Common

Journalistic construction of (un-)certainty: Semantic transformation processes in the reporting of neuroscience

Publications:

Lehmkuhl, M., & Peters, H. P. (2016). Constructing (un-)certainty: An exploration of journalistic decision-making in the reporting of neuroscience. Public Understanding of Science, published online before print 28 April 2016.

Lehmkuhl, M., & Peters, H. P. (2016, in Druck). “Gesichert ist gar nichts”! Zum Umgang des Journalismus mit Ambivalenz, Fragilität und Kontroversität neurowissenschaftlicher ‘truth claims’. In: G. Ruhrmann, S. H. Kessler & L. Guenther (Hrsg.): Wissenschaftskommunikation zwischen Risiko und (Un)Sicherheit. Herbert von Halem Verlag, Köln.


THE ROLE OF MORAL HEURISTICS IN PROCESSING FRAGILE AND CONFLICTING EVIDENCE CONCERNING SOCIETAL RISKS

Publications:

Bassarak, C., Pfister, H.-R., & Böhm, G. (2015). Dispute and morality in the perception of societal risks: Extending the psychometric model. Journal of Risk Research, online-first: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1043571.

Pfister, H.-R., & Böhm, G. (2012). Emotion und Moral bei der Risikowahrnehmung. Spektrum der Wissenschaft SPEZIAL, 1/12, 66-73.


INTRO – SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE IN FERTILITY FORUMS. AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF INTERNET USE BY INFERTILE COUPLES

Publications:

Zillien, Nicole (2016): Expertenwissen in eigener Sache – Objektivierungsmechanismen als Glaubwürdigkeitsgeneratoren. In: Keller, Reiner/ Raab, Jürgen (2016): Kongressband zum 1. Sektionskongress der Wissenssoziologie 2015. Weinheim (im Druck).

Zillien, Nicole (2013): Laien als Experten – Ungleichheiten des Wissens von reproduktionsmedizinischer Profession und Patientenschaft. In: Berli, Oliver/ Endreß, Martin (Hg.): Wissen und soziale Ungleichheit. Weinheim: Juventa, 177-200.

Zillien, Nicole/ Haake, Gianna/ Fröhlich, Gerrit (2012): Patientenaustausch im Internet – Von der Prosumtion zur Produtzung. In: Soeffner, Hans-Georg (Hrsg.): Transnationale Vergesellschaftungen. Verhandlungen des 35. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Frankfurt 2010. Wiesbaden VS.

Zillien, Nicole/ Haake, Gianna/ Fröhlich, Gerrit/ Bense, Tanja/ Souren, Dominique (2011): Internet Use of Fertility Patients: A Systematic Review of the Literature. In: Journal für Reproduktionsmedizin und Endokrinologie, 8, S. 281-287.

Zillien, Nicole/ Haake, Gianna (2011): Wissenschaftsvermittlung in Kinderwunschforen. In: Journal für Reproduktionsmedizin und Endokrinologie, 8 (1), S. 41.

Zillien, Nicole (2010): Gesundheit im Netz – vom informierten Patienten, digitaler Ungleichheit und Cyberhypochondrie. In: Impulse. Newsletter zur Gesundheitsförderung, 69 (4), S.3-4.

Zillien, Nicole/ Haake, Gianna (2010): Unerfüllter Kinderwunsch online. In: Impulse. Newsletter zur Gesundheitsförderung, 69 (4), S.20.


Fostering Skill and Will of Argumentative Reasoning in Processing Fragile and Conflicting Positions

Developmental Psychology and Educational Psychology

What is argumentative thinking good for?
Does climate change lead to more forest dieback? Is resettling the lynx good for the ecology of our forests? These and similar questions on sustainable development are not only characterized by ecological and social relevance, but also include scientific evidence that supports conflicting scientific positions. That means you can find scientific evidence to back up contradicting positions, as for example regarding the impact of climate change on forest dieback. Thus, argumentative thinking is essential for a deeper understanding of the topic and reaching founded conclusion. This includes processes such as arguing from another perspective and carefully evaluating the strength of different arguments and the quality of reasoning.

How to foster the skill and the will to engage in argumentative thinking?
Both the skill and the will are crucial for the engagement in argumentative thinking. Therefore, our project objective is to develop training interventions to foster the skill and the will to engage in argumentative thinking when processing conflicting positions. The training interventions’ effects are experimentally tested. The participants in the experiments are upper-level German high school students. The main components of the training interventions are different video-based examples that show two people discussing the topics of sustainable development and modelling argumentative thinking. The leaners are supported with prompts in the form of questions that encourage the learners to reflect on main principles of the video examples. Previous research has shown that these prompts are an effective measure. Moreover, our training interventions also consist of an argumentation phase in which the learners have the chance to generate their own opinions on a new subject without any support. Based on our previous experiments on single trainings, we are currently in the process of developing a combined training intervention to foster both the will and the skill to engage in argumentative thinking. The effects of this combined training invention are due to be tested in an upcoming experiment and its results shall provide a basis for the development of a blended-learning concept for use at school.

Publications:

Hefter, M. H., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., Fries, S., & Berthold, K. (2015). Effects of a training intervention to foster precursors of evaluativist epistemological understanding and intellectual values. Learning and Instruction, 38, 11-22. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.002

Hefter, M. H., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2014). Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions. Instructional Science, 42(6), 929-947. doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9320-y

 

Conference Contributions:

Bauer, J., Prenzel, M. & Berthold, K. (2013, März). Kompetenzen zur Bewertung und argumentativen Nutzung von Evidenz. Symposium auf der 1. Tagung der Gesellschaft für Empirische Bildungsforschung (GEBF), Kiel, Deutschland.

Berthold, K. (2013, August). How to deal with fragile and conflicting evidence in school. Symposium at the 15th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Learning and Instruction (EARLI). Munich, Germany.

Hefter, M. H., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Rieß, W., Schmid, S. & Fries, S. (2014, März). Effekte eines Trainings zur Förderung epistemologischer Überzeugungen und intellektueller Werte. Vortrag auf der 2. Tagung der Gesellschaft für Empirische Bildungsforschung (GEBF), Frankfurt, Deutschland.

Hefter, M. H., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S. & Fries, S. (2013, September). Förderung argumentativen Denkens bei der Verarbeitung konfligierender Positionen. Vortrag auf der 14. Fachgruppentagung Pädagogische Psychologie, Hildesheim, Deutschland.

Hefter, M. H., Hellmann, S., Tombrink, A., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Rieß, W., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2013, August). How to foster the will to engage in argumentative thinking. Presentation at the 15th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Learning and Instruction (EARLI). Munich, Germany

Hefter, M. H., Hellmann, S., Tombrink, A., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Rieß, W., Schmid, S. & Fries, S. (2013, März). Instruktionale Förderung der Bereitschaft zum argumentativen Denken beim Umgang mit konfligierenden Positionen und fragiler Evidenz. Vortrag auf der 1. Tagung der Gesellschaft für Empirische Bildungsforschung (GEBF), Kiel, Deutschland.

Hefter, M. H. (2012, May). Training skill and will of argumentative reasoning. Oral presentation at the doctoral workshop of the Special Priority Program (SPP) 1409 – Science and the puplic, Kassel, Germany.

Schmid, S. (2011, Juni). Personal epistemologies behind genre schemas of scientific primary literature. Vortrag gehalten auf der Konferenz Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science, New York, USA.

