Although most people rely on the mass media to translate the abstract principles and technical
jargon of scientijic research into comprehensible information they can use to make informed
decisions about their lives and about science policy, there is little research examining people's
impressions of newspaper reports on science and how these impressions influence their reading
of science news. This study used think-aloudprotocolsto examine the responses of a small group
of readers to two newspaper science articles. Results indicate that readers may be most
concerned about their ability to understand the articles and their interest in an article's subject.
When readers encountered information they could not comprehend, they used a number of
reading strategies, such as rephrasing, questioning, and acknowledging a lack of prior knowledge. These responses illustrate how individual predispositions, social afJiliations, and information processing abilities can influence impressions of science news.
Reaching Readers
Assessing Readers'Impressions of Science News
JOCELYN STEINKE
Ithaca College
Science and technology have a significant impact on people's personal lives.
Scientific and technological research affects, both positively and negatively,
human health and welfare; it can help to preserve the environment and natural
resources, improve work productivity, and promote economic development.
However, the full implications of scientific research often elude many people
because research in highly specialized areas (e.g., antioxidants, genesplicing, laser microscopy, digital compression, bovine growth hormones, or
artificial intelligence) involve complex scientific principles and technical
terminology foreign to most nonscientists. Consequently, people must rely
on the mass media to translate the abstract principles and technical jargon of
Authork Note: I would like to thank Jill Swenson, Marilee Long, Jerry Mirskin, and this
journal's reviewers for their helpful suggestions on this article. Address correspondence to
Professor Jocelyn Steinke, Roy H. Park School of Communications, Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY
14850; telephone: 607-274-1030; e-mail: steinke@ithaca.edu.
Science Communication,Vol. 16 No. 4, June 1995 432-453
O 1995Sage Publications, Inc.
432
Steinke / REACHING READERS
433
scientific research into comprehensible information they can use to make
more informed political and personal decisions.
Research shows that the mass media are an important source of information about science for those who have completed their formal schooling
(Friedman, Dunwoody, and Rogers 1986; Lucas 1983). Historically, the print
media have been the preferred source for information about science and
technology because typically they provide more in-depth analysis and interpretation (Cronholm and Sandell 1981; Swinehart and McLeod 1960). However, recent research indicates that television is replacing newspapers as the
preferred source of science news (Howard, Blick, and Quarles 1987; Scientists' Institute for Public Information 1993). These findings coincide with the
decline in newspaper readership reported in the early 1990s, which has been
partly attributed to public alienation and dissatisfaction with newspaper
content (Bogart 1993; Hammer 1991).
Numerous surveys have documented public interest in news about science
and technology (Bogart 1969; Davis 1958; Nunn 1979; Scientists' Institute
for Public Information 1993; Swinehart and McLeod 1960; Wade and
Schrarnm 1969). However, little is known about people's impressions of the
content of science news in newspapers and how these impressions influence
their reading of science news. What are readers' assessments of science news?
Are they generally satisfied or dissatisfied with science news? What influence
do readers' individual and social predispositions have on their responses?
What shared responses do readers evoke? How do they read science news?
How do they create meaning from technical information? How do readers7
information processing abilities affect their responses? The purpose of this
research is to explore some of these questions to develop a greater understanding of science news readers.
The application of theories of the reading process to science cornrnunication research has been limited. This study applies reader-response theory and
information processing theory to describe readers' responses to newspaper
science articles. Reader-response theory helps to describe how readers7
individual differences and social predispositions affect their responses
(Bleich 1978; Fish 1980; Holland 1975; Iser 1978; Rosenblatt 1978). Information processing theory helps to describe how cognitive processing of
information and readers7 information processing abilities affect their responses (van Dijk and Kintsch 1983). According to these two theories,
readers' responses to texts can best be understood by looking at their individual dispositions, social affiliations, and information processing abilities.
Reader-response theory explains what factors motivate readers to read and
which factors affect reactions to texts as readers interact with them.
Rosenblatt (1978) describes these interactions as "transactions" between
434
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
readers and texts: "Each reader brings to the transaction not only a specific
past life and literary history, not only a repertory of internalized 'codes,' but
also a very active present, with all its preoccupations, anxieties, questions
and aspirations" (p. 144). According to reader-response theory, both past and
present situations affect readers' attempts to make sense or create meaning
from texts.
Reader-response theory emphasizes that meaning does not exist within
texts (Tompkins 1980). A text serves only as "stimulus activating elements
of the reader's past experience-his experience both with literature and with
life" (Rosenblatt 1978,ll). Rosenblatt describes texts as maps that guide, not
control, readers. Texts contain cues that evoke an array of interpretations
based on readers' personal attitudes, expectations, preoccupations, anxieties,
questions, images, associations, and goals (Holland 1975; Rosenblatt 1978).
Readers are motivated to construct meanings from texts to satisfy their
unique personal goals. During the reading process, however, "a kaleidoscope
of perspectives, preintentions, [and] recollections" (Iser 1974,278) affect the
conversion of information from text into knowledge. Bleich (1978) defines
this conversion as "motivated resymbolization" (p. 213). He states that all
interpretation is driven by "the demand that the knowledge thus symbolized
be explained, or converted into a more subjectively satisfying form" (Bleich
1978,213).
As readers interpret texts, they can produce two different types of interpretations or responses: shared and individual. Shared responses generally
occur among readers who are members of the same "interpretive community"
(Fish 1980), also called "discourse community" (Bizzell 1982; Porter 1986)
and "speech community" (Nystrand 1982). Members of interpretative communities also share common interpretive strategies for constructing meaning
from texts (Fish 1980).
In addition to shared responses, readers produce individual responses as
they interpret texts. Individual responses occur because readers may belong
to several different interpretive communities, and different interpretative
communities may encourage different responses to texts. Fish (1980) explains that "there is no single way of reading that is correct or natural, only
'ways of reading' that are extensions of community perspectives" (p. 16).
Individual responses also occur among members of the same interpretive
community because of individual personalities and perspectives (Iser 1974).
Holland (1975) explains that readers use "adaptations" and "defenses"-that
is, coping strategies that are unique to their personalities-to respond to texts.
Social, environmental, and individual factors influence readers' interest in
texts and responses to texts. Nell (1988) explored a range of factors that
Steinke / REACHING READERS
435
influenced those who read texts for pleasure. These factors included motivation, prior knowledge, attention, comprehension, ease of reading, text difficulty, interest, frustration, and competition from other activities. Nell argued
that motivation greatly influences readers' responses to texts. He also found
that readers' primary goal was to read and comprehend texts quickly. Flower
(1988) also noted that one of the primary motivations for reading is the desire
"to do" or "to learn."
Research in science education and science communication suggests ways
in which social, environmental, and individual factors could affect readers'
interest in science news. Wareing (1990) found that negative attitudes toward
science developed during years of formal schooling because of the grades
received, the degree of structure, the degree of stress, the degree of rewards,
and the number of tests in science courses. Patterson, Booth, and Smith
(1969) noted differences in readers' attentiveness to science news depending
on their attitudes toward science. Miller and Barrington (1981) found that the
following factors led to the acquisition of scientific information: gender,
college education, exposure to college science courses, occupational experience with science, and a high interest in science. Little research, however,
directly addresses how social, environmental, and individual factors influence readers' impressions of science news as they read.
While reader-response theory describes what motivates readers to read
and which social, environmental, and individual factors influence them while
reading, it does not fully explain the reading process. Readers' responses to
texts are shaped not just by their individual dispositions and social affiliations
but also by their abilities to process information in texts. Information processing theory provides more explanation on how readers respond to texts.
Processing information in texts is a complicated task. Information processing requires readers to retrieve information from memory that relates to
the information they encounter in texts. As readers evaluate and integrate new
information, they search for schemas, networks of associated knowledge
stored in memory (Bower and Cirilo 1985; Kucer 1985; van Dijk and Kintsch
1983). If readers are unable to find relevant schemas, they will be unable to
evaluate the new information.
Research also suggests that readers' information processing abilities affect
their responses to science news. A number of studies show that readers more
easily process science news articles that were written in nontechnical language using short sentences and literary devices (Bostian 1983; Bostian and
Byrne 1984; Funkhouser and Maccoby 1971, 1973; Grunig 1974; Hunsaker
1979;Tarleton 1953). Shapiro (1986) found readers processed new scientific
information more rigorously when articles provided analogies. Rowan
436
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
(1988) argued that readers would be better able to process new scientific
information if articles provided explanations of scientific terms to help
readers cognitively process complex concepts.
The purpose of this study was to assess readers' impressions of science
newspaper articles to describe how individual dispositions, social afiliations,
and information processing abilities affect readers' responses to science news
articles. One objective of this research was to examine the responses of
readers who typically do not read science news. By assessing their expectations and informational needs, I hoped to identify ways to improve the content
of newspaper science articles.
Method
The two science articles selected for the subjects to read were representative of the best science writing published. The articles, entitled "Carbon
Monoxide Gas Is Used by Brain Cells as a Neurotransmitter" (Article 1) and
"Near or Far? Mystery Grows over Blasts of Gamma Rays" (Article 2) had
appeared in the Science Times section of The New York Emes (26 January
1993) and were of approximately equal length but on two different scientific
topics. The New York Emes was used for analysis because it is readily
available to a U.S. national audience and is recognized for its in-depth and
comprehensive coverage of science news.
It is important to emphasize that this research is a case study of one group
of readers and one set of articles. Case studies are valuable, however, for
collecting information as one begins a new line of investigation and, as in
this research, for generating hypotheses about a group's response that can
then be tested in future research (Swenson 1989; Wimmer and Dominick
1994).
Twelve students enrolled in an undergraduate journalism class were
selected as subjects. These subjects were selected because they had little
formal training in science, with the exception of one or two college-level
courses, and because they rarely, if ever, read science news. They thus
represented what one might characterize as a hesitant and resistant group of
potential readers.
Readers' responses to the science news articles were examined using
protocol analysis, a methodology that enables close probing of subjects'
cognitive processes. This methodology has been used to study the cognitive
processes of readers, particularly their problem-solving behavior (Bereiter
and Bird 1985;Flower 1987,1988). The protocol procedure requires subjects
Steinke / REACHING READERS
437
to verbalize their thought processes and record them on tape. A transcript of
the tapes are made, and the protocols are then analyzed by the researcher.
Reading protocols or think-aloud protocols capture moments when readers switch from automated strategies for reading to "high-level ones that
frequently demand conscious processing" (Flower 1988, 540). As Flower
explained, "At certain points in reading, these automated processes are no
longer adequate, and readers must rise to more conscious processing of the
text" (p. 540). The subjects' verbalizations represent information they call
into working memory for processing (Flower 1988). Because this study
focuses on a group of readers who, given their lack of training and interest in
science, would have a difficult time interpreting or making meaning from the
articles, protocol analysis was selected to capture when these subjects turned
to problem solving during the reading process.
