Participation in non-scientific discussion was weakly negatively related to participation in scientific discussion (r = 0.14, p < 0.05)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q2·i1small
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i1 A QAP correlation showed a weak, negative relationship between participating in scientific and non-scientific discussions about the artifacts. → Janet Mannheimer Zydney 2025
Evidence¶
Janet Mannheimer Zydney 2025¶
Janet Mannheimer Zydney, Erin Rumpke, Gi Woong Choi, Lauren Angelone. (2025). Understanding interactions between scientists and elementary school students in a citizen science project. Instructional Science (2025) 53:949–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09710-1
q2 · i1 · associational · r1
A QAP correlation with 20,000 permutations compared the scientific and non-scientific discussion matrices; the printed correlation r = 0.14 (p < 0.05) indicates students who co-contributed non-scientific comments were a bit less likely to engage in scientific exchange.
"There was a weak, negative relationship ( r = 0.14, p < 0.05) between participating in the scientific and non-scientific discussions about the artifacts."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Higher overall participation was not associated with scientific engagement, but co-contribution with expert scientists was
- Non-scientific discussion was much denser than scientific discussion, with all students participating non-scientifically but only 12 scientifically
- Students, not expert scientists, played the moderating role by asking questions and making assertions, with one student bridging scientists and students
- Expert scientists fulfilled a crucial role in generating scientific discussion, with one expert holding the highest degree centrality in the scientific network
- Knowledge artifacts that were novel or unexpected (a non-insect squirrel, a misidentified mosquito) generated the most discussion in an elementary citizen science project — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
negative-qap-scientific-non-scientific |
title |
Participation in non-scientific discussion was weakly negatively related to participation in scientific discussion (r = 0.14, p < 0.05) |
description |
Participation in non-scientific discussion was weakly negatively related to participation in scientific discussion (r = 0.14, p < 0.05) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — janet-mannheimer-zydney-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.