Attracting Teen Surfers to Science Web Sites

http://pus.sagepub.com

Public Understanding of Science

DOI: 10.1177/0963662504045504 2004; 13; 229 Public Understanding of Science

Michael F. Weigold and Debbie Treise Attracting Teen Surfers to Science Web Sites

http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/229 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Public Understanding of Science Additional services and information for

http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://pus.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/13/3/229SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 8 articles hosted on the Citations

© 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 7, 2008 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://pus.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/13/3/229


Attracting teen surfers to science Web sites

Michael F. Weigold and Debbie Treise

Attracting teens to science Web sites can be difficult because teens spend lesstime online than other groups and because teens most frequently use theInternet for social and entertainment gratifications. Two studies sought toincrease understanding about how to attract teens to science Web sites. Thefirst study was a content analysis of state-of-the-art science Web sites andpopular non-science teen Web sites. The second study used teen focus groupsto gain insights about their Internet use and about how they use the Web tofind science information. Implications from both studies for improving Web-mediated science communication to a teenage audience are discussed.

1. Introduction

Why bring teenagers and science Web sites together? Science Web sites can offer importantbenefits for teens. Surveys suggest that science and other informational Web sites are asource of help for homework and school assignments (Ebersol, 2000). In addition, thesesites may represent an important tool for combating the widespread scientific illiteracy ofAmerican teens (Champagne, 1992; Halpern, 1992). The United States is currently “in direneed of more science and mathematics teachers” according to a recent Reuter’s report(CNN, 2002). The news article notes that the National Research Council has continued tofind that US students’ performance in mathematics and science ranks near the bottom of allindustrialized nations. Among their recommendations is a fellowship program for improvingscience and mathematics education for kindergarten through 12th grade. The report alsonotes that many students are taught by teachers without formal backgrounds in mathematicsand science.

Science Web sites also may be able to play a role in creating more positive attitudestoward science and even nurturing the development of future scientists. Young people oftenget their first serious exposure to basic science during the middle and high school years. Tothe extent science Web sites help to make that exposure a more positive one, they mayinfluence a teen’s life-long interest in science or appreciation of the beauty and importanceof science. The Center for Media Education (2000) stresses the importance of mass mediagenerally and new media specifically in adolescent development. They argue that the teenyears are crucial ones for identity formation as young people begin to plan adult identitiesand contemplate “hypothetical future selves.” In addition, because teens spend less timewith their families, outside influences become more important. “Because teen engagementwith media usually intensifies just as parental influence is waning, the media can play a

SAGE PUBLICATIONS (www.sagepublications.com) PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE

Public Understand. Sci. 13 (2004) 229–248

© SAGE Publications ISSN 0963-6625 DOI: 10.1177/0963662504045504 © 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 7, 2008 http://pus.sagepub.comDownloaded from

www.sagepublications.com


strong role in shaping teen attitudes, as well as their sense of self and the world” (Center forMedia Education, 2000: 5).

The recognition that exposure to science outside of the classroom may be an importantcomponent of both learning about and positive feelings toward science has been noted byscholars interested in the concept of “informal learning” (Crane et al., 1994; Jeffs and Smith,1990; Tressel, 1988). Tressel (1988) indicates that the educational system typically rewardsstudents who are “eager, enthusiastic, and well-prepared by their parents outside of school”(p. 21, emphases added) and argues that “a rich environment of informal learning can makeour system truly one of education instead of selection” (p. 21, emphases added). For somethis rich environment has traditionally included museums, planetariums, exhibits, andtelevision programming (Crane et al., 1994). How can Web sites also play an important rolein developing an interest in and understanding of science among teens? The possibilities arealmost limitless, but at a minimum, the characteristics that help make commercial Web sitesinteresting and attractive to teens (interactivity, control, instant communication, collabora-tion, realistic modeling of real-world phenomena) may also be powerful tools for givingteens a first-hand experience with science. To take just one example, the popular Web siteNetfrog (Netfrog, 2002) provides the tools, graphics, and information for students tosuccessfully perform an online dissection. But replicating a popular middle school labo-ratory experience is merely the tip of the iceberg for a medium that can model deep space,the inside of an atom, or life at the bottom of the oceans. By making the teen an activeparticipant in science, science Web sites can transform the learning process from passivememorization to active engagement. This shift in goals can in turn be quite powerful in theself-concept development of a teen, according to research by Markus and colleagues(Markus and Nurius, 1986; Markus and Ruvolo, 1989). They note that goals “occasion theconstruction of a ‘possible self’ in which one is different from the now self and in which onerealizes the goal” (Markus and Ruvolo, 1989: 212).

Given the potential of Web sites to play a prominent role in informal science educationit is dismaying that a survey of the teen Web landscape shows a distressingly low number ofnon-commercial Web sites available for teens (Center for Media Education, 2000). TheCenter notes that the online teen landscape is “quickly becoming a highly commercializedenvironment, with advertising, shopping, ‘branding,’ and market research a dominant andpervasive presence” (p. 58). They argue for an “alternative Internet” that offers “anoncommercial and civic Web culture for teens,” but conclude that sites that meet thismandate are few and far between.