Copies of the articles, an instruction sheet explaining the procedure for
reading protocols, and a tape cassette were given to each subject. The subjects
were instructed on how to conduct reading protocols: They were asked to
think aloud or verbalize everything they were thinking and reading while
reading the science news articles and to record their verbalizations on a tape
cassette. Half of the subjects were assigned to read Article 1 first; the other
half were assigned to read Article 2 first. The subjects were instructed not to
look at the stories until they were ready to do the reading protocols and to
practice thinking aloud by describing the shortest route to their homes. The
subjects were asked to do the reading protocols at home and return the tape
within a week.
All twelve subjects completed the reading protocols. The protocols of five
of the subjects were eliminated from the study because the subjects did not
correctly complete the reading protocol procedure or because the tapes were
inaudible.
The tapes were transcribed independently by three transcribers. To facilitate analysis, each protocol was divided into T-units, or independent clauses
(Johnson 1985). Clauses with an implied subject were coded as complete
independent clauses. Portions of the protocol were set off in bold type to
indicate when subjects were verbalizing their thoughts (see appendix). The
subjects' verbalizations of their thoughts could be determined by comparing
the transcript with the text of the articles the subjects read.
A subset of the protocols were coded independently by two coders.
Intercoder reliability was calculated using Scott's Phi, which measures the
percentages of exact agreement, taking chance into account (Scott 1955). The
average intercoder reliability for all categories was 0.95. Individual reliabilities ranged from 0.99 to 0.53. The one low reliability score was for the "other"
category that included references to reader responses that were not analyzed
438
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
(for example, readers' comments that were not related to the reading process
or readers' comments about the photographs that accompanied the articles).
All reliability scores for the other categories were 0.93 or above.
To assess why readers responded to the articles as they did, each protocol
was examined to determine recurring responses to the scientific content of
the articles. (In an appendix to this article, an excerpt from one of the
transcribed protocols demonstrates how subjects commented on texts as they
read them.) Four different types of responses were identified from the readers'
protocols: interest assessment, relevance assessment, comprehension assessment, and knowledge gain assessment. These d o not capture all of the readers'
responses but only those pertaining to readers' reactions to the scientific
content of the articles. Based on a preliminary reading of the protocols, I
developed the following definitions and examples of these responses to
facilitate coding:
Interest Assessment
Interest: References indicating the reader's engagement in the article or the
subject of the article. Examples include "This is interesting"; "I always enjoy
reading about biology"; and "This is cool."
Lack of Interest: References indicating the reader's lack of engagement in the
article or subject of the article. Examples include "This article is boring"; "I
don't want to read this anymore; it's too dull"; and "I hate reading about
physics.''
Relevance Assessment
Relevance: References to the pertinence of the article or the subject of the article
to the reader's life or situation. Examples include "That's useful information
for me" and "That's what happened to my father."
Irrelevance: References to the lack of pertinence of the article or the subject of
the article to the reader's life or situation. Examples include "Why do I need to
know this?" and 'This does not apply to me."
Comprehension Assessment
Comprehension: References indicating the reader understands the article and
the technical terminology in the article. Examples include "I see what's going
on here"; "Photosynthesis, then, is the way plants convert light to energy"; "That
makes sense"; and "I understand that."
Lack of Comprehension: References indicating the reader does not understand
the article or the technical terminology in the article. Examples include "I'm so
confused"; "I don't know what's going on here"; and "What does photosynthesis mean?"
Steinke 1 REACHING READERS
439
Knowledge Gain Assessment
Knowledge Gain:References indicating the reader is learning new information.
Examples include "Well, you learn something new every day"; and "I didn't
know that."
Lack of Knowledge Gain: References indicating the reader is not learning new
information. Examples include "Well, that doesn't tell me anything" and "I'm
not getting anything from all this."
To assess how the readers responded to the articles as they read them, I
also read each protocol to identify information processing or reading strategies the readers used. Based on a preliminary reading of the protocols, I
developed the following definitions and examples of references to reading
strategies to facilitate coding:
Reading Strategies
Rephrasing: Reiterating information using the readers' own words. Examples
include "So, what is happening here is that plants take up carbon dioxide and
water" and "She's saying blood circulates throughout the body."
Questioning: Puzzling or questioning information in the text or missing from
the article. Examples include "How does that work?'and "Where is the
cerebellum located?'
Acknowledging Lack of Prior Knowledge: References to not knowing information needed to understand part of the article. Examples include "I never took
chemistry, so I don't know" and "I don't know what that means."
Recalling Prior Knowledge: References to previously leaned information.
Examples include "I remember that word from physics class" and "Photosynthesis is how plants convert light to energy."
Readers' general and specific references to their assessments of the
scientific content and their information processing strategies were counted in
T-units by the principal researcher. The total number of T-units for each
category was summarized across subjects by article. The total number of
T-units to readers' assessments is summarized in Tables 1'2, and 3. The total
number of T-units to readers' information processing strategies is summarized in Table 4.
The protocols ranged in length from one and a half to four pages per article.
The total number of T-units representing readers' thought processes ranged
from 29 to 104. The mean number of T-units representing readers' thought
processes was 59.4, and the standard deviation was 24.8.
