Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Evaluating Astronomy Literacy of the General Public

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1308.2195 v1 pith:6SZX5Q6Z submitted 2013-08-09 physics.soc-ph physics.ed-phphysics.pop-ph

classification physics.soc-phphysics.ed-phphysics.pop-ph
keywords participantsaveragescoreastronomycorrectdegreegeneralscientists
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

A scientifically literate society is important for many different reasons, some of which include democratic and scientific topics. This study was performed in order to identify topics in astronomy and science in general that may not be well understood by the general public. Approximately 1,000 adults at a popular science museum in Philadelphia, PA completed True-False survey questions about basic astronomy concepts. The participants were also asked to provide their age, gender, and highest degree obtained. Although 93 +/- 0.8% of the participants correctly answered that scientists can calculate the age of the Earth, only 58 +/- 2% provided the correct response that scientists can calculate the age of the Universe. Some participants (30 +/- 1%) responded that scientists have found life on Mars. Females scored an average total score of 78 +/- 2%, whereas males scored an average 85 +/- 1%. Participants with an age of 56 and over had an average score of 78 +/- 4% compared to participants under the age of 56 that were found to have an average score of 82 +/- 2%. Lastly, participants' highest degree obtained scaled with number of correct responses, with graduate level degree earners providing the largest amount of correct responses and an average score of 86 +/- 2%.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools