaware that the Internet was being
used as a tool by which users could take virtual trips to museums, zoos, and
science centers; access online databases; or participate in Internet-oriented
workshops, as opposed to using it merely for the purpose of preparing
presentations.

The credibility of the Internet as a resource was an important issue high-
lighted by the students. This result confirms the findings of Metzger (2007),
who emphasized that accessing accurate information matters for users.
Among the media resources analyzed here, the credibility of the Internet for
providing accurate science-related information was most questioned by the
students. Newspapers, in contrast, were thought to provide the most credible
information among the students. However, the results indicated that newspa-
pers were at the background of the media sources examined. Although stu-
dents chiefly complained about newspapers’ voice mostly addressing adults,
they also highlighted that providing limited science news and few visuals and
inclusion of long texts were other weaknesses as science information sources.
One possible explanation for this could be limited reading habit among
school-age children, which was in agreement with the findings of the
EARGED (Department of Research and Development of Education) Report
(2007).
Hass (1981, as cited in Clark, 2000) stated, “Source credibility is associ-
ated with high levels of education, intelligence, professional attainment, and
familiarity with the issue” (p. 860). In contrast to Horrigan’s (2006) study, in
which the participants considered the Internet a credible source for checking
science information, participants from this study criticized the Internet on the
basis of reliability and authenticity over any other factor, in comparison with
the other media resources in question. In order to cope with this issue, stu-
dents tried to check the accuracy of their online findings with additional web-
sites or other sources of information, like their families, teachers, and science
books. This result was in agreement with Horrigan’s (2006) study, which
indicated that “80% of those who have gotten science news and information
online have engaged in at least one of these ‘fast-checking’ activities” (p. 2).
The visuals in media were also influential on students’ perceptions of
these sources as effective or ineffective. According to Birkok (2008), the
decreasing reading comprehension among students makes visual representa-
tion more important. This is one of the reasons why TV was attractive to the
students as an information source. This result confirms the idea of “television
is easy, print is tough” (Salomon, 1984); therefore, TV was perceived as a
memorable science information source by some students. This was in con-
trast to the study by Gregory and Miller (2000), who discussed the difficulty
in retaining TV-based science information. Students in this study reported
that they had the sense of “being there” while they were watching TV. This
kind of involvement, engagement, or learning (Brown Cairns, 2004; Dede,
2005; Falconer, 2013; Hummel, Freeland, Craft, McKellips, 2011) might
be explained by the assumptions of the immersion theory. As engagement
and involvement are obviously important in education (Bransford, Brown,

Cocking, 1999), TV emerges to be a valuable medium in students’ science
learning.
The fun and enjoyment the content caused made the media more valuable
for the students. TV, Internet, and science magazines were the resources most
closely associated with entertainment value. This aspect becomes important
since “the general public is uninterested in science and technology as not
being fun” (Gilbert, 2007, p. 123). As Alexander (2000) emphasizes, “learn-
ing lies between play and academics” (p. 1), underscoring the relevance of
fun in the learning and teaching of science by young people. This is also
consistent with findings reported by National Foundation for Educational
Research (2011):
Promoting science as interesting and fun by capitalising on, and demonstrating,
the potential for science to be interesting, fun and engaging so as to avoid potential
negative perceptions of it as boring or difficult. (p. 8)
One of the interesting results of this study was the degree of sophistication
the students at the age of 10 or 11 displayed in their comments on the various
science information sources. They were well aware of the potential as well as
their advantages and disadvantages as science information sources. Of
course, this result could partially be due to the purposeful selection of the
students who were interested in science. However, even for “the interested
students,” this level of awareness of the quality of sources and critical assess-
ment of their various characteristics was admirable. As Jerome Bruner (1991)
said, children are little scientists, and when they are in the right environment
they can learn and discover the external world themselves. So the students
who participated in this study could be examples of these explorers of sources
to learn science.
Implications for Practice
In this qualitative study, the researchers’ aim was not to generalize to the
results to all fourth and fifth graders. The sampling was purposeful, targeting
volunteer students who were interested in science. However, by selecting dif-
ferent types of schools for the study, we hoped to increase the variety of
perspectives from different school contexts.
Within this context, the findings indicated that the students in our sample
had the impression that TV programs in Turkey mostly addressed adults and
that science programs for children were broadcast at times that conflicted
with students’ school schedules. Thus, students could not effectively use TV
to access science information, which in turn decreased its effectiveness as a