440
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
TABLE 1
Number of Reader Assessments of Interest, Relevance,
Comprehension, and Knowledge Gain for Article 1
Reader
~-
p~
Reader Assessments
I
2
3
5
4
6
7
Total
Interest
Present
Absent
Relevance
Present
Absent
Comprehension
Present
Absent
Knowledge gain
Present
Absent
Total
TABLE 2
Number of Reader Assessments of Interest, Relevance, Comprehension, and Knowledge Gain for Article 2
Reader
Reader Assessments
Interest
Present
Absent
Relevance
Present
Absent
Comprehension
Present
Absent
Knowledge gain
Present
Absent
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Steinke/ REACHING READERS
441
TABLE 3
Number of Reader Assessments of Interest, Relevance, Comprehension, and Knowledge Gain for Articles 1 and 2
Article
2
1
Reader Assessments
Interest
Present
Absent
Relevance
Present
Absent
comprehension
Present
Absent
Knowledge gain
Present
Absent
Total
7
10
11
7
17
17
1
2
0
0
1
2
10
30
6
16
16
46
2
0
1
1
3
1
TABLE 4
Reading Strategies Used while Reading Articles 1 and 2
Reader
Reading Strategies
Rephrasing
Article 1
Article 2
Both 1 and 2
Questioning
Article 1
Article 2
Both 1 and 2
Acknowledging lack
of prior knowledge
Article 1
Article 2
Both 1 and 2
Recalling prior
knowledge
Article 1
Article 2
Both 1 and 2
Reevaluatingprior
knowledge
Article 1
Article 2
Both 1 and 2
Total
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
442
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
Results
Readers' Responses to ScientiJic Information
Interest Assessment
All readers spent some time assessing their level of interest in the articles;
33 percent of all references to the scientific content of the article referred to
their interest. The total number of references the readers made to their interest
was 17 (see Table 3). The total number of references readers made to their
lack of interest was also 17. Readers expressed more interest in Article 1 than
in Article 2 (see Table 3). In their responses, readers provided a number of
reasons to explain their interest or lack of interest in the articles.
Some of the readers' level of interest depended on their attitudes toward
the subject of the articles. For example, Reader 5 said she found Article 1
interesting because she liked the topic. She said, "This does sound kind of
interesting, like something I would actually read, because I like neurobiology." Similarly, Reader 6 liked Article 2 because she was interested in the
subject. She announced that she would "love to be an astrophysicist."
On the other hand, Reader 4 explained she was not interested in Article 1
because she had no interest in the subject. She said:
I know I wouldn't read it if I was reading The New York Times and turned to
it. Maybe I'd get through the first three paragraphs until the first subhead and
then I'd be like, all right, I'm outta here. . . . I would probably just walk away
because I really could care less about neurotransmitters.
Similarly, Reader 5 was not interested in Article 2 because she was not
interested in the subject. She said, "The article as a whole, I don't think I
would normally read . . .because even though I enjoy science at times, I don't
really get into astronomy too much."
A few other factors affected the readers' level of interest in the articles.
Reader 4's interest in Article 2 was related to the ease with which she could
read the article. She said, 'The gamma ray article made a whole lot more
sense to me, maybe because I find the topic more interesting; maybe it was
easier." Reader 5's interest was related to her familiarity with the topic. She
said, "It's something I spent some time studying in high school." Reader 4's
lack of interest in Article 1 was related to a lack of familiarity with the topic.
She said, "I'm not a stupid person, but I'm not overwhelmingly brilliant . . .
and I don't have an incredible mind for science."
Steinke / REACHING READERS
443
Relevance Assessment
Overall, the readers spent little time considering whether the information
in the articles was relevant to their personal situations; only 3 percent of all
references to the scientific content of the article referred to relevance. For
Article 1, the readers made only three references to relevance; one indicating
the relevance of the article and two indicating the lack of relevance of the
article (see Table 3). For example, Reader 7 said that Article 1 dealt with a
topic that "pretty much affects us," while Reader 2 did not see any relevance
in Article 1 and asked, "How is that supposed to have any relevance unless
I . . . am some sort of scientist who can understand what this is talking about?'
and "Is this going to be something that affects all society? Affects everybody?' No references were made to the relevance of Article 2.
Comprehension Assessment
The most frequent assessment readers made during the protocol referred
to their comprehension of the articles; 61 percent of all responses referred to
comprehension. The readers, however, usually referred to incomprehension
rather than comprehension. The total number of references to readers' assessments of their inabilities to understand the articles was 46, while the total
number of references to their abilities to understand the articles was 16 (see
Table 3). For Article 1, readers made three times as many references to a lack
of comprehension than to comprehension. For Article 2, readers made two
and a half times as many references to a lack of comprehension than to
comprehension.
The most frequent response from readers unable to comprehend the
articles was that the articles were too technical or that technical and unfamiliar
terms were not defined or explained. The readers often expressed frustration
when they encountered technical and unfamiliar terms:
Acetylcholine, blah, blah, blah, well that means nothing to me. . . . It's going
back to some scientific mumbo jumbo here. . . . I'm not so sure what these high
energy gamma rays are. (Reader 2, Article 1)
I hope they tell me what a neurotransmitter is. (Reader 3, Article 1)
I understood it until the third column and then we got into this guanylyl cyclase
and GMP and then this hippocampus whatever. (Reader 4, Article 1)
Gamma rays . . . recalcitrant enigmas . . . maelstroms . . . I wonder if it's alienating other people besides me. (Reader 5, Article 2)
444
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
Very complicated, all these chemical names. I mean I did well in chemistry,
but this is a lot to throw at me all at once after how many years of absence from
science classes. (Reader 6, Article 2)
The readers often attributed their ability to comprehend the article to prior
knowledge of the subjects addressed in the articles:
Now, this is kind of heavy for a lot of people, but since I take psychology and
I was awake during biology class [in] high school I kind of know what they're
talking about. (Reader 1, Article 1)
A little bit of my high school chemistry and physics [is] coming back to me.
