When Simple Language Fails: Presenting Difficult Science to the Public
- 1 October 1991
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
- Vol. 21 (4) , 369-382
- https://doi.org/10.2190/d3bd-32rc-fgw0-c5jb
Abstract
Explanatory tools such as simple words, examples, and analogies are ineffective for overcoming an important obstacle to understanding science. This obstacle is that many fundamental scientific principles are counterintuitive (e.g., people resist wearing seat belts partly because scientific notions of inertia are counterintuitive). To assist science writers in presenting science news and concepts, this article identified 1) three major difficulties lay readers often have in understanding science, 2) the kinds of ideas readers find counterintuitive, 3) ineffective approaches for explaining these notions, and 4) effective strategies that help people understand these difficult ideas and their implications for health and safety.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cognitive Correlates of Explanatory Writing SkillWritten Communication, 1990
- The Readability Controversy: A Technical Writing ReviewJournal of Technical Writing and Communication, 1990
- The public understanding of scienceNature, 1989
- Public understanding of science: from contents to processesInternational Journal of Science Education, 1988
- A Contemporary Theory of Explanatory WritingWritten Communication, 1988
- Can the history of science help science educators anticipate students' misconceptions?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1986
- Seat Belt Education Program—A Model for Public Health SettingsHealth Education Quarterly, 1986
- Alternative frameworks: Newton's third law and conceptual changeEuropean Journal of Science Education, 1986
- An Empirically Based Instructional Design Theory for Teaching ConceptsReview of Educational Research, 1986
- Factors Associated with the Use of Child Restraint DevicesHealth Education Quarterly, 1984