If the Web contains many benefits for teens, it is also true that teenagers hold greatvalue for many Web sites. In fact, teens represent an attractive audience for almost all majormass media (Belch and Belch, 2001) and a great number of commercial Web sites areanxious to reach teens because of their spending power (an estimated $155 billion in 2000),attractiveness to sponsors (Belch and Belch, 2001; Center for Media Education, 2000; Neff,2001; Shimp, 2003) and because teens are considered a window into what is fashionable and“cool” (Pappas, 2002). Teens are also an important target for many non-commercial Websites, especially those sites with an educational mission. Johnson (1996) used a contentanalysis to uncover three general types of science sites that target the public: (1) professionalscience sites expanded for use by the general public, (2) sites specifically designed for useby everyone (with at least a basic knowledge of science, i.e., adolescents and older), and (3)sites designed specifically for preteen children. All of these, but especially the first two, areof potential interest to teenagers seeking science information and all tend to have extensivelinks to other educational sites.

While attractive, teenagers are a challenging audience for Web site sponsors because

230 Public Understanding of Science 13 (3)



teens spend less time online than do other demographic groups, especially young adults(ages 18–24). According to Media Metrix (2003) teens spend about 303 minutes online permonth, an amount which pales next to time online among young adults 18–34 (656 minutesper month) or adults aged 35–49 (804 minutes). In fact, one recent study (AOL DigitalMarketing Services, 2002) finds that on average, mothers spend more time on the Internetthan do their teens (almost 17 hours per week for mothers compared to about 12 hours perweek for the teens).

But while teenagers spend less time with the Internet when compared with olderpersons, they still consider the Internet to be an important medium. Research suggests thatteens spend less time with all mass media than do other age groups (Wells et al., 2003),although teen media use is skewed toward the Internet (Marketing to kids, tweens & teens,2002). When teens are asked to name the mass medium they would keep if they could onlykeep one, a majority (65%) choose the Internet and a recent study of teens and the Web(Cheskin Research, 1999) concludes that teens believe “the Web is better than watchingTV” (p. 3). Other research confirms that the Internet is considered satisfying by teens andyoung adults (Angleman, 2001).

A joint research study by Harris and Yahoo! involving 2,500 teens and young adults(ages 13–24) examined overall media use among teens and discovered that in a typical weekthis group spends about 17 hours online (excluding e-mail), watches about 14 hours of TV,spends 12 hours listening to the radio, just under 8 hours talking on the phone, and about 6hours reading books and magazines. The researchers concluded that teens favor the Webover other media because it allows them “control,” i.e., “the ability to personalize andmanage the media experience and content.” Teens also appeared to relish having a largeassortment of media choices and frequently engage in multi-tasking (simultaneously usemore than one media vehicle at a time) (Yahoo!, 2003).

Teens are attracted to Internet technologies that help them to communicate and stay intouch with others, relish the interactive nature of the Web, and value privacy and freedom onthe Web, according to Cheskin Research (1999). They note that teens fall into five distinctgroups with different Web usage patterns, namely “Explorers” (about 10% of the teenpopulation, are creative, highly independent, highly influential in teen culture because oftheir counterculture appearance), “Visibles” (30% of the teen population, comprised ofpopular kids at school, including “jocks”), “Status Quos” (38% of the teen population, agroup generally accepted and liked by peers and adults), “Non-teens” (14% of the teenpopulation, sometimes called “nerds,” who possess an indifference to teen culture and anintense interest in academics), and Isolators (5–10% of the teen population, a group that issomewhat alienated from peers and adults alike). New trends tend to start with Explorers,move to Visibles, and then become part of the mainstream when accepted by the StatusQuos. Cheskin considers Visibles to be an important target group for Internet sponsorsbecause they are especially influential within the teen community.

2. Attracting teenagers to science sites

Mass communicators interested in explaining media consumption frequently cite a researchtradition known as uses and gratifications research (Finn, 1997; Katz et al., 1974; McQuail,1985; Palmgreen and Rayburn, 1982; Papacharissi and Rubin, 2000; Rubin, 1981). Uses andgratifications research seeks to uncover audience motives for media consumption and thegratifications that these audiences receive from that consumption. The approach is useful forcontent providers in that it illuminates the functions that are served by media consumption.

Weigold & Treise: Attracting teens to science Web sites 231



To the extent that newer media as compared to old (1) better gratify needs, (2) gratify moreneeds, or (3) gratify needs with fewer associated costs, then audiences are expected to spendgreater time with the former and less time with the latter (Palmgreen and Rayburn, 1982).Ebersol (2000), using a uses and gratifications approach, administered a survey asking teenswhy they used the Web. He uncovered eight dimensions: research and learning (to completehomework assignments, to get up-to-date facts and information), easy access to enter-tainment (because it’s so easy, because it’s fun), communication and social interaction (tochat with other people, to find people), something to do when bored (for entertainment, forbrowsing), access to material otherwise unavailable (to find things not in the library, todownload software and other free stuff), product information and technical support, gamesand sexually explicit sites, and consumer transactions. This suggests that while many teenWeb gratifications are related to entertainment and interactions, learning is a prominentmotive for Web use as well.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers E-Retail Intelligence (Pastore, 2000) examined the top rea-sons that teens go online and discovered that e-mailing, getting information, playing games,using chat rooms, downloading music and videos, and sending electronic greeting cardswere listed most often. And Ferguson and Perse (2000) discovered that entertainment wasthe most prominent of five factors for going online (the others were passing time, relaxation/escape and social information). The entertainment motive accounted for over 40% of therespondents’ answers, while none of the other motives exceeded 10%. In sum, teens usuallygo to the Web to have fun and interact with others, but occasionally use the Web to findinformation or learn.

Which sites are most popular with teenagers? There are two ways to think about thisquestion: noting which sites have the greatest number of teens in their audience, and notingwhich sites have the greatest percentage of teens to total audience. To clarify the distinctiona bit more, sites that are popular with all audiences (like AOL or Microsoft) are likely to beprominent in the first grouping, while sites that draw almost exclusively from the teendemographic will be represented in the second. A listing of the Web sites with the greatestnumbers of teenagers by the research firm Media Metrix (2003) shows that teens frequentmany of the large portal and Internet provider sites favored by older Internet users (i.e.,AOL, Yahoo!, Microsoft). Only one of the sites in the top 15 represents a specific effort totarget the teen audience (Angelfire.com). Conspicuously absent are sites related to science,technology, or even education.

The Center for Media Education (2000) reviews several dozen sites that are specificallydesigned for teens. Among the most popular sites that are currently still in operation (theInternet “bust” has driven several of the teen sites mentioned in this recent report toconsolidate or go out of business) are: MTV (a site affiliated with the popular teen cablenetwork), Sonicnet (a music site affiliated with MTV and VH1), IGN (a site that focuses oncomputer games), Smartgirl (a teen lifestyle site for girls), Alloy (a lifestyle site for teenagedgirls), Bolt (a lifestyle site for both boys and girls), Pogo (a board game rather thancomputer game site), Gurl (a lifestyle site for teen girls), Dr. Drew (a health advice site forteens), and Headbone (a lifestyle site for kids and teens).

The literature reviewed so far suggests that attracting teens to science Web sites is notan easy task. Teens like the Internet but use it less than other demographic groups. Whenthey do use the Internet, it tends to be in service of either entertainment or social functions.Educational Web sites are not well represented among the most popular teen sites, eventhough many of these sites are explicitly designed or intended to target a youth/teenaudience.

To better understand ways of attracting teenagers to science Web sites, we devised a




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249682568_Gratifications_sought_and_media_exposure_An_expectancy_value_model?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-7460dfd5-f40a-4bae-a6fc-1f4677d69be0&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODc0MjczMjtBUzo5OTM4NTg4Mjk3MjE2MkAxNDAwNzA2ODQ5NTM3

two-pronged strategy. First, we conducted a content analysis of Web sites. To betterunderstand how commercial Web sites target teenagers, we examined the non-science Websites listed above that draw disproportionately from the teen demographic. To betterunderstand “state-of-the-art” in the science Web area, we also analyzed both commercialand non-commercial sites with an educational/science focus. Second, we conducted focusgroups with teenagers in an effort to understand their interactions with and perceptions ofthe Internet, their favorite Web sites, science-related Web sites, and NASA’s Web site.

3. Method

Content analysis

Ten popular non-science teen-targeted Web sites were content analyzed on both content andgraphic dimensions (see Appendix B for content analysis coding sheet). The sites them-selves were located by using suggested sites from the Center for Media Education’s (2000)recent study of teenage Web sites. The content analysis was extended to recommended sitesfrom four of the top 10 teen science site lists located at the homepage of the ExploratoriumMuseum (www.exploratorium.edu/learning). These lists included the top “cool” sites in thefour areas of astronomy, chemistry, life sciences and general sciences. Six additionalprominent science sites that were mentioned in sites from the Exploratorium lists were alsoexamined (Scientific American, Discovery School, Schools Online Science, Suremath, AskDr. Math, and Science Links (an American Association for the Advancement of ScienceWeb site), for a total of 46 science Web sites that were content analyzed (see Appendix Afor a complete list of all the Web sites analyzed in the study).

Process Using the coding sheet found in Appendix B, one of the project investigatorsconducted a thorough examination of each site. The purpose of the content analysis was bothto look for specific structural elements that define the “best” or most effective Web sites (useof color, presence of graphics, use of fonts, layouts, links, functions, interactive elements;and for science-specific sites inclusion of subject areas, currency, age-specific stories,relevance, literacy level, use of contact persons and identification of intended audience)(Mitretek Systems, 1999) and to develop a subjective “feel” for each site and to look forideas for attracting teens rather than to calculate a quantitative summary of attributes. Toexamine reliability for the impressions of the first investigator, the second investigatorexamined a subset of the sites using the same coding sheet. Both investigators took notes,which were then compared. In virtually every case, overall impressions of the quality andattractiveness of the sites were the same (intercoder reliability of 96.3).

Focus groups To explore how high school students use the Web to learn about science,naturalistic methods were selected. Naturalistic inquiry allows the researcher to engage indescription and provide an insider perspective. Accordingly, we used focus groups to “gainaccess to the assumptions” according to which one group construes the world; in this case,the high school students that are frequent Web users. Focus groups were conducted by oneof the researchers trained in qualitative methods, specifically focus groups.

Five focus groups were conducted with high school students enrolled in AdvancedPlacement (AP) classes in three area high schools in Gainesville, Florida. These studentswere chosen because the researchers felt that they likely would be the most science literatestudents, and therefore those who would most likely read science Web site content. Whileour sample of AP students limits the generalizability of the research, the large scale study




reported in Cheskin Research (1999) suggest that teens of this type, which they categorize as“Explorers,” are influential in peer selections among general-content and science Web sites.Because this was an exploratory study, AP students in only one town were recruited, whichagain may limit the generalizability of the results, yet were chosen to serve as a basis forfurther research.

The focus groups ranged in length from 70–120 minutes, and were conducted incommon areas that would make students comfortable interacting. Redundancy occurredbefore all interviews were completed (that is, respondents began repeating what others hadsaid before them).

A semi-structured interview guide (see Appendix C for focus group question guide) wasused to collect descriptive data covering four basic areas: general Web use habits andpatterns (i.e., time spent, general Web sites most frequently visited, areas on sites most oftenaccessed, etc.), Web use for classroom activities and assignments (i.e., use of Web sites forhelp with assignments, preferences, etc.), science Web use habits and patterns on scienceWeb sites (science Web sites most often visited, areas of science interest, etc.), andpreferences in Web site usage (i.e., uses such as shopping, e-mail, chat rooms, instantmessaging). The question guide was followed loosely as all focus groups addressed themajority of the questions before participants were asked by the focus group moderator.Background information, such as age, classes taken, computer use in general, etc., wasgathered as well.

Data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously; each focus group was transcribedand analyzed before subsequent focus groups were undertaken. Data were grouped intodescriptive categories that were refined and developed until all data had been analyzed.

To ensure trustworthiness of the data, four of the original focus group participantsserved as member checks for analytic categories, interpretations and conclusions. Partici-pants agreed with all results but fleshed out some of the analyses to provide thickerdescription.

4. Findings

Content analysis

Overall, both the science and non-science genres of teen Web sites contained severalcommon elements. Aspects that improved Web sites included having a clear and specificpurpose (for example, “MTV,” “Bad Astronomy,” “SOHO,” “Ask Dr. Math”), a clearaudience (“Gurl,” “Amateur Astronomy,” “NASA Kids”), interactivity (“A Visual Inter-pretation of the Table of Elements,” “The PH Factor,” “Chembalancer”), clean, attractive,and clear layouts (“Exploration,” “Nobel E-Museum,” “The Learning Matters of Chem-istry”), cool graphics and multimedia (“MTV,” “SOHO,” “Way Cool Surgery,” “Multi-media Extravaganza,” “MicroAngela”), and made science fun and/or exciting (“Salmon:Spirit of the Land and Sea,” “The Periodic Table of Comic Books”).

Aspects that detracted from Web sites included lack of interactivity (at “A ChemicalJigsaw Puzzle,” the surfer is supposed to print the page and then cut it with scissors!), usingthe Web as an extension of the printed page (i.e., little graphics or interactivity, such as theteacher’s lesson plan site “Food and Science” or “Scientific American”), an absence of aclear audience (“Reactive Reports”), and unattractive layouts, color, or design (“‘Do-it-yourself’ instructions for making a model of the Hubble Space Telescope,” “ReactiveReports”). In the sections that follow, we focus on specific ways Web sites make use of Webdesign tools for enhancing or detracting from the site.




As might be expected, given the aims and likely budgets for the sites, the non-sciencesites tended to make greater use of multimedia and the latest in Web-design technologies.Front pages for the science sites tend to have fewer links and graphics, whereas the frontpages of the non-science sites are often filled with links and tabs to locations within the site.In many ways the front pages of the non-science sites act as mini-portals, directing teentraffic throughout the site. Front pages of the science sites, by contrast, tended to allocatemore space to copy. This likely reflects at least two differences across these categories: ascompared to science sites, non-science sites tend to have a broader focus (music andentertainment, lifestyles, health) and to have more dynamic content. The broader focus ofnon-science sites means that users come to the site with a great variety of interests andneeds. Because of the extensive use of links, graphics, and tabs, visitors to the non-sciencesites can easily and quickly use the front page to locate relevant site content. The dynamiccontent encourages repeated usage and allows users to monitor breaking news and events.Many of the science sites (but not all) are relatively static. Because these sites have morelimited ambitions, the front pages have fewer links and graphics, and use copy to offerexplanations for the purpose of the site and/or to give directions on how to use the site.