(Reader 2, Article 2)
A few readers said a lack of prior knowledge prevented them from understanding the articles. For example, while reading Article 2, Reader 2 remarked, "I have not read a lot about this before, so I wouldn't know why they
are exploring high-energy radiations deep in space."
One reader expressed concern about her ability to comprehend one of the
articles even before she started reading. She asked, "Is this going to be one
of those scientific articles that I really have a hard time understanding?'
Another reader expressed general confusion while reading: "I still don't
really understand. They haven't really talked about memory that much at all.
And, I mean, if this article is on memory as some would suggest, then why
doesn't it talk more about memory?'
Some of the readers' assessments of their comprehension or ability to
comprehend the articles were related to whether or not they perceived
themselves as part of the intended audience. Many readers did not feel
included and, consequently, often expressed a lack of interest in the article.
This was particularly evident in the readers' responses to Article 2:
Already I can tell this is way above my head. I'm not an astrophysicist myself,
and [it] really kind of sounds like they're writing [for] astrophysicists or those
kinds of people. . . . This is why I hate The New York Times because they put
articles like this that no one can read except for astrophysicists themselves and
people who subscribe to Nature, which is not me, I can tell you that. (Reader 1,
Article 2)
I might as well just stop reading right now because to me this is making no
sense. Maybe I'm not reading it carefully enough. . . . This belongs in Scientific
American or. . . in some sciencejournal or something. It doesn't belong in The
New York Emes, although The New York Emes can be dry at times, so I suppose
this is characteristic. . . . This is not for your general audience who is interested
Steinke / REACHING READERS
445
in learning about this. Is this some kind of report for somebody who is a science
buff or a scientist or a science professor? (Reader 2, Article 2)
You were obviously writing for doctors, because I don't know what you're
saying. (Reader 3, Article 1)
There are a lot of definitions. It's a lot to remember at one time. . .unless you're
a member of the scientific community or have some vast knowledge of biology.
You have to read this more than once to catch it. (Reader 4, Article 1)
This is written really for people who have more of a scientific background,
because at this point, I'm understanding the argument, but I'm not feeling like
I'm a participant in it. (Reader 5, Article 2)
Knowledge Gain Assessment
Readers spent little time considering whether they gained information
from the articles; only 4 percent of all references to the scientific content of
the article referred to knowledge gain. For both articles, the total number of
references to knowledge gain was three, and the total number to a lack of
knowledge gain was one (see Table 3). For Article 1, readers made only two
references to knowledge gain. For Article 2, only one reader made a reference
to a lack of knowledge gain, for example, "I didn't learn anything."
Readers' Use of Information Processing Strategies
Rephrasing Information in the Text
One strategy several of the readers used to process information in the
articles was to rephrase information from the text in their own words:
Okay, I guess that's saying that our actual memories are going to be erased if
there is no carbon monoxide. . . . Okay, I take it that quasars make our galaxies
sort of turbulent, I guess, or sort of cause a whole bunch of havoc in the galaxy.
(Reader 2, Article 2)
So when the cell releases that it attaches to carbon monoxide. . . . It would be
like screwing up the directions in your head, like erasing them, because you
wouldn't have the carbon monoxide to flow from neurotransmitter to neurotransmitter. I understand where this article is leading after going back. (Reader 5,
Article 1)
Okay, so they're not stored. . . . Oh good, there isn't waste. (Reader 6, Article 1)
Again, they are trying to figure out exactly where these gamma rays are coming
from. (Reader 7, Article 2)
446
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
A number of the readers often stopped to rephrase information when they had
trouble understanding the article.
Questioning the Meaning of the Text
Another information processing strategy some of the readers used was
questioning. These readers appeared to be questioning either the writer or the
text:
Okay, so what's your point? What are you trying to tell me? . . . How did they
know what the rat's memory is? . . . Okay so what does that mean? . . . What
is extragalactic supposed to mean? (Reader 2, Articles 1 and 2)
So not all cells make this, it's just the ones . . . right, okay. . . . Are we supposed
to have seen these or [are] these something astrophysicists see? (Reader 5,
Article 2)
Reader 6's use of questioning was especially interesting. She used
questioning for three different purposes. As she read Article 1, she often
questioned information that was unclear to her. For example, she asked:
Signal them to do what? . . . How can they think that they already have
everything figured out when there's so much more that we don't
know? . . . How can it be brand new? It's not brand new, it's been going on for
years. . . . Hippocampus, what is hippocampus?. . . Neuronal, what's neuronal?
She also questioned information that contradicted her prior knowledge. For
example, she asked, "Can't you die from carbon monoxide? Can't you get
carbon monoxide poisoning?How could carbon monoxide be healthy for you
if it kills you? Guess it depends on the dosage or something." As she read
Article 2, she used questioning to generate further thought. For example, she
asked, "How do you know where the edge of the universe is? There is no
edge of the universe," and "How did they get there?'