resource for learning. In addition, commercials and advertisements were
found to be distracting elements. At this point, suggestions might be in order
for TV producers, teachers, and parents. If it is possible, TV producers could
broadcast children’s science programs in the evenings and at the weekends,
and with limited commercial interruption or other distracting elements. In
addition, what is suggested for teachers is to encourage students to conduct
science research by watching science programs on TV and to inform students
about which channels and programs to watch in advance. In parallel with this,
parents should monitor their children’s TV-watching habits closely and guide
their TV choices.
Next, newspapers were criticized by participants in the study for address-
ing adults, for containing insufficient science content, and for presenting
information in the form of long texts with limited visuals. Furthermore,
newspapers were not considered an accessible resource. This resulted in low
motivation among students to use newspapers as a resource for science-
related information. These findings suggest that newspapers in Turkey should
communicate science to children through various channels like including a
“science page,” publishing a visual or colorful “children’s science page” in
addition to their usual content, or publishing a “children’s newspaper” sup-
plement once a week or more. Here, the idea of including stories of pages
dedicated to science stories in a newspaper does not necessitate a change in
reader expectations to the conventional “politics in the front, sports in the
back” composition, as discussed by Gregory and Miller (2000). One way or
another, though, it would be meaningful to make use of the medium in a way
that would improve its standing as a resource for science information.
Another approach might be for newspapers to be distributed daily to public
school libraries in order to give students from lower socioeconomic back-
grounds to more of an opportunity to access science-related information
through newspapers. At this point, teachers and parents should encourage
students to recognize newspapers as a science learning resource and to help
them develop habits to access information through this medium.
The results also indicated that science magazines were effective in students’
science learning in many ways: by being comprehensible, fun/enjoyable, and
brief; by providing visual support; by awakening curiosity; by instilling perma-
nent science information; and by increasing curiosity and science love.
However, science magazines were not accessible to each and every student.
The data suggest that it would be helpful to students if science magazines are
ordered to school libraries periodically so as to enhance the accessibility.
Again, here, teachers and parents should support students to take science maga-
zines as a science information source and to use it in accessing science
information.

Last but not least, students in this study expressed a preference for using
the Internet for purposes like homework and projects and for individual
science-related research, as discussed in the Results section. However,
Internet content is also being criticized for problems of credibility, as well as
for distracting and inappropriate elements associated with it. These findings
suggest that teachers and families should carefully monitor and guide stu-
dents’ Internet usage, especially regarding which sites to visit, what informa-
tion to trust, and how much information to pursue.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
References
Alexander, D. (2000). The learning that lies between play and academics in after-
school programs. Wellesley, MA: National Institute on Out-of-School Time.
Retrieved from http://niost.org/pdf/learning_article.pdf
Baykul, Y. (1990). To what extent the students’ attitudes towards mathematics and
science subjects were changed in the Turkish schools in grades five through
eleven, the factors which might have some significant relation with the student
performance in student selection exam. Ankara, Turkey: OSYM.
Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., Feder, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning sci-
ence in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Birkok, M. C. (2008). Alternate media usage in education as a socialization tool:
Movies. International Journal of Human Sciences, 5(2), 1-12.
Blumler, J., Katz, E. (Eds.). (1974). The uses of mass communications. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Mind, brain,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Breakwell, G. M., Beardsell, S. (1992). Gender, parental, and peer influences upon
science attitudes and activities. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 183-197.
Brossard, D., Shanahan, J. (2006). Do they know what they read? Building a scien-
tific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Science
Communication, 28, 47-63.
Brown, E., Cairns, P. (2004). A grounded investigation of game immersion. In
CHI’04 extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.

1297-1300). Washington, DC: ACM. Retrieved from http://www-users.cs.york
.ac.uk/~pcairns/papers/Immersion.pdf
Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18. Retrieved
from http://www.semiootika.ee/sygiskool/tekstid/bruner.pdf
Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E.,
Caulfield,T.(2009).Sciencecommunicationreconsidered.NatureBiotechnology,
27, 514-518.
Bulus-Kirikkaya, E. (2011). Grade 4 to 8 primary school students’ attitudes towards
science: Science enthusiasm. Educational Research and Reviews, 6, 374-382.
Butler, B. (1995). Using www mosaic to support classroom-based education: An
experience report. Interpersonal Computing and Technology Journal, 3, 17-52.
Butt, S., Clery, E., Abeywardana, V., Phillips, M. (2010). Wellcome Trust Monitor
1. London, England: Wellcome Trust. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome
.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_grants/documents/web_document/
wtx058862.pdf
Clark, D. B. (2000). Evaluating media-enhancement and source authority on the inter-
net: The knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science
Education, 22, 859-871.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. Educause Quarterly, 28,
7-12.
Denzin, N. K. (2009). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
Detjen, J. (1995). The media’s role in science education: The public is interested in
news about science and the environment. BioScience, 45(Suppl.), 58-63.
Dierking, L. D. (2005). Lessons without limit: How free-choice learning is transform-
ing science and technology education. História, Ciências, Saúde–Manguinhos,
12, 145-160.
EARGED. (2007). Öğrencilerin okuma düzeyleri [Students’ reading levels]. Retrieved
from http://egitek.meb.gov.tr/tamamlanan/okuma_duzey.pdf
Elsley, S., McMellon, C. (2010). Starting young? Links between childhood and
adult participation in culture and science—a literature review. Edinburgh,
Scotland: Scottish Government Social Research. Retrieved from http://www
.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/314482/0099915.pdf
Falconer, L. (2013) Situated learning in virtual simulations: Researching the authen-
tic dimension in virtual worlds. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 24,
285-300.
Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D. (2010). The 95 percent solution. American Scientist,
98, 486-493.
Fenichel, M., Schweingruber, H. A. (2010). Surrounded by science: Learning
science in informal environments. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog
.php?record_id=12614