The differences between the science and non-science Web sites listed above are broadgeneralizations, and some sites from each category show characteristics of sites from theother. The differences listed are also not entirely due to differences in function: the budgetsand the number of visitors to sites such as MTV dwarf most of the science sites included inthis review (Mariano, 2001). Commercial sites such as MTV and Sonic.com are advertisersupported and are used to enhance interest in other commercial ventures such as the cablechannels MTV and VH1.

There is one critical difference we noted between science-related and non-science Websites: the extent to which content is user-created. Almost all of the successful teen sitesencourage users to submit content to the site, either in the form of chats, message boards,stories, poems, listings, or diaries. Very little user content is present at the science-relatedsites.

Content elements The majority of the science sites were directed to a larger kindergartenthrough high school audience, few were directed to teachers or to a larger parent, studentand teacher audience. Overall, the most engaging sites directed to students are resource rich,having many links and much interactive content. Most have message boards, chat rooms,contests and games, surveys, downloads, question and answer sections, user profiles,interactive clubs, newsletters, polls and jokes. A few of the sites require the user to publisha review or story on the site to become a “member,” while others allow users to createvideos to submit, or to “choose your own ending” stories.

As specified by the criteria listed above, the most effective science sites are written withfun for learning in mind. They are written on a level that is challenging and educational butstill entertaining—speaking “to” the teen readers. They provide links for students to dohomework, the capability to ask questions about homework, to learn about top science newsstory content, and contain games, quizzes and puzzles. Some allow students to share data.Understandably, few have the option of communicating with scientists.

Conversely, the least effective sites seem not to contain much useful information interms of education or are unclear in their educational purpose. For example, the DetroitObservatory site primarily was devoted to the museum itself. Similarly, while informative,the Scientific American site appeared to be more concerned with enticing users to subscribeto the publication or to buy books than to educate.




Graphic elements The majority of the front pages of these Web sites use extensivegraphics including photographs, illustrations and clip art-type pictures and few typefaces.The most common layout is four columns, dense with various information and links. Thosesites designed to reach teens directly (as opposed to teachers) use non-distracting, contrast-ing colors and plenty of movement and so appeal to a teenager’s sense of fun. For example,almost the entire MTV site contained active links, colorful photos and drop-down menus formajor headings. The best designed sites appear high tech and dense, but, in fact, are easy tonavigate.

Conversely, those sites that appear to be least effective are visually boring, non-involving, long on text containing few graphics, are not interactive, appear confusing,difficult to navigate and, based on graphics elements, are not consistent with theirpurpose.

Focus groups

A total of 23 students participated in the focus groups (three groups of four participants, onegroup of five and one group of six), 12 students were male, 11 students were female. Theaverage age of the participants was 161⁄2 years old. Students in these focus groups spent anaverage of 31⁄2 hours daily on the Web. Of the 23 participants, 21 mostly accessed the Webfrom home, and 18 of the students shared computers with others; only five of the studentstherefore had their own computers in their rooms. All but two of the participants had theirown homepage. Analysis of data proceeded around general research questions asked.

General Web use In order of importance, the participants spend the majority of theircomputer time on e-mail, instant messaging, downloading music, playing games or readingabout sports, weather, current events or news. Overall, the students suggested that they “loveto be entertained” by the Web, they go to laugh and to escape. They strongly believe theyare not accessing Web sites for learning purposes—not even to learn through comparisonshopping. One group discussed at length how Web sites are “a form of entertainmentmedia.” For example, one participant said, “It’s better than the movies! In fact, I don’t liketo go and fight the crowds anymore. I download everything I want to do, read, see and hear.I can escape a lot easier at home.” Another said, “I can stay home to do it all now. I don’thave to get dressed, play the games with my ‘friends’ or spend any money.” Of interest isthat although students said they did not go to the Web specifically to learn, all 23 studentstalked extensively about things they had learned on the Web by linking from news storiesthey read.

Assignment Web use Interestingly, for the most part, teachers do not ask students to usethe Web for class assignments or project research. It is the rare classroom teacher thatrequires or suggests to students to use the Web for assignments according to ourparticipants. Instead, students usually use encyclopedia Web sites or search engines to findneeded information if they go to the Web at all. In other words, they do not type in specificWeb addresses other than those mentioned. Time and time again, across all focus groups, thestudents said they go to the Web only if the teacher directs them to a specific site or aspecific topic area for an assignment.

One focus group discussed their shared belief that teachers think the Web is a “form ofcheating.” As one student put it:

They worry about the Web. They think it makes it too easy for us. They want us to sitin the library like they did, learning how to use it [the library] and seeing what’s there.




I guess I can see their point. I suppose all of the stuff that’s already in books wouldn’tbe on the Web and we’ll miss a bunch of stuff.

One other student mentioned another possible reason teachers might not ask them to go tothe Web for assignments:

They think that we’ll go to sites that aren’t credible—then how can they argue withwhat we wrote? I don’t think they want to spend the time checking out the references[sites] to see if they are written by a credible source or if the information is correct. Ithink they assume that if it appears in print it’s okay, but not on the Web. I’ve actuallyhad teachers that won’t let us use information I’ve found on the Web.

