Public Perception of Science: Mapping the Concepts of Brazilian Undergraduate Students of the State of Sao Paulo through Structural Equation Modeling
American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics
Volume 3, Issue 6-1, December 2014, Pages: 1-18
Received: Nov. 12, 2014; Accepted: Dec. 2, 2014; Published: Dec. 27, 2014
Views 3799      Downloads 157
Authors
Fernanda de Oliveira Simon, Community College of Campinas, Campus III, FAC, Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Estéfano Vizconde Veraszto, Federal University of Sao Carlos, UFSCar Campus Araras, Sao Paulo, Brazil
José Tarcísio Franco de Camargo, Universitary Regional Center of Espirito Santo do Pinhal, UNIPINHAL, Sao Paulo Brazil
Dirceu da Silva, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP, Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Leandro Valim de Freitas, Paulista State University, UNESP, São Paulo, Brasil
Nonato Assis de Miranda, Municipal University of Sao Caetano do Sul, USCS, Sao Caetano do Sul, Sao Paulo, Brasil
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
Once modern society depends in large-scale of scientific development, the degree of association between scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science has historical, social and political implications. In this sense, it becomes crucial to analyze the public attitudes regarding to science as these are related to the changing context of scientific practices and their implications for practical problems. Thus, we developed a survey instrument that allowed us to assess the causal relationships and correlations between conceptions, attitudes and socio-demographic factors in relation to science, using as a mediator theme the genetic engineering. Among the socio-demographic factors are included: gender, age, income, religion, schooling, consumption of information provided by the media, perception of knowledge and personal experience. For the composition of the sample, students from various undergraduate courses from public and private institutions were selected. The data were analyzed quantitatively by structural equation modeling. The results show that the conceptions that people have about science directly and positively influence their attitudes towards science. The social factors have their weight, but on a much smaller scale.
Keywords
Science, Public Perception of Science, Attitudes Regarding to Science, Statistical Indicators
To cite this article
Fernanda de Oliveira Simon, Estéfano Vizconde Veraszto, José Tarcísio Franco de Camargo, Dirceu da Silva, Leandro Valim de Freitas, Nonato Assis de Miranda, Public Perception of Science: Mapping the Concepts of Brazilian Undergraduate Students of the State of Sao Paulo through Structural Equation Modeling, American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics. Special Issue: Statistical Engineering. Vol. 3, No. 6-1, 2014, pp. 1-18. doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.s.2014030601.11
References
[1]
C. Vogt and C. Polino, C. "Percepção Pública da Ciência". Campinas: Editora da Unicamp, São Paulo, Fapesp, 2003.
[2]
M. I. G. García, et. al. "Ciencia Tecnología y Sociedad: Una introdución al estudio social de la ciencia y la tecnología". Espanha: Tecnos, 2000.
[3]
E. V. Veraszto et. al. “Educación, tecnología y sociedad: relaciones de causalidad de la influencia social en los procesos de toma de decisiones tecnológicas,” ETD: Educação Temática Digital, vol. 12, pp.126–153, 2011.
[4]
E. V. Veraszto et. al. “Concepções de tecnologia de graduandos do estado de São Paulo e suas implicações educacionais: breve análise a partir de Modelagem de equações estruturais,” Ciência & Educação, vol. 19, pp.761–779, 2013.
[5]
J. Sutz. “Estudios sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología en América Latina: ¿en busca de una agenda?”, in: M. Albornoz et al. Ciencia y Sociedad en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, p. 87–106, 1996.
[6]
J. S. Guivant. “Transgênicos e percepção pública da ciência no Brasil,” Ambiente & Sociedade, V.9, n. 1, 2006.
[7]
L. Massarani and I. C. Moreira, I. C. “Attitudes toward genetics: a case study among Brazilian high school students," Public Understanding of Science, v. 14, n. 2, p. 201–212, 2005.
[8]
U. Dahinden. “Biotechnology: From inter-science to international controversies,” Public Understanding of Science, v.ol 11, n. 2, pp.87–92, 2002.
[9]
R. Pardo, R. and F. Calvo. “Attitudes toward science among the European public: a methodological analysis,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 11, n. 2, pp.155–195, 2004.
[10]
R. Pardo, R. and F. Calvo. “Attitudes toward science among the European public: a methodological analysis,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 11, n. 2, pp.155-195, 2002.
[11]
P. Sturgis and N. Allum. “Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 13, n.1, pp.55–74, 2004.
[12]
P. Sturgis and N. Allum. "Gender differences in scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science: reply yo Hayes and Tariq," Public Understanding of Science, vol. 10, n. 4, pp.427– 430, 2001.