Friedman, A. J., Mappen, E. F. (2011). SENCER-ISE: Establishing connections
between formal and informal science educators to advance STEM learning
through civic engagement. Retrieved from http://seceij.net/seceij/summer11/
friedman_sencer.html
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture. In
The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gelmez-Burakgazi, S. (2012). Connecting science communication to science educa-
tion: A phenomenological inquiry into multimodal science information sources
among 4th and 5th graders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East
Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Gilbert, J. K. (Eds.). (2007). Visualization in science education. Dordtrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Science communication: Towards a proper emphasis on the
social aspects of science and technology. Alexandrıa Revista de Educação em
Ciência e Tecnologia, 1(1), 3-25.
Gordon, E. W., Brigdlall, B. L., Meroe, A. S. (2004). Supplementary education:
The hidden curriculum of high academic achievement. Lanham, MD: Rowman
Littlefield.
Gregory, J., Miller, S. (2000). Science in public: Communication, culture, and
credibility. Cambridge, England: Basic Books.
Gross, L. (2003). The gay global village in cyberspace. In N. Couldry J. Curran
(Eds.), Contesting media power (pp. 259-272). Lanham, MD: Rowman
Littlefiled.
Hakverdi-Can, M., Dana, T. M. (2012). Exemplary science teachers’ use of tech-
nology. Tojet, 11(1), 94-112.
Hook, N., Brake, M. (2010). Science in popular culture. In M. Brake E. Weitkamp
(Eds.), Introducing science communication (pp. 29-51). New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Horrigan, J. B. (2006). The internet as a resource for news and information about
science. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/12-Wireless-
Internet-Use.aspx
Houser, J. (2011). Nursing research: Reading, using, and creating evidence. Sudbury,
MA: Jones Barlett.
Hummel, C. K., Freeland, M., Craft, E., McKellips, P. (2011). Employing immer-
sion theory as a public affairs instructional tool in frontier conflict regions.
Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18, 661-681.
Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., Haas, H. (1973). On the use of the mass media for impor-
tant things. American Sociological Review, 38, 164-181.
Koerber, A., McMichael, L. (2008). Qualitative sampling methods: A primer for
technical communicators. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
22, 454-473.
Lee, C., Scheufele, D. A. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward
scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotech-
nology. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 819-834.
Lincoln, Y., Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York, NY: Sage.

Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluat-
ing online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2078-2091.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
National Foundation for Educational Research. (2011). Exploring young people’s
views on science education. London, England: Wellcome Trust.
National Science Board. (2004). Science and engineering indicators: 2004.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology.
New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
O’Donohoe, S. (1993). Advertising uses and gratifications. European Journal of
Marketing, 28(8/9), 52-75.
Osborne, J., Collins, S. (2000). Pupils’ and parents’ views of the school science
curriculum: A study funded by the Wellcome Trust. London, England: King’s
College London.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Simon, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of
the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education,
25, 1049-1079.
Oskala, A., Keaney, E., Chan, T. W., Bunting, C. (2009). Encourage children
today to build audiences for tomorrow: Evidence from the Taking Part survey
on how childhood involvement in the arts affects arts engagement in adulthood.
Retrieved from http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/publication_archive/encourage-
children-today-to-build-audiences-for-tomorrow/
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pell, T., Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children
of ages from five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education, 23,
847-862.
Piburn, M. D., Baker, D. R. (1993). If I were the teacher . . . Qualitative study of
attitude towards science. Science Education, 77, 393-406.
Royal Society. (2008). Exploring the relationship between socioeconomic status and
participation and attainment in science education (SES and Education Report).
Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/
policy/publications/2008/4294969756.pdf
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential invest-
ment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647-658.
Senemoglu, N. (2001). Gelişim, öğrenme ve öğretim [Development, learning and
teaching]. Ankara, Turkey: Gazi Kitabevi.
Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication mod-
els. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, S. Shi

(Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices
(pp. 119-135). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Weitkamp, E. (2010). Writing science. In M. Brake E. Weitkamp (Eds.),
Introducing science communication: A practical guide (pp. 79-104). New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wimer, C. (2007). Research Update 2: Highlights from the OST database (Issues and
Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation). Retrieved from http://www.
hfrp.org/out-of-school-time/publications-resources/research-update-2-high-
lights-from-the-ost-database
Yildirim, A., Simsek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri
[Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (4th ed.). Ankara, Turkey:
Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Author Biographies
Sevinc Gelmez Burakgazi completed her PhD as a research assistant at the
Department of Educational Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
Turkey, in the name of Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey. Her current research
focuses on science education, science communication, qualitative studies, and cur-
riculum development and evaluation.
Ali Yildirim is currently a professor at the Department of Educational Sciences,
Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. His research interests include
teaching and learning processes, teacher education, curriculum development and
evaluation, thinking skills, social studies, and human resources education.

Science communication 2014-gelmez burakgazi-168-93-2

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Science communication 2014-gelmez burakgazi-168-93-2

Similar to Science communication 2014-gelmez burakgazi-168-93-2 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Science communication 2014-gelmez burakgazi-168-93-2