Acknowledging a Lack of Prior Knowledge and Moving On
One reading strategy a few of the readers used was to assess their prior
knowledge to determine how thoroughly to read the articles. For example,
while reading Article 1, Reader 4 "tuned in" and out depending on her level
of interest and her ability to understand information in the article. She said:
Reading something about a stroke automatically grabbed my attention back
into the article. 1 was starting to get bored, but 1 have a . . . family member who
had a stroke, so that's something that's very close to me so it grabbed my
attention. (Reader 4, Article 1)
Steinke / REACHING READERS
447
However, she "tuned out" again when the article became more technical. She
said, "I'm a little lost. I'm trying to find my way back into this article because
I sort of tuned out what I was reading." She acknowledged the consequences
of her inattentiveness: "When you read a scientific article you can't just . . .
tune it out and keep reading because it's too difficult." She said that although
she understood the "gist" of the article, she would have to reread it. However,
she explained her tuning in and out enabled her to finish reading.
Recalling and Using Prior Knowledge
A number of the readers recalled prior knowledge to help them interpret
information in the articles:
Peptides. The fog of seventh grade biology. Some of these words are coming
back. (Reader 3, Article 1)
This reminds me of organic chemistry in eleventh grade, with the oxide and
the oxates. . . . I understand the basic biological factors in the brain. . . . I
learned that in tenth grade bio[logy] and eleventh grade chem[istry]. (Reader 4,
Article 1)
I remember a neurotransmitter as the little impulses in between the neutrons
that send the messages from one cell to the next. It does seem odd because I
always thought that carbon monoxide was deadly . . . maybe they're finding
out just how the body processes it. We think that it's such a bad byproduct or
waste product, but there's some use for it in the body. (Reader 5, Article 1)
Amino acids, the building blocks of proteins and DNA, don't forget. (Reader
6, Article 1)
As some of these excerpts indicate, much of the information readers recalled
about science was derived from their formal education in science.
Discussion
Analyzing readers' responses to science news articles provides insights on
how science communicators can better tailor messages for readers. Understanding readers' responses and addressing their concerns can help science
communicators attract more readers, attract greater interest from readers, and,
ultimately, facilitate public understanding of science. The findings from this
research suggest some specific ways journalists can improve the content of
science news for readers and provide information on the science news reading
process.
448
SCENCE COMMUNICATION
The responses of readers in this study provided detailed information on
how individual and social predispositions affected their readings of the
articles and detailed information on what was missing from the articles they
needed to create meaning from them. The readers' responses specifically
indicated what words needed to be defined, what concepts and processes
needed to be explained, why they lost interest in the articles, and what did
not make sense. Such information can provide science writers with direct
feedback from readers on ways to improve communication.
The most frequent concern shared by the readers in this study centered on
their lack of ability to comprehend the articles. This finding is not surprising
given the research that shows readers often read "to do" or "to learn" (Flower
1988).What is surprising, however, are the findings that highlight the reasons
readers had difficulty comprehending the articles. Readers had trouble understanding articles because they contained unfamiliar scientific terminology
that was not adequately explained or defined.
Despite these difficulties, the readers deployed a variety of information
processing or reading strategies to help decipher technical information in the
articles. They used rephrasing, questioning, acknowledging a lack of prior
knowledge, and then skimming the text and recalling prior knowledge to
process information in the science news articles or simply to get through the
articles.
The readers' use of reading strategies supports research by LaBerge and
Samuels (1974) showed that difficult texts often require more rigorous
processing. They explained that when information processing is not automatic, readers use alternative strategies to help them process information, such
as visualizing information or retrieving semantic meanings of words. According to LaBerge and Samuels, readers have to add their "own associations to
the particular organized pattern of meanings" (p. 320). In addition, Flower
(1988) found that when readers encountered passages that required more
active interpretation, they used a variety of "comprehension strategies"
(p. 541). These strategies included using prior knowledge to resolve difficulties in the text, searching the text for additional information, and monitoring,
testing, and elaborating their own understanding.
While translating scientific information for a lay audience is a difficult
task, it is crucial for improving the public understanding of science. As Shen
(1975) argues, "The science behind specific science-related public issues of
current interest must be analyzed in plain English for the average citizen on
a continuing basis by specialists in explicating science" (p. 48). To understand fully the implications of science news, therefore, readers must able to
comprehend it.
Steinke 1 REACHING READERS
449
These results provide some suggestions on Row science writers can reach
more readers. At the very least, science writers need to make sure science
news articles define and explain scientific terms so all readers feel a part of
the intended audience. Rowan (1988) has suggested a number of explanatory
techniques that writers can use to improve science communication. In addition, science writers need to provide more analysis to enable readers to
understand the relevance and implications of scientific research. Additional
research needs to identify how other writing strategies, such as humanizing
news stories and using literary techniques, can improve reader comprehension.
The readers also wanted science news that interested them. Many of the
readers in this study did not take the time to read the articles carefully because
they were simply not interested in the article's subject. In addition to providing comprehensible information, science writers also need to present news
on topics that interest readers. Accomplishing this goal is difficult, however,
because of the diversity of mass media audiences and because readers are
clearly affected by their past experiences and present situations when they
read. Each one creates unique responses to texts based on his or her individual
experiences, expectations, attitudes, values, and biases. The differences in
many of the readers' responses in this study reflect their individual predispositions. Additional research is needed to determine how prior experiences
shape readers' responses and which experiences lead to reader interest.
In addition, readers' social affiliations also had a significant effect on the
way they responded to the articles. The responses most frequently shared by
readers concerned their ability to comprehend the articles, their interest in the
articles, and whether they perceived themselves as part of the intended
audience. Most readers said they had difficulties understanding the articles,
were not interested in the articles, and did not feel a part of the intended
audience. The readers' common social affiliation, people who generally do
not read science news, may account for the similarities in these responses.