Science sites Web use An interesting contrast emerged when participants discussed theiruse of the Web to gather science information. While only three of the participants said theyhad ever “intentionally” gone to a science Web site, in fact, they all go to science sites insearch of specific information. For example, 17 participants said they use the Web regularlyfor weather information and to learn about the weather. Additionally, all of the participantsmentioned that they regularly link from news stories to science sites while readinginteresting science-related news stories. Indeed, in three groups, participants talked aboutlooking at Hubble pictures, and reading and linking from breaking science news stories,such as meteor showers and solar flares. The distinction in their minds seems to be that theydo not type in the names of science sites; instead they eventually get to them throughlinks.

Finally, while these students believe they do not go to science sites, participants in threegroups said that if they run into difficult information that they do not understand whenstudying for AP science tests, they go to the Web to tutor themselves on a specific topic.Indeed, 12 of the participants said they had sent links to friends who were also studying, andadmitted they must have unknowingly been sending science sites as study guides.

None of the students believed they had ever intentionally gone to a NASA Web site.However, seven of the students said they had tried from time to time but could not get to thesite. Perhaps it was because they all said they were using a NASA.com address. Un-fortunately, for the most part, these students were not interested in obtaining informationabout NASA, shuttle launches or the international space station. As one student related:

I don’t think that I really care because I don’t know the why’s. I have no idea why wehave so many launches. I have no idea why it’s important to be on the space station. Idon’t know why we are doing anything in space. It gets boring because I don’tunderstand. (emphasis in original)

Web site preferences What keeps these students coming back to certain Web sites? Whatqualities are they looking for? In general, they return to sites that “have informationpresented in a fun way.” As one participant said, “I guess I am learning a ton of stuff on theWeb about all kinds of things. But I like it best when it’s disguised, in jokes or games.”Across all focus groups, students list (in order of frequency) the following elements thatmake a particular site a favorite, based on either content or graphics:

● Fun/entertainment features● Usefulness/functionality● Frequent updates● Ease of navigation● More graphics and fewer words on the front page




● Eye-catching graphics (especially important for females)● Interactivity

What would these students like on a science site? The participants were a bit lesseffusive on this topic; they clearly were not as sure what would keep them coming back toa science site. However, all 23 agreed that “help with homework would be incredibly helpful. . . I’d definitely come back to that site!” (emphasis in original). Many suggested thatscience-related games, “Bill Nye-ish type of stuff,” also would entice them to return to asite. Half of the participants said that a question and answer component of a science sitewould be useful, as well as “links to cool stuff to look at and do.” Yet another participantsaid, “I think X-Files type of stuff would be sooo cool.”

It is important to note that these students are very involved with Web sites and almostview them as companions or objects of ownership. For example, many of the participantsreferred to a favorite site as “my site,” or “my baby,” and were very defensive if anotherparticipant was critical of a site. Indeed, 11 of the participants had created content for Websites and subsequently felt it became more personal. Independently, these students hadcreated videos for the MTV site.

Interestingly, the students were very vocal about what they would not include on ascience site. Fourteen of the students felt chat rooms would be useless. As one student said,“I have no use for chat rooms, but message boards would be great.” Twenty of the studentsacross all focus groups concurred. Additionally, all agreed that they would not be interestedin information about scientists’ lives, but instead would be greatly interested in what they doand why.

Finally, all of the students said they go to Web sites if they are directed by friends or,in rare cases, teachers. Not one of the students was aware of where to go, other than searchengines, to get specific information. In other words, they do not know the names or Webaddresses of science sites.

5. Discussion

Summary and recommendations for attracting teenagers to science Web sites

Taken together, what do these two studies imply for those interested in attracting teens toscience Web sites? We believe several themes have emerged from this research: teens seekentertainment, not education, from the Internet; teachers are the critical gatekeepers forscience sites; science sites can be fun and still teach; and science sites can do things that noone else can.

Teens seek entertainment, not education, from the Internet The current generation ofteenagers has grown up with the Internet and considers it an essential medium for beingentertained, monitoring social trends, and staying in touch with social contacts. The Internetallows teens to combine the best of the telephone, television, radio, and cinema into a singlemedium that they can access from their bedrooms. Small wonder then, that marketers viewthe Internet as a window to the elusive teen consumer. But evidence to date suggests thatcapturing the “share of mind” of teen Internet users is a more difficult enterprise than manyonce thought. Teens are savvy Internet users who have strong opinions about how tostructure their online experiences. For example, while children under 13 are the group mostlikely to click on Web advertisements, teens are the least likely of all Internet users to do so(Gately, 2000). And despite the hype surrounding Internet marketing, research suggests that




teens generally do not purchase things on the Internet. Rather, they continue to spend theirbillions in discretionary income at traditional retail outlets (Enos, 2000).