Applicant 1

Prof. Dr., Dipl.-Psych. Kirsten Berthold
Universität Bielefeld
Fakultät für Psychologie und Sportwissenschaft
Abteilung für Psychologie
AE 13: Psychologie der Bildung und Erziehung
Postfach 10 01 31
33501 Bielefeld
Tel.: +49 521 1063102
kirsten.berthold@uni-bielefeld.de
website
Research Interest:
Training interventions to foster transfer
Example-based learning
Focused processsing of instructional explanations
Integration of motivational aspects in approaches of instructional science

Applicant 2

Prof. Dr. Alexander Renkl
Universität Freiburg
Institut für Psychologie
Abteilung Pädagogische Psychologie und Entwicklungspsychologie
Engelbergerstr. 41
79085 Freiburg
Tel.: +49 761 2033003
renkl@psychologie.uni-freiburg.de
website
Research Interest:
Example-based learning
Instructional explanations and self-explanations
Learning from multiple representations
Learning by journal writing
Concept mapping as learning method

Applicant 3

Prof. Dr. Werner Riess
Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg
Kunzenweg 21
79117 Freiburg
Tel.: +49 761 682217
riess@ph-freiburg.de
website
Research Interest:
Education for sustainable development
System thinking
Pedagogical content knowledge

Applicant 4

Dr. Sebastian Schmid
Universität Bielefeld
Fakultät für Psychologie und Sportwissenschaft
Abteilung für Psychologie
AE 12: Psychologie der Bildung und Erziehung
Postfach 10 01 31
33501 Bielefeld
Tel.: +49 521 106 3085
sebastian.schmid@uni-bielefeld.de
website
Research Interest:
Epistemological beliefs
Epistemic curiosity
Multiple goals and motivational interference
Procrastination

Applicant 5

Prof. Dr. Stefan Fries
Universität Bielefeld
Fakultät für Psychologie und Sportwissenschaft
Abteilung für Psychologie
AE 12: Psychologie der Bildung und Erziehung
Postfach 10 01 31
33501 Bielefeld
Tel.: +49 521 1063088
stefan.fries@uni-bielefeld.de
website

Research Interest:

Motivational foundations of learning and scientific reasoning
Multiple goals and motivational interference
Motivational intervention in educational contexts
Academic procrastination


The division of cognitive labour and the integration of information from multiple documents on the Internet

Eductaional psychology, cognitive psychology

In the proposed project it is to be examined how laypersons deal with conflicting scientific expert information on the internet. A widespread variety of internet research is experimentally simulated: Laypersons browse multiple, partly conflicting text documents for expert information in order to reach an informed decision. By coming across conflicting information, the central questions arise under which circumstances laypersons recognize intertextual conflicts and how they handle this paradoxical challenge in order to reach a decision about knowledge claims that surpass their own everyday understanding. The studies predominantly use conflicting claims from the fields of medicine and climate change. In the third project phase we intensify our examination of the resources which laypersons use to process and resolve conflicts. Thereby we differentiate between conflict detection, regulation and resolution as elaborated in our Content-Source-Integration (CSI) Model. In the first series of four studies the role of source characteristics, while dealing with conflicts, is examined. We focus on decompounding the source characteristics which essentially lead to the attribution of epistemic trust. Thereby we investigate the interaction of various source characteristics on conflict resolution as well as the interplay of source characteristics with text-inherent features. In addition, the influence of subject- and value-related prior beliefs on conflict detection, regulation and resolution is examined in another series of three studies. We explore to what extent laypersons use prior beliefs to resolve conflicts, and investigate how their subject- and value-related beliefs are transmitted via the relevance of the information which influences both conflict detection and regulation. Two additional studies are to clarify the role of laypeople’s subjective assumptions about science (Folk Philosophy/Sociology of Science) and the interplay of the different resources used in the resolution of scientific conflicts. On a theoretical level the project aims for an extension of the Documents Model Framework through the CSI Model and for the extension of the Theory of the Division of Cognitive Labor, especially in regards to the handling of conflicting scientific evidence.

Publications

Bromme, R. Kienhues, D., & Stadtler, M. (akzeptiert). Die kognitive Arbeitsteilung als Herausforderung der Forschung zu epistemischen Überzeugungen. In A.-K. Mayer & T. Rosman (Hrsg.), (2016). Denken über Wissen und Wissenschaft. Epistemologische Überzeugungen als Gegenstand psychologischer Forschung. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.

Bromme, R. & Thomm, E. (akzeptiert). Who knows? Explaining impacts the assessment of our own knowledge and of the knowledge of experts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie.

Salmerón, L. & Scharrer, L. (Guest Eds.) (accepted). Sourcing in the reading process. Reading & Writing.

Thomm, E. & Bromme, R. (2016, online first). How Does Source Information Shape Laypeople’s Interpretation of Science Conflicts: Examining the Interplay of Sourcing, Conflict Explanation and Evaluation. Reading & Writing.

Bromme, R. & Thomm, E. (2016). Knowing who knows: Laypersons’ capabilities to judge experts’ pertinence for science topics. Cognitive Science, 40, 241–252, doi: 10.1111/cogs.12252

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J. F., & Bromme, R. (2016). Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies. Reading and Writing. doi: 10.1007/s11145-016-9623-2

Bromme, R., Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M., Hömberg, J., & Torspecken, R. (2015). Is It Believable When It’s Scientific? How Scientific Discourse Style Influences Laypeople’s Resolution of Conflicts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(1), 36-57.  doi: 10.1002/tea.21172

Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Wolf, V. (2015). From understanding to deference: Laypersons’ and medical students’ views on conflicts within medicine. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 5(1), 68-91. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2013.849017

Thomm, E., Hentschke, J., & Bromme, R. (2015). The Explaining Conflicting Scientific Claims (ECSC) Questionnaire: Measuring Laypersons‘ Explanations for Conflicts in Science. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 139-152. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.12.001

Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). You’d better ask an expert: Mitigating the comprehensibility effect on laypeople’s decisions about science-based knowledge claims. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 465-471. doi: 10.1002/acp.3018

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). The content–source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing Inaccurate Information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from Cognitive Science and the Educational Sciences (pp. 379-402). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Skodzik, T., & Bromme, R. (2014). Comprehending Multiple Documents on Scientific Controversies: Effects of Reading Goals and Signaling Rhetorical Relationships. Discourse Processes, 51, 93-116.

Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Easy to understand but difficult to decide: Information comprehensibility and controversiality affect laypeople’s science-based decisions. Discourse Processes, 50, 361-387. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2013.813835

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., & Bromme, R. (2013). How Do Readers Explain the Occurrence of Conflicts in Science Texts? Effects of Presentation Format and Source Expertise? In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Multiple Document Comprehension: An Approach to Public Understanding of Science. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 122-129.

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (Guest Eds.) (2013). Special Issue on Multiple Document Comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 121-269. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.771106

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013). Dealing with Uncertainty: Readers’ Memory for and Use of Conflicting Information from Science Texts as Function of Presentation Format and Source Expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 130-150.doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769996

Scharrer, L., Britt, M.A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2012). Beyond one’s own understanding: How text comprehensibility affects laypeople’s decision about scientific claims. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.965-970). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2012). The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople’s reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22, 231-243. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.004

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., & Bromme, R. (2012). Does Relevance Matter in Comprehending Scientific Conflicts from Multiple Documents? Evidence from Online and Offline-Data. In E. de Vries, & K. Scheiter (Eds.), Staging Knowledge and Experience: How to Take Advantage of Representational Technologies in Education and Training? Proceedings of the EARLI SIG 2 Meeting (pp. 202-204), Grenoble, France: EARLI SIG 2.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2012). “It should at least seem scientific!” Textual features of “scientificness” and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20480.

Brand-Gruwel, S., & Stadtler, M. (2011). Solving information-based problems: Evaluating sources and information. Learning and Instruction, 21, 175-179. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.008

Bromme, R., Scharrer, L. & Britt, A. M., & Stadtler, M. (2011). Effects of information comprehensibility and argument type on lay recipients’ readiness to defer to experts when deciding about scientific knowledge claims. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T.F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2788 -2793). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Porsch, T. & Bromme, R. (2011). Effects of epistemological sensitization on source choices. Instructional Science, 39, 805-819. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-010-9155-0

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2011). How Reading Goals and Rhetorical Signals Influence Recipients’ Recognition of Intertextual Conflicts. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T.F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1346 -1351). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Bromme, R., Kienhues, D. & Porsch, T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) to be attained from others. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Haerle (Eds.), Personal Epistemology in the Classroom: Theory, Research, and Implications for Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thomm, E., Bromme, R., & Porsch, T. (2010). Laienannahmen zur Verteilung von Expertise: Der Zusammenhang mit Wissenseinschätzungen, epistemologischen Überzeugungen und Sachwissen. In B. Schwarz, P. Nenniger, & R. S. Jäger (Hrsg.), Erziehungswissenschaftliche Forschung – nachhaltige Bildung. Beiträge zur 5. DGfE-Sektionstagung “Empirische Bildungsforschung”/ AEPF-KBBB im Frühjahr 2009. Erziehungswissenschaft, Bd. 28. (S. 469-472). Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.

