Formazione & insegnamento
ISSN: 2279-7505 | Published: 2024-12-31
This landing page is part of an alternate academic indexing and SEO initiative curated by Pensa MultiMedia and the Executive Editorial Office.
Main Article Landing Page: https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/article/view/7609
Full Text HTML (viewer): https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/article/view/7609/6790
Full Text PDF (viewer): https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/article/view/7609/6823
Full Text HTML (file): https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/article/download/7609/6790
Full Text PDF (file): https://ojs.pensamultimedia.it/index.php/siref/article/download/7609/6823
Alternate URL (this mirror): https://formazione-insegnamento.eu/2024-22/3/7609-social-media-for-dissemination-and-science-education-re
Title: Social Media for Dissemination and Science Education: Reality or Fabrication?
Abstract: Is it possible to achieve high-quality science communication? If so, what are its objectives? How do digital media environments impact the achievement of these objectives? What are the limitations of online science communication? A collaboration between the Botanical Garden and Herbarium of the University of Bologna and a science communicator sought to address these questions through a communication project that produced nine short vertical videos for Instagram and Facebook. The analysis of the results highlighted success in terms of online appreciation and engagement, although it remains challenging to draw conclusions about the actual scope of this success and its potential impact on learning and real-world behaviour.
Keywords: Facebook; Instagram; Plant-Blindness; Science and Society; Science communication
Title: I social media per la comunicazione e l'educazione scientifica: Realtà o invenzione?
Abstract: È possibile ottenere una divulgazione scientifica di qualità? Se sì, quali sono i suoi obiettivi? Come incidono gli ambienti mediali digitali nella realizzazione di questi obiettivi? Quali sono i limiti della divulgazione nella Rete? Una collaborazione fra l'Orto botanico ed Erbario dell'Università di Bologna e un divulgatore scientifico ha cercato di dare alcune risposte a questi interrogativi, attraverso un progetto comunicativo che ha prodotto nove brevi video verticali per Instagram e Facebook. L'analisi dei risultati ha evidenziato un successo in termini di gradimento ed engagement in rete, mentre risulta molto difficile poter trarre conclusioni circa l'effettiva portata di questo successo e le eventuali ricadute sull'apprendimento e sul comportamento reale delle persone.
Keywords: Divulgazione scientifica; Facebook; Instagram; Plant-Blindness; Scienza e Società
Title:
Abstract: Revue en libre accès fondée en 2003 par Umberto Margiotta, publiant des recherches évaluées par les pairs sur l'éducation, la pédagogie et les politiques éducatives.
Keywords:
Title: Las redes sociales para la comunicación y la educación científica: ¿Realidad o invención?
Abstract: ¿Es posible lograr una divulgación científica de calidad? Si es así, ¿cuáles son sus objetivos? ¿Cómo influyen los entornos digitales en la consecución de estos objetivos? ¿Cuáles son las limitaciones de la divulgación científica en la red? Una colaboración entre el Jardín Botánico y el Herbario de la Universidad de Bolonia y un divulgador científico buscó responder a estas preguntas a través de un proyecto comunicativo que produjo nueve breves vídeos verticales para Instagram y Facebook. El análisis de los resultados destacó un éxito en términos de aceptación y participación en la red, aunque es muy difícil sacar conclusiones sobre el alcance real de este éxito y sus posibles repercusiones en el aprendizaje y el comportamiento de las personas.
Keywords: Ceguera Botánica; Ciencia y Sociedad; Comunicación científica; Facebook; Instagram
Title: As redes sociais para comunicação e educação científica: Realidade ou invenção?
Abstract: É possível alcançar uma divulgação científica de qualidade? Se sim, quais são seus objetivos? Como os ambientes digitais impactam a realização desses objetivos? Quais são as limitações da divulgação científica na rede? Uma colaboração entre o Jardim Botânico e o Herbário da Universidade de Bolonha e um divulgador científico buscou responder a essas questões por meio de um projeto comunicativo que produziu nove vídeos curtos e verticais para Instagram e Facebook. A análise dos resultados destacou o sucesso em termos de aceitação e engajamento na rede, embora seja muito difícil tirar conclusões sobre o alcance real desse sucesso e suas possíveis implicações no aprendizado e no comportamento das pessoas.
