Higher overall participation was not associated with scientific engagement, but co-contribution with expert scientists was¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Higher levels of participation in the community were not associated with greater engagement in the scientific discussion (E-I index = 0.25, p < 0.52). → 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 · i? · associational · r1

A homophily analysis categorized participants by post totals into high, medium, and low participation and computed an E-I index; the non-significant result (E-I = 0.25, p < 0.52) indicates more active students were not more likely to engage in scientific discussion. The E-I index is not a standardized effect size.

"The homophily analysis on the level of participation was not significant (E-I index = 0.25, p < 0.52)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Participation in non-scientific discussion was weakly negatively related to participation in scientific discussion (r = 0.14, p < 0.05)
• Expert scientists fulfilled a crucial role in generating scientific discussion, with one expert holding the highest degree centrality in the scientific network — related
• Students, not expert scientists, played the moderating role by asking questions and making assertions, with one student bridging scientists and students — related