 

Conference Contributions

Bromme, R., Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., & Thomm, E. (2015, September). Whom to Trust and Why? Disentangling the Impact of Personal Trustworthiness on Source Evaluation. Paper presented at the 16th Biennal Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Limassol, Cyprus.

Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2015, August). Why Do They Disagree?” Causal Explanations Improve the Understanding of Conflicts in Multiple Texts. Paper presented at the 16th Biennal Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Limassol, Cyprus.

Bromme, R., Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., & Thomm, E. (2015, July). A Scientist Through and Through? How the Source’s Commitment to Science Affects Readers’ Evaluation of Source and Content in the Domain of Medicine. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Minneapolis, USA.

Bromme, R., Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., & Thomm, E. (2015, July). A Scientist Through and Through? How the Source’s Commitment to Science Affects Readers’ Evaluation of Source and Content in the Domain of Medicine. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Minneapolis, USA.

Bromme, R. & Stadtler, M. (2015, Juni). Von epistemischen Überzeugungen zum Bürger‐Verständnis von Wissenschaft. Eingeladener Vortrag beim ZPID-Symposium “Epistemologische Überzeugungen”, Trier.

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2015, April). The content-source integration model: An account of how readers understand conflicting information from multiple documents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, USA.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L.. & Bromme, R. (2015, April). “How Does this Fit Together?” Effects of Explanations in Understanding Scientific Conflicts from Multiple Documents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, USA.

 

Bromme, R., Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Thomm, E. (2014, October). Disentangling the influence of trust-relevant source characteristics on the resolution of intertextual conflicts. Paper presented at the Workshop on Multiple Document Literacy, Valencia, Spain.

Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014, September). Der Einfluss von Komplexitätsannahmen und Quellenglaubwürdigkeit auf die Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Informationen. Vortrag auf dem beim 49. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Bochum.

Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2014, August). How Source Credibility and Text Comprehensibility Influence Readers’ Evaluation of Scientific Claims. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, USA.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., & Bromme, R. (2014, August). Knowing When to Defer: How Text Comprehensibility and Beliefs about Epistemic Complexity Affect Laypeople’s Evaluation of Science-Based Claims. Paper presented at the EARLI SIG 2 Meeting, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2014, October). Making Sense of Inconsistencies: How Explanations Influence the Understanding of Scientific Conflicts from Multiple Documents. Poster presented at the Workshop on Multiple Document Literacy, Valencia, Spain.

Thomm, E., Barzilai, S., & Bromme, R. (2014, September). Understanding of conflicts in science and history – Investigating epistemic perspectives and conflict explanation across disciplines. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial Meeting of the EARLI Special Interest Group 16 Metacognition, Istanbul, Turkey.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2014, September). Monitoring the conditions of conflicts in science – Investigating the adaptivity of laypersons’ explanations for conflicting scientific claims. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial Meeting of the EARLI Special Interest Group 16 Metacognition, Istanbul, Turkey.

Thomm, E. & Bromme, R. (2014, September). Messung subjektiver Annahmen über die Ursachen konfligierender wissenschaftlicher Aussagen verschiedener Experten. Vortrag auf dem 49. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Bochum.

Thomm, E., Bromme, R., & Hentschke, J. (2014, März). Messung subjektiver Annahmen über die Ursachen konfligierender wissenschaftlicher Aussagen verschiedener Experten. Vortrag auf der 2. Tagung der Gesellschaft für Empirische Bildungsforschung (GEBF), Frankfurt.

Bromme, R. (2013, Februar). The knowledge base of participation: How do laypersons cope with science based expert knowledge which is (partly) beyond their understanding. Invited lecture at the School of Education, Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA.

Bromme, R. & Chinn, C. (2013, August) Source evaluation and trust: Real matters in a virtual world. (Symposium organized at the 15th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Stadtler, M. (2013, Mai).  “I don’t know, but they (should) know!” Judgments about Experts’ Pertinence regarding Online Science Texts. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, USA.

Bromme, R., Thomm, E. & Stadtler, M. (2013, Mai). “Why can’t they be of one mind?”  Laypersons’ Beliefs about Reasons of Scientific Conflict Measured with the Explaining Conflicting Scientific Claims (ECSC) Questionnaire. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, USA.

Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M., Rouet, J.-F., & Bromme, R. (2013, August). Vocational students learn to consider source information when deciding about science controversies. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Scharrer, L., Rupieper, Y., Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2013, August). Science popularization increases lay readers’ reliance on their own decision abilities. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Stadtler, M., (2013, August). Discussion of the symposium “Source evaluation and trust: Real matters in a virtual world”. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Stadtler, M., Thomm, E., Babiel, S., Hentschke, J. & Bromme, R. (2013, October). Ignorant albeit competent – Examining students’ sourcing competencies and spontaneous use of source information while reading conflicting scientific texts. Paper presented at the Workshop on Multiple Document Literacy, Münster, Germany.

Stadtler, M.,Scharrer, L., & Bromme, R. (2013). How Do Readers Explain the Occurrence of Conflicts in Science Texts? Effects of Presentation Format and Source Expertise? In M. Knauff, N. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3448-3453). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Hartwig, S., & Bromme, R. (2013, August). Prompting adult readers to monitor for consistency enhances their awareness of scientific conflicts. Paper to be presented at the 15th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Rouet, J.-F., & Bromme, R. (2013, July). Source information can fuel validity judgments. Empirical investigation of a short training for vocational students. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society of Text and Discourse, Valencia, Spain.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2013, August). “Who might know, if I don’t know?” Judging a Source’s Trustworthiness by its Pertinence. Paper accepted for presentation at the 15th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2013, August). ”Two experts, five opinions!” Measuring Laypersons’ Beliefs about Reasons for Scientific Conflict. Paper accepted for presentation at the 15th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Bromme, R., Scharrer, L. & Stadtler, M. (2012, April). Effects of the Text Feature “Scientificness” on Laypeople’s Evaluation and Resolution of Intertextual Conflicts. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Vancouver, Canada.

Bromme, R. & Stadtler, M. (2012, February). Wissenschaftsverständnis und Internet: Forschungsansätze des DFG-Schwerpunktprogramm: Wissenschaft & Öffentlichkeit. Vortrag auf dem 4. Workshop „Kompetenzerwerb und Informationsverarbeitung“ im Rahmen der Leibniz-Workshop-Reihe „Standortbestimmung und Schwerpunktsetzung auf dem Gebiet der Empirischen Bildungsforschung“, Berlin, Germany.

Bromme, R., Scharrer, L., Thomm, E. & Stadtler, M. (2012, March). Reading Comprehensible Texts about Incomprehensible Concepts (at least from a Lay Perspective): Some Thoughts Based on Our Studies. Paper presented at the Workshop of the DFG Priority Program “Science and the General Public” and CERN, Geneva, Switzerland.

Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Pieschl, S. (2012, September). Which expert has written the text?
Laypersons’ ideas about the structure of expert knowledge when reading science texts.
 
Paper presented at the 5th Biennial Meeting of the EARLI Special Interest Group 16 Metacognition, Milan, Italy.

Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2012, July). The influence of text comprehensibility and controversiality on laypeople’s trust in their own capabilities to decide about scientific claims. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society of Text and Discourse, Montreal, Canada.

Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2012, October). How laypeople’s decision about scientific claims is influenced by information comprehensibility and controversiality in a multiple documents reading situation. Paper presented at the Multiple Document Literacy Workshop, Poitiers, France.

Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2012, September). Die Wirkung von Informationskontroversaliät auf das Vertrauen von Laien in ihre Entscheidungskompetenz zu wissenschaftlichen Fragestellungen. Vortrag auf dem 48. Kongress der DGPs, Bielefeld, Deutschland.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2012, May). Relevance rules – as well in understanding conflicting information?”  How readers adjust their processing of conflicting scientific information to the perceived relevance of information. Paper presented at the Meeting on “Comprehension and validation of information – two separate stages of information processing?”, Kassel, Germany.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2012, August). Does Relevance Matter in Comprehending Scientific Conflicts from Multiple Documents? Evidence from Online and Offline-Data. Paper presented at the Biannual Conference of the SIG2 “Comprehension of Text and Graphics”, Grenoble, France.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2012, September). Relevanzeffekte bei der Verarbeitung konfligierender Information aus multiplen Dokumenten. Vortrag auf dem 48. Kongress der DGPs, Bielefeld, Deutschland.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2012, October). Relevance-Based Processing of Scientific Conflicts: Converging Evidence from Online and Offline Measures. Paper presented at the Multiple Document Literacy Workshop, Poitiers, France.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Rouet, J.-F., & Bromme, R. (2012, October). Teaching Vocational Students to Resolve Scientific Conflicts Using Source Information. Poster presented at the Multiple Document Literacy Workshop, Poitiers, France.

Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2012, September). Wer aus multiplen Dokumenten lernen will, muss metakognitiv wachsam sein: Eine Studie zur Stimulierung metakognitiver Aktivität durch das Prinzip der Representational Guidance. Vortrag auf dem 48. Kongress der DGPs, Bielefeld, Deutschland.

Bromme, R. (2011, November). Wen kann man fragen, wem kann man vertrauen? Studien zum Laienverständnis von wissenschaftlicher Expertise. Vortrag bei den Gießener Abendgesprächen Kognition und Gehirn des Fachgebiets Psychologie der Universität Gießen.

Bromme, R., Scharrer, L., & Stadtler, M. (2011, October). The impact of the text feature ‘scientificness’ on laypeople’s conflict resolution when dealing with controversial multiple documents. Paper presented at the Workshop on Multiple Documents Literacy, Oslo, Norway.

Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2011, October). How we Conceive of the Processes of Multiple Document Comprehension as of Today. Paper presented at the Workshop on Multiple Documents Literacy, Oslo, Norway.

Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2011, September). Communicating scientific knowledge to the lay public: Disentangling the influence of argument type and comprehensibility on information persuasiveness. Paper presented at the 14th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Exeter, United Kingdom.

Rouet, J.-F. & Stadtler, M. (2011, August). Learning from Multiple Documents: Individual Differences and Conditions that Foster Comprehension. Symposium organized for the 14th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Exeter, United Kingdom.

Stadtler, M. & Scharrer, L. (2011, August). Comprehending Multiple Documents: Do Readers Benefit from Linguistic Markers of Conflict? Paper presented at the 14th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Exeter, United Kingdom.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2011, August). Investigating text features of online information affecting laypeople’s perception of scientificness. Paper presented at the 14th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Exeter, United Kingdom.

Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2011, July). Text easiness affects laypeople’s reliance on their own epistemic capabilities when having to decide about scientific claims. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Society of Text and Discourse, Poitiers, France.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2011, July). Comprehending Conflicts Between Sources: The Beneficial Effect of Coherence-Oriented Reading Goals and Text Signals. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Society of Text and Discourse, Poitiers, France.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2011, July). How Reading Goals and Rhetorical Signals Influence Recipients’ Recognition of Intertextual Conflicts. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, USA.

Stadtler, M. (2011, June). Multiple Documents Literacy – A Key to the Public Engagement with Science. Paper presented at the DFG-NSF Conference Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science, New York City, NY, USA.

Thomm, E., Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., & Stadtler, M. (2011, June). Effects of the Text Feature Scientificness on Laypeople’s Resolution of Intertextual Conflicts. Paper presented at the DFG-NSF Conference Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science, New York City, NY, USA.

Bromme, R. (2011, Mai). Knowledge ABOUT Science: Judgments about the Pertinence of Experts to Complex Problems. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Advisory Board of the German National Educational Panel (NEPS), Bamberg.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2011, May). ‘It Should at Least Appear Scientific!’ Textual Features of ‘Scientificness’ and Their Impact on Lay Assessments of Online Information. Paper presented at the Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, Haifa, Israel.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2011, May). Knowing who knows – Judgments about the Pertinence of Experts to Complex Problems. Paper presented at the Faculty of Industrial Engineering & Management, Technion, Haifa, Israel.

Bromme, R., Porsch, T., & Thomm, E. (2011, April). Who knows what? Epistemic judgments about the pertinence of experts to complex problems. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA, USA.

Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2010, Oktober). Multiple Documents Literacy: a key to the Public Engagement with Science in a Digitalized World. Vortrag auf dem Workshop “Comprehending Multiple Documents on the Internet. The Road to the Public Engagement with Science in the 21st Century”, Universität Münster.

Brummernhenrich, B., Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2010, September). Erkennen Laien Konflikte in wissenschaftlichen Internettexten? Eine Untersuchung zum Einfluss von Konsistenzerwartungen auf das Verständnis multipler Dokumente. Vortrag gehalten auf der 74. Tagung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Empirische Pädagogische Forschung (AEPF), Jena.

Porsch, T. & Bromme, R. (2010, September). Kann ich das entscheiden? Epistemologische Überzeugungen und die Qualität von Informationsquellen als Prädiktoren der Entscheidungsbereitschaft. Poster bei dem 47. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Bremen, Deutschland.

Porsch, T. & Bromme, R. (2010, September). Kann ich das entscheiden? Epistemologische Überzeugungen und Autoreneigenschaften als Prädiktoren der Entscheidungsbereitschaft. Vortrag auf der 74. Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe für empirische pädagogische Forschung (AEPF), Jena.

Porsch, T. & Bromme, R. (2010, September). Expertise, Glaubwürdigkeit und Konflikte: Herausforderungen im Umgang mit dem Internet als Informationsquelle. Symposium für die 74. Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe für empirische pädagogische Forschung (AEPF), Jena.

Stadtler, M., Bromme, R. Scharrer, L., & Brummernhenrich, B. (2010, September). Entdecken Leser Konflikte in wissenschaftlichen Informationen? Der Einfluss von Konsistenzerwartungen auf die kognitive Integration multipler Dokumente. Vortrag auf dem 47. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Bremen.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Ratermann, K., & Bromme, R. (2010, September). Das Verständnis wissenschaftlicher Lerninhalte: Wie erklären sich Leser Widersprüche in Informationstexten aus dem Internet. Vortrag gehalten auf der 74. Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe für Empirische Pädagogische Forschung, Jena.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2010, September). „Zwei Ärzte, fünf Meinungen!” – Laienannahmen über Ursachen von Widersprüchen zwischen Experten der Medizin als Wissenschaft und Praxisfeld. Vortrag gehalten auf der 74. Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe für Empirische Pädagogische Forschung, Jena.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2010, August). Dealing with the uncertain: how readers detect and attribute conflicts in science texts as a function of discourse expectations. Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Chicago, USA.

Thomm, E., Bromme, R., & Porsch, T. (2010, July). Knowing who knows – Laypersons’ Assumptions about the Division of Cognitive Labor. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Science and the Public Conference, London, United Kingdom.

Porsch, T. & Bromme, R. (2010, June). Which science disciplines are pertinent? Impact of epistemological beliefs on students’ choices. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), Chicago, USA.

Porsch, T. & Bromme, R. (2010, May). What do I know and who else knows? Impact of epistemological beliefs on students choices. 4th Biennial Meeting of the EARLI Special Interest Group 16 Metacognition, Münster, Germany.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Ratermann, K. (2010, May). Comprehending scientific documents: How do readers explain conflicting accounts to themselves?. Paper presented at the 4th. Biennal Meeting of the SIG Metacognition, Münster, Germany.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., & Ratermann, K. (2010, May). Comprehending scientific documents: How do readers explain conflicting accounts to themselves? Paper presented at the 4th. Biennal Meeting of the SIG Metacognition, Münster, Germany.