Making science news easier for readers to understand is important for
several reasons. First, scientific and technological research has adirect impact
on people's lives. People need access to scientific information that clearly
tells them of potential benefits and warns them of potential hazards. People
need comprehensible information about science to develop "practical science
literacy," knowledge that enables them to solve practical problems (Shen
1975,46).
Second, people need to be informed about science so they can make
informed science policy decisions. Many have addressed the importance of
having scientifically literate citizens in a democratic society (Durant, Evans,
and Thomas 1989; Miller 1983). People need comprehensible information
450
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
about science to develop "civic science literacy," knowledge that enables
them to fully participate in the democratic process (Shen 1975,48).
Third, in the wake of declines in readership and increased competition
with the electronic media, the newspaper industry needs to be more attentive
to readers' informational needs and expectations. Recently, newspaper publishers, editors, and reporters have shown a renewed interest in reaching
readers. Newspaper chains, such as Gannett Co. and Knight-Ridder Corporation, have initiated reader participation programs to assess how to serve
readers better (Noack 1994; Underwood 1993).
In addition, the recent movement in the newspaper industry toward public
journalism focuses on soliciting readers' views about the issues that interest
them and providing people with information they need to conduct their lives
and participate more fully in policymaking (Case 1994; Stein 1994). Science
news reporters need to follow in this direction and look more carefully at
what their readers want and need from science news.
Valuable information for communication research can be drawn from
readers' individual responses to science news. Although research in mass
communication has explored individual readings of news texts, much of the
existing research has overlooked individual readings of science news texts.
However, to understand science news readers better, researchers also need to
consider the social context in which readers read. As Wynne (1992) argues,
we need to know how people "experience science socially" (p. 42), and that
includes the array of factors that affect readers' responses.
Appendix-Excerpt
-
-
from One Protocol
-
-
-
-
-
I'm reading I'm reading the carbon monoxide gas article1 researchers have
found/ okay the lead itself the X X M X X article the carbon monoxide the lead
confused me right off the bat/ I'm like the simple gas carbon monoxide is used
da da da sounds like an incomplete sentence1 researchers have found and that's
passive voice have found you always said not to use passive voice1 the discovery
follows a finding okay I get it now it took a second to to click/ been finding
neurotransmitters since the 20s I like the key in the lock simile or metaphor
whatever1 it is like or as makes it a simile right and it kind of clears things up a
little bit being the nonscientific woman I am/ gasses are volatile and nonspecific1
okay this makes sensd I mean when I can understand something scientific
something's working1 clinical implications its a whole brand new signaling mechanism Dr. Charles Stevens in La Jola California La Jolla not La Jola took me a long
time to know that/ character of recent observations the thing with this article is
that I know I wouldn't read it if I was reading the New York Times1and turn to
it maybe I'd be like maybe I'd get through the first three paragraphs until the
first subhead/ and then I'd be like all right I'm outta herd I'm only reading it
Steinke / REACHING READERS
45 1
now cause I have to1and I know that otherwise I would probably just walk away1
because I really could care less about neurotransmitters/ it's not that I don't care
but/ suggestionsthat carbon monoxide okay nitric oxide is bad oh god cause damage
in strokes1 that reading something about a stroke automatically grabbed my
attention back into the article/ I was starting to get boredl but I have a personal
uh encounter well not my own personal encounter but a family member who did
have a stroke/ so that's something that's very close to me/ so it grabbed my
attention/ again I don't know if it would do that for everyone else1 carbon
monoxide's a poison1 I know that/ carbon monoxide's a poison that one I knowl
um the the author XXXX or XXXX rather however you pronounce her name
um you know she's doing a good job of explaining things1what does damage and
what isn't and that carbon monoxide is a poison/ and I'm mean obviously we all
know that you knowl cause you don't sit in a car with the engine on/ that kind
of thing1 but she's doing a good job of explaining all of the terminology the lingo
so that we can understand the jargon if you will/ so that we can understand
what's going on for example/ amino acids are the building blocks of protein/ I
mean even I understand basic biology and know what that means1 but she still
makes it clear to those who may not/ I remember peptided isn't nitric oxide
laughing gas1that's nitrox oxide/ sorry this reminds me of my chapter on organic
chemistry in eleventh grade oh with the oxide and the oxates and the guanylyl
cyclasd however you pronounce that/ it's pure cocktail party reasoning1 that's
really funny1I'm a little lost I'm trying to find my way back into this article.
Note: Boldface highlights the part of the protocol reflecting the reader's reaction and therefore
was used for analysis.
References
Bereiter, B., and M. Bird. 1985. Use of think aloud in identification and teaching of reading
comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction 2: 131-56.
Bizzell, P. 1982. Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing.
Pre/Text 3:213-43.
Bleich, D. 1978. Subjective criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bogart, L. 1969. Changing news interests and the news media. Public Opinion Quarterly
32560-74.
. 1993. Newspaper of the future: Our look at the next century. Newspaper Research
Journal 14:2-10.
Bostian, L. 1983. How active, passive and nominal styles affect readability of science writing.
Journalism Quarterly 60:635-40,670.
Bostian, L., and T. Byme. 1984. Comprehension of styles of science writing. Journalism
Quarterly 61:676-8.
Bower, G., and R. Cirilo. 1985. Cognitive psychology and text processing. In Handbook of
discourse analysis, vol. 2, edited by T.A. van Dijk, 71-105. New York: Academic Press.