Keywords: Cegueira Botânica; Ciência e Sociedade; Comunicação científica; Facebook; Instagram
Achurra, A. (2022). Plant blindness: A focus on its biological basis. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 963448. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.963448
Ausubel, D. (2016). Educazione e processi cognitivi. Feltrinelli. (Original work published 1968)
Balding, M., & Williams, K. J. (2016). Plant blindness and the implications for plant conservation. Conservation Biology, 30(6), 1192–1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12738
Bensaude, V. B. (2014). The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of 'public engagement in science.' Public Understanding of Science, 23(3), 238–253.
Bou-Vinals, A., & Prock, S. (2013). Children's involvement in science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 12(3), C05. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.12030304
Brondi, S., & Sarrica, M. (2016). Italian parliamentary debates on energy sustainability: How argumentative 'short-circuits' affect public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 737–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515580067
Brummitt, N. A., Bachman, S. P., Griffiths-Lee, J., Lutz, M., Moat, J. F., Farjon, A., Donaldson, J. S., Hilton-Taylor, C., Meagher, T. R., Albuquerque, S., Aletrari, E., Andrews, A. K., Atchison, G., [...] & Lughadha, E. M. (2015). Green plants in the red: A baseline global assessment for the IUCN sampled red list index for plants. PLOS ONE, 10, e0135152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135152
Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., Geller, G., Gupta, A., Hampel, J., Hyde-Lay, R., Jandciu, E. W., Jones, S. A., Kolopack, P., Lane, S., Lougheed, T., Nerlich, B., Ogbogu, U., O'Riordan, K., Ouellette, C., Spear, M., Strauss, S., Thavaratnam, T., Willemse, L., & Caulfield, T. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514–518. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514
Bucchi, M. (2019). Facing the challenges of science communication 2.0: Quality, credibility and expertise. EFSA Journal, 17(Suppl 1). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170713
Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004
Castoldi, M. (2019). Didattica generale. Nuova edizione riveduta e ampliata. Mondadori Università.
Corazza, L. (2008). Internet e la società conoscitiva. Erickson.
Corazza, L. (2021). Percorsi formativi ed engagement. In C. Panciroli (Ed.), Elementi di didattica postdigitale (pp. 81–92). Bononia University Press.
Cousins, S. R., & Witkowski, E. T. F. (2017). African cycad ecology, ethnobotany and conservation: A synthesis. The Botanical Review, 83(2), 152–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-017-9183-4
Davies, S. R. (2013). Constituting public engagement: Meanings and genealogies of PEST in two UK studies. Science Communication, 35(6), 687–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013478203
De Vasto, D., & Creighton, J. (2018). Inspired by the cosmos: Strategies for public engagement in nonpolicy contexts. Science Communication, 40(6), 808–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018792572
Gastil, J. (2017). Designing public deliberation at the intersection of science and public policy. In K. H. Jamieson, D. M. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (pp. 233–242). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.26
Givnish, T. J. (1979). On the adaptive significance of leaf form. In O. T. Solbrig, S. Jain, G. B. Johnson, & P. H. Raven (Eds.), Topics in plant population biology (pp. 375–407). Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-04627-0_17
Havens, K., Kramer, A. T., & Guerrant, E. O., Jr. (2013). Getting plant conservation right (or not): The case of the United States. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 175(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1086/674103
Hulbert, J. M., Turner, S. C., & Scott, S. L. (2019). Challenges and solutions to establishing and sustaining citizen science projects in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 115(7/8), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/5844
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (2018). IUCN red list of threatened species: Summary statistics. Retrieved January 26, 2019, from https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/summary-statistics
Jenkins, M., Timoshyna, A., & Cornthwaite, M. (2018). Wild at home: Exploring the global harvest, trade and use of wild plant ingredients. Traffic Report. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/7339/wild-at-home.pdf
Jensen, E., & Buckley, N. (2014). Why people attend science festivals: Interests, motivations and self-reported benefits of public engagement with research. Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512458624
Jia, H., Wang, D., Miao, W., & Zhu, H. (2017). Encountered but not engaged: Examining the use of social media for science communication by Chinese scientists. Science Communication, 39(5), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017735114
Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions.