Thomm, E., Bromme, R., & Porsch, T. (2010, May). Laypersons’ assumptions about the distribution of expertise: studying the feeling of knowledge held by others. 4th Biennial Meeting of the EARLI Special Interest Group 16 Metacognition, Münster, Germany.

Stadtler, M. (2009, October). Dealing with conflicting information in Multiple Documents: the role of coherence expectations. Invited talk at the Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition et l’Apprentissage (CeRCA), Poitiers, France.

Bromme, R. (2009, August). Blurring the Lines: The Influence of the Internet on the Nature of Competence. Invited presentation at the symposium ‘What is competence really? (Organized by P. Alexander) at the 13th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Bromme, R. (2009, August). If you do not know, ask someone else! Metacognition, epistemological beliefs and the division of cognitive labor. Invited keynote presentation at the 13th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2009, August). The effect of representation format and epistemological beliefs on the identification of inconsistent scientific information. Paper presented at the 13th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Applicant 1
Prof. Dr. Rainer Bromme
Institut für Psychologie
WWU Münster
Fliednerstraße 21
48149 Münster
Tel.: +49 251 8339135
bromme@uni-muenster.de
Website
Research Interest
Cognition and teaching/learning processes, especially related to the:
– communication and understanding between Science and the Public
– development of professional expertise
– learning with New Media
– the development of knowledge and understanding in Science and Mathematics

Applicant 2
PD Dr. phil Marc Stadtler
Institut für Psychologie
WWU Münster
Fliednerstraße 21
48149 Münster
Tel.: +49 251 8331372
marc.stadtler@uni-muenster.de
Website
Research Interest
Learning with multiple documents on the WWW
Learner Variables: Metacognition, Epistemological beliefs
Teaching and learning with New Media
Expert-Layperson-Communication
Conflict Management

Staff 1
Dr.  Eva Charlotte Thomm
Institut für Psychologie
WWU Münster
Fliednerstraße 21
48149 Münster
Tel.: +49 251 8339197
e.thomm@gmx.de
Website
Research Interest
Division of Cognitive Labor and Public Understanding of Science
Public Engagement with Science
Credibility and Communication
Searching and Evaluating Information on the Internet

Staff 2
Dr. Lisa Scharrer
Institut für Psychologie
WWU Münster
Fliednerstraße 21
48149 Münster
Tel.: +49 251 8339379
lisa.scharrer@uni-muenster.de
Website
Research Interest
Public understanding of science
Division of cognitive labor
Argumentation
Learning with multiple documents

 


Effects of Communication with Experts on the Evaluation of Ambiguous Scientific Evidence: Cognitive Tuning and Social Tuning

Social Psychology

How useful are routine vaccinations? How dangerous is mobile phone radiation to one’s health? Should we use nuclear power in order to prevent climate change? Science provides important, but often ambiguous and contradictory, information about these issues. We want to form attitudes or opinions about these topics, especially when they matter to us or even have an existential meaning to us. Forming an attitude helps us to take a position and adjust our decisions and actions accordingly.

In our project, we investigate the processes that contribute to forming an opinion in conversations about such ambiguous topics. First, we examine whether one’s attitude can be affected by the expectation of communication, even when the attitude of the anticipated communication partner is unknown. Previous research suggests that the anticipation of producing a message can lead us to form more coherent and more extreme attitudes toward a topic, especially when already have an initial stance or preexisting attitude. This effect has been dubbed cognitive tuning. Assume that you are expecting a conversation about climate change with either a layperson or a climate expert. We predict that you will be more likely to create more coherent and extreme attitudes, and thus exhibit cognitive tuning, when preparing for a conversation with the layperson. This is because an expert could possibly ask more elaborate queries, so that you feel you should remain more open-minded.

Moreover, we examine cases in which the expert’s opinion about ambiguous scientific topics is known. When would we tune our own attitudes to the conversation partner’s opinion? We think that the experience of a personal connection with the expert plays a crucial role. Therefore, we want to experimentally manipulate the experience of a personal connection with an expert. Does it matter whether the partner sees one’s messages immediately and can therefore react instantly or whether she or he responds only after a delay, such as in Internet forums or e-mail? Are we more likely to tune our opinion to the conversation partner’s opinion when the partner discloses information about private issues (such as autobiographical facts, hobbies or personal preferences) or when her or his language signals a greater connection? For instance, we suspect that people are more likely to experience a connection with an expert when she or he uses the plural pronoun “we” rather than the corresponding two singular pronouns (“you and I”).

Publications:

Echterhoff, G. (in press a). The creation of shared reality in interpersonal communication: The role of epistemic processes. European Review of Social Psychology.

Echterhoff, G. (in press b). Shared reality theory. In B.S. Turner (Ed.), Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory. New York: Wiley.

Echterhoff, G. & Kopietz, R. (in press). The socially shared nature of memory: From joint encoding to communication. In M. Meade, A. Barnier, C. Harris, & J. Sutton (Eds.), Collaborative remembering: How remembering with others influences memory. Oxford University Press.

Bebermeier, S., Echterhoff, G., Bohner, G., & Hellmann, J.H. (2015). The generalization of shared reality: When communication about one target shapes evaluations of other targets. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 623-640.

Applicant 1:
Prof. Dr. Gerald Echterhoff
Universität Münster
Institut für Psychologie
AE Sozialpsychologie
Fliednerstr. 21
48149 Münster
0251/83-34386
g.echterhoff@uni-muenster.de
Website
Forschungsschwerpunkte/-interessen
social influence
communication and language
memory biases
situated social cognition– social contagion – shared reality– simulation and attribution of actions –intergroup processes
emotions in social context (responses to infidelity, jealousy)

Staff 1
Dipl.-Psych. Judith Knausenberger
Universität Münster
Institut für Psychologie
AE Sozialpsychologie
Fliednerstr. 21
48149 Münster
0251/83 343 81
judith.knausenberger@uni-muenster.de
Website
Forschungsschwerpunkte/-interessen
Political psychology
intergroup processes
intergroup and interpersonal conflict
interpersonal communication



Using Concept Maps to enhance students’ socioscientific reasoning

science education, educational psychology

Socioscientific issues – such as the issue of climate change – are typical examples for complex real-world scenarios that cannot be solved by referring solely to scientific knowledge. Rather, they involve various societal aspects and have to be resolved through the integration of multiple perspectives. In addition, socioscientific issues are characterized by conflicting as well as fragile (scientific) evidence.

The aim of this project is to enhance secondary school students’ socioscientific reasoning and decision making while working on typical socioscientific issues. In more detail, we aim to develop teaching interventions that may be used not only for science education but also contribute to education for sustainable development and to evaluate their effects.

Specifically, we developed a computer-based learning environment to support students’ learning about climate change and possible solutions to climate change. While working with the learning environment, students will be provided with a computer based concept mapping tool to support them in their learning as well as reasoning and argumentation processes.

In a quasi-experimental study (N=160), which used a 2×2 factorial design, we investigated the effect of four different concept mapping support measures (varying the provision of concepts and relations) on student achievement. The analysis consisted of evaluating the quality of students’ concept maps as well as their learning outcomes on conceptual knowledge as well as socioscientific reasoning and decision making.

Results indicate that students who worked with provided “concepts” on the issue of climate change outperformed all other students with respect to the quality of their concept maps. In contrast to this finding, providing students with “argumentative relations” enhanced students’ visualisation of pro and contra-arguments and fostered the generation of high quality argumentative concept maps. Interestingly, students who used the basic concept mapping tool without any additional support generated concept maps of a similar high quality, while students who studied with highly structured support measures developed qualitatively weaker concept maps and were actually disrupted in their learning and argumentation processes. On the basis of these results, the computer-based learning environment had been optimized and is momentarily being used in another quasi-experimental study in science classrooms (N=250). Data analysis is under way.

Publications:

 

Eggert, S., Nitsch, A., Boone, W. J., Nückles, M. & Bögeholz, S. (2016). Supporting Students´

Learning and Socioscientific Reasoning About Climate Change. The Effect of Computer-Based

Concept Mapping Scaffolds. Research in Science Education. DOI 10.1007/s11165-015-9493-7;

Online First.