The evidence to date, from other research and from the studies reported here, suggeststhat teenagers use the Internet for fun and entertainment. The Internet is also usedoccasionally as a tool for completing school assignments, in large part because it is easierand quicker than traditional libraries or print resources (at least in the minds of teenagers).We believe that this makes it unlikely that most teenagers, left to their own devices, willchoose to become regular consumers of science Web sites, unless such sites can help themwith school-related projects. It is possible that a small number of science-interested teenswill frequent science sites, but the vast majority, unless provided with an incentive to do so,will not. It is probably not realistic that science Web sites will attract a substantial teenaudience based solely on capturing teen surfers who are online in search of entertainment.Although this conclusion may seem grim, we do not believe it means that science sitescannot attract a teen audience. Quite the contrary, we believe that science sites can beeffective in drawing large numbers of teenagers. But to do so will require a partnership withthe critical gatekeepers of educational use of the Internet: teachers.

Teachers are the critical gatekeepers for educational Internet use While we believethat it is unrealistic that science (or other educational) sites will be successful in capturing asignificant share of casual teen surfers on their own, we do believe that teens can be broughtto such sites if they are encouraged, required or allowed to do so as a part of fulfillingacademic requirements. In this regard, we consider school teachers to be a key mediator ofthe teen audience for science sites. While students pointed to peers as opinion leaders aboutinteresting Web sites, it would seem that most of these recommendations would relate toentertainment sites, and would leave the opportunity for teachers to broaden that base topoint students to equally interesting science education Web sites. The students in our focusgroups and those included in other studies (Ebersol, 2000; Pappas, 2002) report regularlyaccessing science and other education sites in order to find help with school assignments orto complete homework. Teens consider the Web to be helpful for increasing theirunderstanding of science-related topics, but also believe that teachers are ambivalent aboutthis use. It was somewhat disappointing to hear our focus group respondents report that theyare rarely given school assignments that explicitly involve using the Internet, particularlysince the United States has spent billions of dollars in recent years to wire every school forthe Web. We believe that there are some excellent opportunities for science site sponsors towork with teachers and develop sites that can complement school science curricula andenrich science and mathematics education.

Recommendations We believe that the key to building a teen audience for many scienceWeb sites is to work with middle and high school science teachers and their schools. Thispartnership has great potential for both parties, as well as for teens. For Web sites, scienceteachers can significantly increase teen traffic, making Internet use a part of the sciencecurriculum. To paraphrase a famous movie quote, “If they require it, they will come.” Whileteens show little inclination to access science sites during casual surfing, they are happy andwilling to use the Internet for research and academic uses when they are directed or requiredto do so.

For science teachers, curriculum-friendly Web sites offer a low-cost supplement totextbooks, library resources, and labs. Web sites can reinforce important lessons and providebackground materials, movies, photographs, maps and charts that supplement texts andlectures. As we detail below, Web sites might even provide essential simulation tools that




significantly enrich the learning of science and that motivate students to seek out scienceinformation on their own.

In fact this pairing seems so logical it raises the question of why it isn’t alreadyhappening. Our content analysis offers some insights. Many science sites are alreadystudent- and teacher-friendly. But for the typical high school science teacher, finding waysto incorporate the Web into a class can be daunting. Some sites have an extremely narrowfocus, others are quite broad. Some offer teacher lesson plans, while others seem to ignoreteachers and students altogether. It is clear that some of the sites we examined wish to seeteachers reference the site in their classes, but almost none of the sites appear to have beendesigned from the ground-up to specifically complement a standardized science curriculum,either in general science or in a specialty area such as astronomy or chemistry. We believethat such an integration requires that a Web site developer work hand-in-hand with scienceteachers and school systems to build a site that complements a standard middle or highschool science course. Such a site would “fill in the gaps” from the classroom or textbookand would offer students a way to experience science in a more immediate and realistic way.We elaborate on strategies for building such a partnership in our recommendations for futureresearch below.

Science sites can be fun and still teach Our focus group respondents were unanimous inwanting Web sites to be fun, engaging, and interesting. However, our content analysis ofscience Web sites found quite a bit of diversity in such sites with respect to thesedimensions. To be fair, not all of the science sites we reviewed were exclusively concernedwith teens. Some included teens as only a part of their desired audience, while others seemrelatively unconcerned with attracting teen visitors. In addition, many science Web sitecreators may believe that creating a “fun” site engenders the risk of dumbing-down contentto an unacceptable degree.

Recommendations There is much that can be done to enhance science Web sites for teens.Some of our recommendations are relatively easy and inexpensive. Others require asubstantially greater commitment of time, talent, and resources.