[13]
B. Godin and Y. Gingras. “What is scientific and technological culture and how is it measured? A multidimensional model,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 9, n.1, pp.43–58, 2000.
[14]
N. Allum, P. Sturgis, D. Tabourazi and I. Bruton-Smith. “Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 17, n.1, pp.35–54, 2008.
[15]
F. C. Von Roten. “Do we need a public understanding of statistics?,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 15, n. 2, pp.243–249, 2006.
[16]
A. Cassidy. “Popular evolutionary psychology in the UK: an unusual case of science in the media?,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 14, n.2, pp.115–141, 2005.
[17]
R. Dingwall and M. Aldridge. “Television wildlife programming as a source of popular scientific information: a case study of evolution,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 15, n. 2, pp.131–152, 2006.
[18]
S. R. Davies. “Constructing Communication: talk to scientists about talking to the public,” Science Communication, vol. 29, n. 4, pp.413–434, 2008.
[19]
A. Kerr, S. C. Burley and Tutton, “Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue,” Social Studies of Science, vol. 37, n. 3, pp.385–411, 2007.
[20]
J. M. A. P. Canavarro. O que se pensa sobre a Ciência. ed. 1. Coimbra: Quarteto Editora. 2000.
[21]
R. Tutton. “Constructing participation in genetic databases: citizenship, governance, and ambivalence,” In: Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 32, n. 2, pp.172–195, 2007.
[22]
J. A. Acevedo et al. “Naturaleza de la Ciencia, Didáctica de las Ciencias, Práctica Docente y Toma de Decisiones Tecnocientíficas,” Biblioteca Digital da OEI, 2004.
[23]
M. C. M. Calatayud. “Imágenes CTS, de la tradición al cambio en la educación ingeneril universitaria,” Biblioteca Digital da OEI, 2003.
[24]
J. A. P. Angotti, F. P. Bastos and R. A. Mion. “Educação em Física: Discutindo Ciência, Tecnologia e Sociedade,” Revista Ciência & Educação, vol.7, n.2, pp: 183–197, 2001.
[25]
D. Brossard and J. Shanahan, J. “Do they know what they read? Building a Scientific Literacy Measurement Instrument on Science Media Coverage”. In: Science Communication, v. 28, n.1, p. 47-63, 2006.
[26]
J. D. Miller. “Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: what we know and what we need to know,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 13, n. 3, pp.273–294, 2004.
[27]
R. Bogdan and S. Biklen, S. Investigação Qualitativa em Educação: uma introdução à teoria e aos métodos. Transl. Alvarez, M. J.; Santos, S. B. e Baptista, T. M. 1 Edição, Porto Editora Lda. Porto, Portugal, 1994.
[28]
M. Q. Patton. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage Publications. Second Edition.Newburry Park, California, USA, 1980.
[29]
M. Lüdke, M. and M. E. D. André. A. Pedagogia em Educação: Abordagens Qualitativas. São Paulo: EPU. Editora Pedagógica e Universitária, São Paulo, 1986.
[30]
L. Bardin. Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70, 2006.
[31]
F. O. Simon. Percepção de Ciência: Relações entre conhecimentos, crenças, atitudes e fatores sócio-demográficos. Tese de Doutorado da Faculdade de Educação da UNICAMP, UNICAMP, 2009.
[32]
D. Gil Pérez. “Para uma imagem não deformada do trabalho científico," Ciência & Educação. vol. 7, n. 2, pp.125–153, 2001.
[33]
S. C. Gomes. “Los estudios Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad y la Educación para el Desarrollo,” Ingenieria Sin Fronteras – Revista de Cooperación, vol. 1, n. 14, pp. 1–5, 2001.
[34]
R. K. Merton. La sociologia de la ciencia, 2.Investigaciones teóricas y empíricas. Mardi: Alianza Editorial, cap. 12, pp. 339–354, 1977.
[35]
D. MacDonald, D. “Conceptualizing some unique features of the teaching os science,” ASEJ, 29, n. 2, 1996.
[36]
L. C. Cudmani. “Cuestiones que plantean las concepciones posmodernas en la enseñanza de las ciencias: Visiones de científicos destacados de la historia,” Ciência & Educação, v.ol 7, n. 2, pp.155–168, 2001.
[37]
T. Goddard. “Teaching in Rurbulent Times: Teacher’s Perceptions of the Effects of External Factors on their professional lives,” The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, vol. XLVI, n. 4, pp. 293–310, 2000.
[38]
A. Villani. “Filosofia da Ciência e Ensino de Ciência: Uma analogia,” Ciência & Educação, vol. 7, n. 2, pp. 169–181, 2001.