Conference Contributions:

Nitsch, A., Eggert, S., Bögeholz, S., & Nückles, M. (2014). Using concept maps to foster students‘ understanding and socioscientific reasoning about climate change. Poster presented at the 10th Conference of European Researchers in Didactics of Biology (ERIDOB), June 30th – July 4th, Technion University Haifa, Israel.

Nitsch, A., Eggert, S., Bögeholz, S. & Nückles, M. (2013). How do students reconstruct the issue of global climate change – The influence of different concept mapping support measures. In K. Berthold & A. Deiglmayer (chair), How to deal with fragile and conflicting evidence in school. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial EARLI Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, 27.-31. August , München.

Eggert, S., Nitsch, A., Nückles, M. (2013). Förderung von Schülerkompetenzen im Umgang mit fragiler und konfligierender Evidenz am Beispiel Klimawandel – Der Einfluss verschiedener Concept Mapping Vorstrukturierungen. In J. Bauer, M. Prenzel & K. Berthold (Leitung), Kompetenzen zur Bewertung und argumentativen Nutzung von Evidenz. Symposium angenommen bei der 1. Tagung der Gesellschaft für Empirische Bildungsforschung (GEPF) vom 11.-13. März, Kiel.

Nitsch, A., Eggert, S. & Bögeholz, S. (2012). Concept Maps zur Förderung von Bewertungskompetenz bei Umweltproblemsituationen. Vortrag auf der Nachwuchstagung „Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung – theoretische, konzeptuelle und empirische Perspektiven“, 7.-8. Dezember, Universität Osnabrück.

Nitsch, A., Eggert, S., Bögeholz, S. & Nückles, M. (2012). Concept Maps to Foster Students` Socioscientific Reasoning and Decision Making. Poster presented at the 9th conference of the European Researchers in Didactics of Biology, 17.-21. September, Berlin.

Nitsch, A., Eggert, S. & Bögeholz, S. (2011). Socioscientific Issues: Umgang mit fragiler und konfligierender wissenschaftlicher Evidenz am Beispiel des Themenkomplexes Klimawandel. Postervortrag auf der Internationalen Tagung der Fachsektion Didaktik der Biologie (FDdB) im VBio: Didaktik der Biologie – Standortbestimmung und Perspektiven, 12. – 16. September, Universität Bayreuth.

 

Applicant 1
Dr. Sabina Eggert
Didaktik der Biologie
Waldweg 26
37073 Göttingen
Tel.: +49 551 3914014
seggert1@gwdg.de
website
Research Interest:
Socioscientific reasoning and decision-making
Argumentation
Education for sustainable development

Applicant 2
Prof. Dr. Susanne Bögeholz
Didaktik der Biologie
Waldweg 26
37073 Göttingen
Tel.: +49 551 399314
sboegeh@gwdg.de
website
Research Interest:
Socioscientific reasoning and decision-making
Argumentation
Education for sustainable development

Applicant 3
Prof. Dr. Matthias Nückles
Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft
Abteilung Empirische Unterrichts- und Schulforschung
Rempartstr. 11
79098 Freiburg
Tel.: +49 761 2032449
matthias.nueckles@ezw.uni-freiburg.de
website
Research Interest:
Learning protocols
Tutoring
Concept mapping

Staff 1
Anne Nitsch
Didaktik der Biologie
Waldweg 26
37073 Göttingen
Tel.: +49 551 3914014
anitsch@gwdg.de
website
Research Interest:
Socioscientific reasoning and decision-making
Argumentation
Education for sustainable development


Knowledge construction with conflicting information from internet-based texts and pictures

Applied Cognitive Psychology, Educational Psychology, Media Psychology

A growing amount of science-related information is recently published on Internet. Therefore, learners searching online for information on scientific topics currently debated in public (for example on the potential of sustainable energy) often come across multiple texts containing different arguments and communicating contradictory points of view. In many cases this is not due to the publications’ lack of quality but rather arises from the fact that these topics are discussed controversially in science itself, because scientific evidence does not provide a definite picture yet. Thus, the question arises how the communication of conflicting science-related information can be structured to foster the construction of a coherent referential representation (situation model) of a scientific topic. Besides learner characteristics that influence the construction of such a representation, the layout and presentation of the information are likely to be crucial. One characteristic that is very common for the presentation of information in scientific texts is the use of pictures to visualize quantitative empirical results (e.g. line graphs) or to illustrate matters in the text (e.g. photographs). Over the course of the project experimental data were analysed and showed that pictures are used as cues for the assessment of the plausibility of given information. Specifically, we found that realistic pictures can induce a perception of fluency, depending on learner characteristics. However, the fluency effect has not yet been explored accordingly concerning diagrams. Hence, we plan to examine the assumption that fluency also mediates the effect of diagrams on the comprehension of conflicting information. Depending on learner characteristics, fluency should either lead to a more superficial processing or should be used as a plausibility cue in an elaborative processing. As a first step, we plan to provide conclusive evidence that diagrams have a (positive effect) on the perception of fluency during the comprehension of controversial scientific texts by using detailed process analysis and an experimental manipulation of the determinants of fluency. Subsequently, we will focus on the question how perception of fluency, caused by diagrams in learning with conflicting science related texts, affects the process and outcome of learning. Depending on learner characteristics, fluency should have different effects on text comprehension: a positive effect when the perception of fluency is interpreted as a plausibility cue concerning the text and a negative effect when it indicates illusory comprehension. These assumptions will be investigated by the means of moderated mediation analyses.

Publications:

Horz, H., Knuth-Herzig, Richter, T.; K., Isberner, M.-B. & Maier, J. (2015). Machen Bilder die Kommunikation wissenschaftsbezogener Informationen im Internet erfolgreicher? In D. Kienhues & R. Bromme (Hrsg.). Das Verständnis fragiler und konfligierender Evidenz. Das Verständnis fragiler und konfligierender Evidenz Projekte, Forschungsthemen und Ergebnisse aus dem DFG Schwerpunktprogramm 1409 (2009-2015) (S. 18-19).

Richter, T. (2015). Comprehension and validation of text information: Two sides of the same coin. Discourse Processes, 52, 337-352.

Britt, M.A., Richter, T. & Rouet, J.-F. (2014). Scientific Literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104-122.

Isberner, M.-B. & Richter, T. (2014). Does validation during language comprehension depend on an evaluative mindset? Discourse Processes, 51, 7-25.

Isberner, M.-B. & Richter, T. (2014). Comprehension and validation: Separable stages of information processing? A case for epistemic monitoring in language comprehension. In D.N. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 245-276). Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Richter, T. & Rapp, D.N. (2014). Comprehension and validation of text information: Introduction to the special issue. Discourse Processes, 51, 1-6.

Isberner, M.-B. Richter, T., Maier, J., Knuth-Herzig, K., Horz, H. & Schnotz, W. (2013). Comprehending conflicting science-related texts: Graphs as plausibility cues. Instructional Science, 41, 849-872. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9261-2

Isberner, M.-B. & Richter, T. (2013). Can readers ignore implausibility? Evidence for nonstrategic monitoring of event-based plausibility in language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 142, 15-22. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.10.003

Richter, T. (2011). Cognitive flexibility and epistemic validation in learning from multiple texts. In J. Elen, E. Stahl, R. Bromme, & G. Clarebout (Eds.), Links between beliefs and cognitive flexibility. Berlin: Springer.

Conference Contributions:

Knuth-Herzig, Horz, H. & Schnotz, W. (2012, 13.-17. April) Communicating Scientific Uncertainty: Pictures as Plausibility Cues. Paper to be presented at the 2012 AERA Annual Meeting. Vancouver, Canada.

Knuth-Herzig, K., Maier, J., Isberner, M., Richter, T., Horz, H. & Schnotz, W. (2011, 14.-16. September) Das Verständnis multipler Dokumente mit konfligierenden Informationen: Abbildungen als Glaubwürdigkeitsindikatoren. Paper presented at the 13. Fachgruppentagung der Pädagogischen Psychologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie. Erfurt, Germany.