Case, T. 1994. Public journalism denounced. Editor and Publisher, 12 November, 14-15.
452
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
Cronholm, M., and R. Sandell. 1981. Scientific information: A review of research. Journal of
Communication 3 1:85-96.
Davis, R. C. 1958. The public impact of science in the m s media. AM Arbor: University of
Michigan, Survey Research Center, for the National Association of Science Writers.
Durant, J. R., G. A. Evans, and G. P. Thomas. 1989.The public understanding of science. Nature
340: 11-4.
Fish, S. 1980. Is there a text in this class? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Flower, L. 1987. Interpretative acts: Cognition and the construction of discourse. Poetics
16:109-30.
. 1988. The construction of purpose in writing and reading. College English 50528-50.
Friedman, S., S. Dunwoody, and C. Rogers. 1986. Scientists andjournalists: Reporting science
as news. New York: Free Press.
Funkhouser, G., and N. Maccoby. 1971. Communicating specialized science information to a
lay audience. Journalism Quarterly 2158-71.
1973. Tailoring science writing to the general audience.Journalism Quarterly 50:220-6.
Gmnig, J. 1974. Three stopping experiments on the communication of science. Journalism
Quarterly 51:387-99.
Hammer, J. 1991. Pages and pages of pain. Newsweek, 27 May, 39-41.
Holland, N. 1975. 5 readers reading. New Haven, C T Yale University Press.
Howard, H. H., E. Blick, and J. P. Quarles. 1987.Mediachoices for specialized news. Journalism
Quarterly 64620-3.
Hunsaker, A. 1979. Enjoyment and information gain in science articles. Journalism Quarterly
56:617-9.
Iser, W. 1974. The reading process: A phenomenological approach. In The implied reader:
Patterns in communicationinprosefictionfrom Bunyan to Beckett,edited by W. Iser, 274-94.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
. 1978. The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Johnson, N. S. 1985. Extracting the proof from the pudding: Coding and analyzing experimental
protocols. In Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 2, edited by T. A. van Dijk, 245-57. New
York: Academic Press.
Kucer, S. 1985. The making of meaning. Written Communication 2:317-36.
LaBerge, D., and S. Samuels. 1974. Toward a theory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology. 6:293-323.
Lucas, A. M. 1983. Scientific literacy and informal learning. Studies in Science Education
1O:l-36.
Miller, J. D. 1983. Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus 112:29-48.
Miller, J. D., andT. M. Barrington. 1981.The acquisition and retention of scientificinformation.
Journal of Communication 31:178-89.
Nell, V. 1988. Lost in a book: The psychology of reading for pleasure. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Noack, D. 1994. Getting readers involved. Editor and Publisher, 23 April, 22,26,30.
Nunn, C. Z. 1979. Readership and coverage of science and technology in newspapers. Journalism Quarterly 56:27-30.
Nystrand, M. 1982. An analysis of errors in written communication. In What writers know: The
language, process, and the structure of written discourse, edited by M. Nystrand, 57-74.
New York: Academic Press.
Steinke / REACHING READERS
453
Patterson, J., L. Booth, and R. Smith. 1969. Who reads about science? Journalism Quarterly
46599-602.
Porter, J. 1986. Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review 5:34-47.
Rosenblatt, L. 1978. The reader; the text, the poem: The transactionaltheory of the literary work.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Rowan, K. 1988. A contemporary theory of explanatory writing. Written Communication
5:23-56.
Scientists' Institute for Public Information. 1993. Science news: What does the public really
want? SIPIscope 20:l-10.
Scott, W. A. 1955. Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public
Opinion Quarterly 19:321-5.
Shapiro, M. 1986. Analogies, visualization, and mental processing of science stories. Mass
Communication Yearbook 9:339-55.
Shen, S. P. 1975. Science literacy and the public understanding of science. In Communication
of scientific information, edited by S. B. Day, 44-52. New York: S. Karger.
Stein, M. L. 1994. In praise of public journalism. Editor and Publisher, 12 November, 15,45.
Swenson, J. D. 1989. TVnews viewers: Making sense out of Iran-Contra.Ph.D. diss., Committee
on Human Development, University of Chicago.
Swinehart, J. W., and J. McLeod. 1960. News about science: Channels, audiences, and effects.
Public Opinion Quarterly 24583-9.
Tarleton, R. 1953. Accuracy and comprehension in science news articles. Journalism Quarterly
30:69-71.
Tompkins, J. 1980. The reader in history: The changing shape of literary response. In ReaderResponse criticism, edited by J. P. Tompkins, 201-32. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Underwood, D. 1993. The very model of the reader-driven newsroom. Columbia Journalism
Review (November/December): 42-44.
van Dijk, T., and W. Kintsch. 1983.Strategies ofdiscourse comprehension. New York: Academic
Press.
Wade, S., and W. Schramm. 1969. The mass media as sources of public affairs, science and
health knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly 33:197-209.
Wareing, C. 1990. A survey of antecedents of attitudes toward science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 27:371-86.
Wimrner, R. D., and J. R. Dominick. 1994. Mass media research: An introduction.Belrnont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Wynne, B. 1992. Public understanding of science research: New horizons or hall of mirrors?
Public Understanding of Science 1:37-43.
JOCELYN STEINKE is Assistant Professor of Journalism at Ithaca College. Her
researchfocuses on the process of science news writing, the science news audience, and
images of science and scientists in the mass media.