Knowledge artifacts that were novel or unexpected (a non-insect squirrel, a misidentified mosquito) generated the most discussion in an elementary citizen science project¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The squirrel, the only non-insect posted, was the most popular artifact in non-scientific discussion. → Janet Mannheimer Zydney 2025 q2 i? The mosquito, the only artifact the scientists noted was misidentified, was the most popular artifact in scientific discussion. → Janet Mannheimer Zydney 2025 (2)

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 · i? · associational · r1

Post-hoc SNA of Project Noah data found the squirrel had the highest non-scientific in-degree centrality (0.67, Table 1); the authors note it "was the only non-insect posted," which may have generated more student excitement.

"The one distinguishing feature of the artifact about the squirrel (see Fig. 3) is that it was the only non-insect posted."

Janet Mannheimer Zydney 2025 (2)¶

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 · i? · qualitative · r2

In the same SNA case study, the misidentified mosquito had the highest scientific in-degree centrality (0.19, Table 1); the expert's correction prompted extended scientific discussion about the identification.

"The artifact about the mosquito was also unique as it was the only artifact that the scientists noted was misidentified and turned out to be a Wood Gnat fly."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Non-scientific discussion was much denser than scientific discussion, with all students participating non-scientifically but only 12 scientifically — related
• Participation in non-scientific discussion was weakly negatively related to participation in scientific discussion (r = 0.14, p < 0.05) — related