Knuth-Herzig, K., Maier, J., Isberner, M., Richter, T., Schnotz, W. & Horz, H. (2011, 11.-13. July). Comprehension of Multiple Documents with Conflicting Information: Pictures as Credibility Cues. Paper presented at the Twenty-first Annual Meeting of the Society for Text & Discourse. Poitiers, France.

Knuth-Herzig, K., Maier, J., Isberner, M., Schnotz, W., Richter, T. & Horz, H. (2011, 28. June-1. July). Knowledge construction with conflicting information from Internet-based texts and pictures. Paper presented at the conference „Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science“. New York, USA.

Horz, H., Knuth-Herzig, K., Maier, J., Richter, T., Schnotz, W. & Isberner, M. (2011, 10.-11. March). Comprehension of Multiple Documents with Conflicting Information: Pictures as Credibility Cues. Poster presented at the workshop “Science Learning in Informal Settings: The Set-up of Fragile, Critical Science Issues and its Effects on Recipients”. Tuebingen, Germany.

Knuth-Herzig, K. & Schnotz, W. (2011, 9.-11. March). Die Glaubwürdigkeitseinschätzung von Webseiten als Einfluss auf die Informationsverarbeitung in Abhängigkeit von der Interneterfahrung. Poster presented at the NWU-Workshop. Essen, Germany.

Herzig, K. (2010, 29. November-1. December). Person oder Information – Wer soll sich anpassen? Paper presentation and panel discussion subject to „Umgang mit Unsicherheit in der Wissenschaftskommunikation“ at the 3. Forum Wissenschaftskommunikation. Mannheim, Germany

Knuth-Herzig, K., Maier, J., Isberner, M., Richter, T., Schnotz, W. & Horz, H. (2010, 27.-29. Oktober). Comprehension of Multiple Documents with Conflicting Information: Pictures as Peripheral Credibility Cues. Paper presented at the workshop “Comprehending multiple documents on the Internet. The road to the public engagement with science in the 21st century”. Muenster, Germany.

Herzig, K., Maier, J., Isberner, M., Schnotz, W., Richter, T. & Horz, H. (2010, 13.-15. September). Der Einfluss von Diagrammen auf die wahrgenommene Glaubwürdigkeit und das Verstehen wissenschaftlicher Texte mit konfligierenden Informationen. Paper presented at the 74. Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe für Empirische Pädagogische Forschung (AEPF). Jena, Germany.

Horz, H., Schnotz, W., Richter, T., Herzig, K., Maier, J. & Isberner, M. (2010, 26.-30. September). Der Einfluss von Diagrammen auf die wahrgenommene Glaubwürdigkeit und das Verstehen wissenschaftlicher Texte mit konfligierenden Informationen. Paper presented at the 47. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie (DGPs). Bremen, Germany.

Applicant 1
Prof. Dr. Holger Horz
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt
Arbeitsbereich Pädagogische Psychologie
AE Psychologie des Lehrens und Lernens im Erwachsenenalter &
Interdisziplinäres Kolleg Hochschuldidaktik (IKH)
PEG-Gebäude (HP 71)
Grüneburgplatz 1
60323 Frankfurt am Main
Tel.: +49 (0)69 798-35363
Horz@psych.uni-frankfurt.de
Website
Research interest

Integrative Text- and Picture Comprehension/ Integratives Text- und Bildverstehen Multimedia Learning / Multimediales LernenBlended LearningInstructional Design of Multimedia/ Instruktionales Design multimedialer LernumgebungenDesign of Instructional Support / Gestaltung instruktionaler HilfenTeleteaching

Applicant 2
Prof. Dr. Tobias Richter
Institut für Psychologie, Allgemeine Psychologie
Universität Kassel, Fachbereich Humanwissenschaften
Holländische Str. 36-38
34127 Kassel
Tel. (direkt): +49 (0)561 804 3577
Tel. Sekretariat: Tanja Kühle +49 (0)561 804 3574
Fax: +49 (0)561 804 3586
tobias.richter@uni-kassel.de
Website
Research interest

Language/Text Comprehension and Learning / Sprach-/Textverstehen und Lernen- Epistemic validation in language comprehension and learning / Epistemische Validierung beim Sprachverstehen und Lernen – Perceptual representations in language comprehension and learning / Wahrnehmungsbasierte Repräsentationen beim Sprachverstehen und Lernen – Reading skills / Lesefähigkeiten – Learning with new media and multiple representations / Lernen mit neuen Medien und multiplen RepräsentationenResearch Methods / Forschungsmethoden- Multilevel analysis in cognitive and educational research / Mehrebenenanalyse in der kognitiven und pädagogisch-psychologischen Forschung – Efficiency- and process-based assessment of cognitive skills / Effizienz- und prozessbasierte Erfassung kognitiver Fähigkeiten

Staff 1
Katja Knuth-Herzig
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt
Arbeitsbereich Pädagogische Psychologie
AE Psychologie des Lehrens und Lernens im Erwachsenenalter &
Interdisziplinäres Kolleg Hochschuldidaktik (IKH)
PEG-Gebäude (HP 71)
Grüneburgplatz 1
60323 Frankfurt am Main
Tel.: +49 (0)69 798-35363
Knuth-Herzig@psych.uni-frankfurt.de

Staff 2
Maj-Britt Isberner, Dipl.-Psych.
Universität Kassel
Institut für Psychologie
Holländische Str. 36-38
34127 Kassel
Tel.: +49 (0)561 804 3582
maj-britt.isberner@uni-kassel.de

 

 


The role of scientific reviews in the legitimation process between science and society. The case of Synthetic Biology

Sociology, Sociology of Science, Science and Technology Studies

In the debate on interdependencies between media, science and society, journalists are often blamed to be responsible for biases in the transformation of scientific knowledge into societal arenas. In contrast, scientists are presumed to be more or less “disinterested” (Merton 1985). What is overlooked in that case, is that scientists are more and more dependent on press coverage and public awareness in order to justify the relevance of their research (Weingart & Pansegrau 1998; Gilbert & Mulkay 1985). Therefore, it becomes more important to address scientific results and programs to extrascientific audiences (Weingart 2001). Emerging research fields in the life sciences have a particular need in legitimization which requires particular communicative strategies to scientific and non-scientific actors (Jasanoff 2005). How does this need for legitimization affect publication practices, particularly for the choice of scientific genre forms? The assumption of this proposal is that the genre scientific review article offers particular choices to address societal expectations that can be taken up by the media or other societal actors that are used especially in the formation phase of an emerging research field. Therefore we propose to study the role of the genre scientific review in the context of the establishment of such a field. The Genre scientific review shall be analyzed in the interplay between scientists, editors of scientific journals and science officials. Does the role of the scientific review change in these contexts? Which non-scientific goals are addressed in these publications? How do they refer to societal expectations? The proposal builds upon research by Charles Bazermans Genre Analyses of scientific formats (Bazerman 1988) and extends this to the addressing of non- scientific audiences. For this reason, the concept of Expectations in Science and Technology will be applied to the case of Synthetic Biology (Borup et al.2006). The research project aims at contributing to understand the strategies of scientific actors that are situated in the intersection between scientific community and specific audiences. Particular emphasis will be given to the editorial context in which the placement of review articles is embedded. Furthermore, the use of scientific review articles by non-scientific actors will be analyzed. This shall be achieved by coupling of scientometric investigations, document analysis and expert interviews.

Publications:

Blümel, Clemens (2016): Enrolling the toggle switch: Visionary claims and modeling objects in the disciplinary formation of Synthetic Biology. In: Nanoethics Journal of Emerging Technologies

Blümel, Clemens (2015): Societal Expectations Legitimating Synthetic Biology: Analyzing Societal Dimensions in Synthetic Biology.