[39]
J. Barros Filho. “Construção de um sistema de avaliação contínuo em um curso de eletrodinâmica de nível médio”. Dissertação de Mestrado da Faculdade de Educação da UNICAMP. Campinas/SP, 1999.
[40]
N. Lederman and M. O'Malley, M. "Students' perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change," Science Education, vol. 74, n. 2, pp. 225–239, 1990.
[41]
G. S. Aikenhead. “High School Graduates' Beliefs About Science-Technology-Society”. III. Characteristics and Limitations of Scientific Knowledge," Science Education, vol. 71, n. 4, pp.459-487, 1987.
[42]
M. A. M. Mas and A. V. Alonso. “Percepción de los estudiantes sobre la influencia de la ciencia escola en la sociedade,” Bordón, vol. 53, n. 1, pp.97–113, 2001.
[43]
M. A. Manassero and A. Vázquez. “Actitudes de estudiantes y profesorado sobre las características de los científicos,” Enseñanza de las Ciencias, vol. 19, n. 2, pp. 255–268, 2001.
[44]
S. Mitsuishi, K. Kato and K. Nakamura. "A new way to communicate science to the public: the creation of the Scientist Library," Public Understanding of Science, vol. 10, n. 2, pp. 231–241, 2001.
[45]
R. K. Merton. Os imperativos institucionais da ciência. in Merton, R. K. et al. A crítica da ciência: sociologia e ideologia da ciência. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1979.
[46]
R. Tytler, S. Duggan and R. Gott. “Public participation in na environmental dispute: implications for science education,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 10, n. 4, pp.343–364, 2001.
[47]
J. Bush, S. Moffatt and C. E. Dunn. “Keeping the public informed? Public negociation of ai quality information,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 10, n.2, p. 213–229, 2001.
[48]
D. D. Daamen et. al. “Cognitive Structures in the Perception of Modern Technologies” Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 5, n. 2, pp.202–225, 1990.
[49]
J. Schummer. “Reading nano: the public interest in nanotechnology as reflected in purchase patterns of book,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 14 n. 2 pp.163–183, 2005.
[50]
M. Liakopoulos. “Pandora’s Box or panacea? Using metaphors to create the public representations of biotechnology,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 11, n. 1, pp.5–32, 2002.
[51]
F. Coyle and J. Fairweather. “Space, time and nature: exploring the public reception of viotechnology in New Zealand,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 14, n. 2, pp.143–161, 2005.
[52]
J. C. Besley and J. Shanahan. “Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology,”. Science Communication, vol. 26, n. 4, pp.347–367, 2005.
[53]
B. Godin and Y. Gingras. “What is scientific and technological culture and how is it measured? A multidimensional model,” Public Understanding of Science, vol .9, n.1, pp.43–58, 2000.
[54]
A. M. L. Cavallo, T. A. Laubach. “Student’s Perceptions and Enrollment Decisions in Differing Learning Cycle Classroom,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 38, n. 9, pp.1029–1062, 2001.
[55]
M. I. G. García and E. P. Sedeño. “Ciencia, Tecnología y Género,” Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología, Sociedad e Innovación, vol. 1, n.2, pp.1–17, 2002.
[56]
J. Steinke. “Women scientist role models on screen: a case study of contac,” Science Communication, vol. 21 n. 2 pp.111–136, 1999.
[57]
M. Fisher, B. Small, H. Roth, M. Mallon and B. JEREBINE. “What do individuals in different science groups within a life sciences organization think about genetic modification?,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 14, n. 3, p.317–326, 2005.
[58]
M. C. Nisbet and R. K. Goidel, R. K. “Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: bridging the ethnographic survey research divide,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 16, n. 4, pp.421–440, 2007.
[59]
H. Bonfadelli, U. Dahinden and M. Leonarz. “Biotechnology in Switzerland: high on the public agenda, but only moderate support”. In: Public Understanding of Science, vol. 11, n.2, pp.113–130, 2002.
[60]
M. Leggett and M. Finaly. “Science, story, and image: a new approach to crossing the communication barrier posed by scientific jargon,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 10, n. 2, pp.157–171, 2001.
[61]
M. Powell, S. Dunwoody, R. Griffin and Neuwirthk. “Exploring lay uncertainty about an environmental health risk,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 16, n. 3, pp. 323–343, 2007.
[62]
C. Zimmerman, G. L. Bisanz, J. Bisanz, J. S. Klein and P. Klein. “Science at the supermarket: a comparison of what apeears in the popular press, expert’s advice to readers, and what students want to know,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 10, n. 1, pp.37–58, 2001.
[63]
A. Carvalho. “Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: re-reading news on climate change,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 16, n.2, pp.223–243, 2007.
[64]
J. Chilvers. “Deliberating competence: theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice”. In: Science, Technology & Human Values, v. 33, n. 2, p. 155–185, 2008.
[65]
F. Drake, M. Purvis and J. Huntj. “Business appreciation of global atmospheric change: the United Kingdom refrigeration industry,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 10, n. 2, pp.187–211 , 2001.
[66]
H. Field and P. Powell. “Public understanding of science versus public understanding of research,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 10, n. 4, pp.421–426, 2001.
[67]
M. Horst. “Public expectations of gene therapy: scientific futures and their performative effects on scientific citizenship,” Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 14, n. 2, pp.185–199, 2005.
[68]
A. Miah. “Genetics, cyberspace and bioethics: why not a public engagement with ethics?,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 14, n. 4, pp.409–421, 2005.
[69]
N. Pitrelli, F. Manzoli, B. Montolli. “Science in advertising: uses and consumptions in the Italian press,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 15, n. 2, pp.207–220, 2006.
[70]
E. Poliakoff, T. L. Webb. “What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?,” Science Communication, vol. 29 n. 2 pp.242–263, 2007.
[71]
S. H. Priest. “Cloning: a study in news production” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 10, n. 1, pp.59–69, 2001.
[72]
S. C. Sanderson, J. Wardle and S. Michie. “The effects of a genetic information leaflet on public attitudes toward genetic testing,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 14 n. 2 pp.213–224, 2005.
[73]
B. Simon. “Public Science: media configuratin and closure in the cold controversy,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 10 n. 4 pp.383–402, 2001.
[74]
M. C. A. Van Der Sanden and F. J. Meijman. “Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science: an essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 17, n. 1, pp.89–103, 2008.
[75]
G. S. Aikenhead. “An analysis of four ways of assessing student beliefs about STS topics,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 25, pp.607–627, 1988.
[76]
G. S. Aikenheadg. S. “High School Graduates' Beliefs About Science-Technology-Society. III. Characteristics and Limitations of Scientific Knowledge,” Science Education, vol. 71, n. 4, pp.459–487, 1987.
[77]
G. S. Aikenhead and A. G. Ryan. The development of a new instrument: "Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS)," Science Education, vol. 76, n. 5, pp.477–492, 1992.
[78]
A. G. Ryan and G. S. Aikenhead. “Students' preconceptions about epistemology of science,” Science Education, vol. 76, n. 6, pp.559–580, 1992.
[79]
A. Irwin. “Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the bioscience,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 10, n. 1, pp.1–18, 2001.
[80]
T. S. Kuhn. A estrutura das revoluções científicas. São Paulo: Editora Perspectiva, 2001.
[81]
B. Latour and S. Woolgar. A vida de laboratório: a produção dos fatos científicos. Rio de Janeiro: Relume Dumará, 1997.
[82]
S. Lockes. “The public understanding of science – A Rethorical invention,” Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 27, n. 1, pp.87–111, 2002.
[83]
R. K. Merton. “Os imperativos institucionais da ciência” in Merton, R. K. et al. In: A crítica da ciência: sociologia e ideologia da ciência. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1979.
[84]
R. K. Merton. La sociologia de la ciencia, 2.Investigaciones teóricas y empíricas. Mardi: Alianza Editorial, cap. 12, 1977, pp.339–354.
[85]
T. J. Pinch and W. E. Bijker. “The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other” in W. E. Bijker, W. E. et al. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MTI Press, 1987.
[86]
L. Pasquali. Psicometria: teoria dos testes na Psicologia e na Educação. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2003.
[87]
D. R. Cooper and P. S. Schindler. Métodos de pesquisa em administração. 7° ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2003.
[88]
C. SELLTIZ. Métodos de pesquisa nas relações sociais. 2 ed. São Paulo: EPU, 1987.
[89]
K. Stokking, M. V. Schaaf, J. Jaspers and G. Erkens. “Teacher´s assessment of student’s research skills,” British Educational Research Journal, vol 30, n. 1, pp.93–116, 2004.
[90]
S. Crowley and X. Fan. “Structural Equation Modeling: basic concepts and applications in personality assessment research,” Journal of Personality Assessment, vol.3, n. 68, pp. 508-531, 1997.
[91]
R. Stoeltingr. Structural Equation Modeling - Path Analysis, 2002.
[92]
J. F. Hair et. al. Análise multivariada de dados. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2005.
[93]
R. C. Maccallum and J. T. Austin. “Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research,” Annual Review of Psychology, n. 51, pp.201–226, 2000.
[94]
N. K. Malhotra. Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientação aplicada. 3° ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2001.
[95]
G. A. Churchil Jr. Marketing research: methodological foundations. 7° ed. New York: Inter. Thomson Publishing, 1999.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186