Kouper, I. (2010). Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication, 9(1), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.09010202
Lewenstein, B. V. (2016). Can we understand citizen science? Journal of Science Communication, 15(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15010501
Maasen, S., & Weingart, P. (2000). Metaphors and the dynamics of knowledge. Routledge.
Macnaghten, P., & Guivant, J. S. (2011). Converging citizens? Nanotechnology and the political imaginary of public engagement in Brazil and the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science, 20(2), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510379084
Margulies, J. D., Bullough, L. A., Hinsley, A., Daniel, I., Cowell, C., Goettsch, B., Klitgard, B. B., Lavorgna, A., Sinovas, P., & Phelps, J. (2019). Illegal wildlife trade and the persistence of plant blindness. Plants, People, Planet, 1(3), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10053
Martín-López, B., Montes, C., Ramírez, L., & Benayas, J. (2009). What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biological Conservation, 142(7), 1370–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.030
Nava, T. S., & Hofman, C. L. (2018). Engaging Caribbean Island communities with indigenous heritage and archaeology research. Journal of Science Communication, 17(4), C06. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17040306
Palmer, S. E., & Schibeci, R. A. (2014). What conceptions of science communication are espoused by science research funding bodies? Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512455295
Pellerey, M. (1983). Progettazione didattica. SEI.
Perié, L., Riboli-Sasco, L., & Ribrault, C. (2014). Straight into conflict zones, scientific research empowers the minds. Journal of Science Communication, 13(2), C05. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13020305
Petersen, A., Anderson, A., Allan, S., & Wilkinson, C. (2009). Opening the black box: Scientists' views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 512–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507084202
Pitrelli, N. (2003). La crisi del 'Public Understanding of Science' in Gran Bretagna. Journal of Science Communication, 2(1), F01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.02010901
Prokopy, R. J., & Owens, E. D. (1983). Visual detection of plants by herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 28, 337–364. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.28.010183.002005
RT&IP. (2022, October 12). Italiani e Social Media Edizione 2022. Blogmeter: Integrated Social Intelligence. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from https://blogmeter.it/italiani-e-social-media-edizione-2022/
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2008). Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations. Public Understanding of Science, 17(4), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506075351
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1087/20110306
Royal Society. (1985). Public understanding of science. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf
Schneider, L. (2017). Fishy peer review at science by citizen scientist Ted Held. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from http://www.forbetterscience.com
Schrögel, P., & Kolleck, A. (2019). The many faces of participation in science: Literature review and proposal for a three-dimensional framework. Science & Technology Studies, 32(2), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.59519
Schussler, E. E., & Olzak, L. A. (2008). It's not easy being green: Student recall of plant and animal images. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2008.9656123
Schwarz-Plaschg, C. (2018). Nanotechnology is like ... The rhetorical roles of analogies in public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516655686
Sitas, N., Baillie, J. E. M., & Isaac, N. J. B. (2009). What are we saving? Developing a standardized approach for conservation action. Animal Conservation, 12(3), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00244.x
Smith, R. J., Veríssimo, D., Isaac, N. J., & Jones, K. E. (2012). Identifying Cinderella species: Uncovering mammals with conservation flagship appeal. Conservation Letters, 5(3), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00229.x
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204
UNODC. (2016). World wildlife crime report: Trafficking in protected species. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/wildlife/World_Wildlife_Crime_Report_2016_final.pdf
Wandersee, J. H., & Schussler, E. E. (1999). Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology Teacher, 61(2), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/4450624
Watermeyer, R. (2012). Measuring the impact values of public engagement in medical contexts. Science Communication, 34(6), 752–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547011432804
Weingart, P., & Meyer, C. (2021). Citizen science in South Africa: Rhetoric and reality. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521996556
Weingart, P., Joubert, M., & Connoway, K. (2021). Public engagement with science—Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PLOS ONE, 16(7), Article e0254201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254201
Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K., & Dawson, E. (2011). 'Oh yes, robots! People like robots; the robot people should do something': Perspectives and prospects in public engagement with robotics. Science Communication, 33(3), 367–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010389818
World Bank. (2018). The Global Wildlife Program: Knowledge platform 2016–2018. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/106731546908148816/43567-GWP-Annual-Report-2018.pdf