Applicant 1
Prof. Dr. Martin Reinhart
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Philosophische Fakultät III
Institut für Sozialwissenschaften
Lehrbereich Wissenschaftsforschung
Unter den Linden 6
10099 Berlin
30/2093-4550
martin.reinhart@hu-berlin.de
Website
Research interest
Science Studies
Analysis of Peer Review processes
Sociology of Evaluation
Sociology of Organizations

Staff 1
Dipl.-Soz. Clemens Blümel
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Philosophische Fakultät III
Institut für Sozialwissenschaften
Lehrbereich Wissenschaftsforschung
Unter den Linden 6
10099 Berlin
030/ 2093-4551
bluemelc@hu-berlin.de
Website


Epistemic processing of multiple science texts on the internet

Students in secondary education, university students, and lay persons who want to learn more about a scientific topic usually read multiple texts from different sources and of varying quality (for example, Wikipedia entries, online media, scientific journals, scientists’ web pages, or science blogs). More often than not these texts communicate conflicting information, for example when the texts represent opposing stances in a scientific controversy.

This research project investigates how learners comprehend conflicting information in science-related texts and construct mental representations of controversial scientific issues. The first phase of the project was devoted to developing and testing a theoretical model which distinguishes a shallow and an elaborative way of how conflicting information from multiple science-related texts is processed epistemically. This model allows predictions concerning effects of situational and learner-based conditions on cognitive processes and the resulting mental representations in informal learning with multiple texts. So far, these predictions were tested in nine consecutive experiments. Whereas shallow processing seems to cause a one-sided mental representation which is biased towards learners’ initial beliefs, elaborative epistemic processing enables learners to construct a balanced and rich mental representation of sicentific controversies.

The proposed research for the upcoming project phase concentrates on (1) characteristics of a motivated epistemic processing of scientific controversies, (2) a clarification of the causal role of epistemic monitoring in learning with conflicting information, and (2) the development of effective but economical interventions to foster learning with multiple texts on controversial scientific issues. To this end, four comprehensive experiments are proposed, which are based on different experimental paradigms and methods (among others, eye tracking during reading, reaction time experiments, and training experiments).

Publications:

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (in press). Effects of text-belief consistency and reading task on the strategic validation of multiple texts. European Journal of the Psychology of Education.

Richter, T. (2015). Comprehension and validation of text information: Two sides of the same coin. Discourse Processes, 52, 337-352.

Britt, M.A., Richter, T. & Rouet, J.-F. (2014). Scientific Literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104-122.

Isberner, M.-B. & Richter, T. (2014). Comprehension and validation: Separable stages of information processing? A case for epistemic monitoring in language comprehension. In D.N. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 245-276). Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Richter, T. & Rapp, D.N. (2014). Comprehension and validation of text information: Introduction to the special issue. Discourse Processes, 51, 1-6.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2014b). Verstehen multipler Texte zu kontroversen wissenschaftlichen Themen: Die Rolle der epistemischen Validierung. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 42(1), 24-28.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2014a). Fostering multiple text comprehension: How metacognitive strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect. Metacognition & Learning, 9, 54-71.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2013b). How nonexperts understand conflicting information on social science issues: The role of perceived plausibility and reading goals. Journal of Media Psychology, 25, 14-26.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2013a). Text-belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 151-175.

Conference Contributions:

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2012, November). Plausibility effects in reading multiple texts on controversial scientific issues. Paper presented at the Workshop “The internet as a source of science information” of the DFG Special Priority Program (SPP) 1409, Wolfsburg, Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2012, October). Effects of Text-Belief Consistency and Reading Goal on the Comprehension of Multiple Science-Related Texts. Paper presented at the 2012 Multiple Document Literacy Workshop, Poitiers, France.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2012, September). Konsistenzeffekte und Plausibilitätseffekte im Lernen mit multiplen Texten. Vortrag gehalten auf dem 48. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Bielefeld.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2012, August). Effects of Text-Belief Consistency and Reading Goal on the Comprehension of Multiple Scientific Texts. Paper presented at the bi-annual meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) Special Interest Group 2 (Comprehension of Text and Graphics), Grenoble, France.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2012, May). Epistemic Validation in the Comprehension of Multiple Texts on Controversial Scientific Issues. Paper presented at the Workshop “Comprehension and Validation of Information“ of the DFG Special Priority Program (SPP) 1409, Kassel, Germany.

Maier, J. (2012, May). Attenuating the Belief-Consistency Effect in Multiple Text Comprehension – Influence of Motivation and Ability. Paper presented at the graduate school of the DFG Special Priority Program (SPP) 1409, Kassel, Germany.

Richter, T. & Maier, J. (2012, April). Plausibility effects in learning with multiple texts on controversial scientific issues. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2012, April). How Learners deal with Uncertainty in Controversial Science-Related Texts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Richter, T. & Maier, J. (2011, Oktober). Epistemische Verarbeitung multipler wissenschaftlicher Texte im Internet. Poster präsentiert auf dem Auftakttreffen der 2. Förderphase des DFG-SPP 1409, Münster.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2011, September). Plausibilitätseffekte beim Lernen mit kontroversen wissenschaftlichen Texten. Vortrag gehalten bei der 13. Fachgruppentagung Pädagogische Psychologie der DGPs.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2011, September). Motivationale und metakognitive Effekte auf eine assimilative Verarbeitung konfligierender Informationen aus multiplen Texten. Poster präsentiert bei der 13. Fachgruppentagung Pädagogische Psychologie der DGPs.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2011, July). Effects of Text-Belief Consistency and Presentation Mode on the Comprehension of Controversial Science Texts. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Poitiers, France.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2011, June). Epistemic validation in multiple science texts on controversial issues. Paper presented at the DFG‐NSF Conference “Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science”, New York, USA.

Maier, J. (2010, November). Metakognitives Training zur Förderung der Verarbeitung multipler Texte mit widersprüchlichen Informationen. Vortrag gehalten auf der Herbstschule des SPP 1409, Landau in der Pfalz.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2010, November). Verarbeitung multipler wissenschaftlicher Texten mit widersprüchlichen Informationen. Vortrag gehalten beim 2. Rundgespräch des SPP 1409, Landau in der Pfalz.

Richter, T. & Maier, J. (2010, Oktober). Epistemic Processing of Multiple Texts on Controversial Scientific Issues.  Paper presented at the Workshop “Multiple Documents comprehension” of the DFG Special Priority Program (SPP) 1409, Münster, Germany.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2010, September). Assimilative Verarbeitung konfligierender Informationen aus multiplen Texten. Vortrag gehalten auf der 74. Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe für Empirisch-pädagogische Forschung (AEPF), Jena.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2010, September). Assimilative Verarbeitung konfligierender Informationen aus multiplen Texten. Vortrag gehalten auf dem 47. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Bremen.

Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2010, August). Assimilative processing of controversial science texts. Paper presented at the bi-annual meeting of the EARLI SIGs 2 (Comprehension of Text and Graphics), Tübingen, Germany.

Richter, T. (2009, September). Epistemische Validierung beim Lernen mit Texten. Überblicksreferat auf der Fachtagung Pädagogische Psychologie, Saarbrücken.

Richter, T. & Wippich, S. (2009, August). Learning from multiple texts about conflicting scientific issues: Effects of text order and processing goal. Paper to be presented at the 13th Biannual Conference of the European Association of Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Isberner, M. & Richter, T. (2009, July). The epistemic Stroop effect: Evidence for routine epistemic validation processes in language comprehension. Paper to be presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Applicant

Prof. Dr. Tobias Richter
Universität Kassel
Institut für Psychologie
Holländische Str. 36-38
34109 Kassel
Germany
Tel.: +49 561 8043577
tobias.richter@uni-kassel.de
Website
Research Interest:
Language/Text Comprehension and Learning
Epistemic validation in language comprehension and learning
Perceptual representations in language comprehension and learning
Reading skills
Learning with new media and multiple representations
Research Methods
Multilevel analysis in cognitive and educational research
Efficiency- and process-based assessment of cognitive skills

Staff 1
Dipl. Psych. Johanna Maier
Universität Kassel
Institut für Psychologie
Holländische Str. 36-38
34109 Kassel
Tel.: +49 561 8043582
johanna.maier@uni-kassel.de
website

Staff 2
Dipl.-Psych. Bettina Müller
Universität Kassel
Institut für Psychologie
Holländische Straße 36 – 38
34127 Kassel
Tel: +49 (0)561/8043804
bettina.mueller@uni-kassel.de


top of page