Making a Web site more attractive to teens includes matters of both style and structure.Issues of style are actually quite challenging when applied to teens. Teens are “tweeners,”caught in the difficult years between childhood and adulthood. They are notoriously fickle,and the trends, styles, fashions, music, entertainment, and issues that are important to themtoday are almost guaranteed to be irrelevant in a few months. Marketers spend hundreds ofmillions of dollars searching for just the right way to address teens in their advertisingefforts and inevitably face frustration when such efforts are ineffectual. Our content analysissuggests that popular teen Web sites have found a clever, low-cost way to provide teens withinteresting, current, and relevant content: let teens create the content. A clear difference thatemerged between the non-science and science sites was the extent to which the former madeuse of teen-created content and the latter did not. Teens enjoy reading the words of otherteens, and especially love reading their own words. Science sites often seem to be createdsolely by “experts,” perhaps reflecting the educational mission of most of these sites.However, allowing student “experts” to create content (with appropriate editing and fact-checking by science experts) is an easy way to liven up the copy and content of a sciencesite. At the very least, science sites that target teens may wish to bring together an editorialpanel of teens to review articles posted at the Web site and to suggest topics for futurearticles. These teen editors might also run and regulate the discussions at message boards onthe site.




Another style element favored by teens is making content relevant to what they canunderstand. Teens want to know how things fit together, how a science issue or projectfeatured at a Web site fits into a broader problem. Our focus group participants remarkedthat they enjoy it when a site ties science to popular science fiction or to popular movieswith a science or technology theme. This allows teens a frame of reference for under-standing the purpose of science projects or experiments.

Yet another style issue follows from understanding the likely motives that teens mighthave for accessing a site. If the site is designed primarily for teen entertainment, then copyand tone should be fun, humorous, entertaining, short, and breezy. To the extent that a siteis being accessed to complete homework assignments or school projects, it should befactual, complete, and extensively linked to related sites. Our respondents noted that theywould like to see quizzes and surveys at science sites that would allow them to test theirknowledge and offer their opinions.

Structurally, the less a Web site resembles a printed handout posted on a Web server,the better. Teens like to interact. Although our focus group participants believed that theywere unlikely to use chat technologies at a science site, they do desire message boards wherethey can post thoughts, ask questions, offer opinions. They like navigation options that makeit easy for them to locate interesting or fun content. If successful commercial sites are anyguide, teens enjoy sites that are visually engaging, with graphics, movement, downloads,and extensive links. By and large the front pages of the commercial non-science sites wereconsiderably denser and busier than those of the science sites. The commercial front pagesappear to operate as mini-portals, allowing teens to quickly find content that intereststhem.

In addition, many of the non-science site front pages are customizable, allowingstudents to track artists, issues, or stories that they find particularly compelling. Thisenhances the value of the site to a teenager because it makes it “their site” and a reflectionof their interests. In addition, the front pages of the non-science sites are updated regularly,even daily. Teens know that accessing a favorite site regularly will be rewarded with fresh,current, and interesting content.

Science sites can do things that no one else can What about more ambitious (andexpensive) strategies for increasing teen traffic? It has been remarked that new media tend toresemble their predecessors until content providers begin to fully understand the powers andcapabilities that these new media provide. Thus, online newspapers look a great deal like theprint versions and Web advertisements look a lot like print advertisements. We found thisholds true for many science Web sites. A large number of them could easily be transferredto the printed page without losing any of their significance or appeal. This is not to diminishthe content or quality of the sites, merely to argue that at present many have not harnessedthe full powers of the Internet. We believe that science Web sites can be enriched andenlivened without compromising their educational benefits if they seek to take advantage ofthe unique possibilities that computer and Internet technologies afford.

Recommendations Among the most popular computer/Internet applications are games/simulations. Simulations permit users to participate in an artificial environment in whichoutcomes occur as a function of rules and requirements unique to the simulation. Thesesimulations become games when a user can compete against a standard, either the scores ofothers, the previous scores of the user him/herself, or a computer opponent. Suchsimulations are immensely popular, experiencing double-digit growth rates and accountingfor over $4 billion in annual sales across all gaming platforms (Veronis Suhler Stevenson,




2000). Games and simulations allow users to experience almost anything, including runninglarge corporations or even nations, commanding armies both contemporary and historical,managing sports teams and professional athletes, etc. And while many of the most populartitles emphasize fun, there have been several successful simulations with considerableeducational value, including the popular SimCity series.

SimCity is a simulation that puts the user in the position of urban planner. By modelinghundreds of real-world variables, the simulation allows users to experience the thrills anddifficulties inherent in building a city from the ground up. A byproduct of the experience(besides hours of fun game play) is a significant increase in understanding of the factors thathinder or facilitate a city’s growth and health. The simulation also allows users tounderstand the interactive nature of decisions (i.e., raising taxes can increase city coffers forprojects but also alienates unhappy taxpayers!).

We believe that science organizations should consider making greater use of simula-tions at their Web sites. Appropriately constructed, documented, and targeted, simulationscan provide teens with inexpensive yet sophisticated “laboratories,” in which to beparticipants in discovering the wonders of science. Rather than read about microgravityexperiments, teens might visit NASA’s Web site to use a microgravity simulator in whichthey could design their own experiments to grow crystals or observe changes in life formsover a period of time. Or perhaps a simulation could be designed for launching a mannedexpedition to Mars, or for developing a manned site on the moon. Students could beencouraged to do background research in order to develop plausible hypotheses about theirexperiments. Making the outcomes of the simulations significant (i.e., allowing for teachersto rate student performance on the simulations) might motivate students to learn as much asthey could about the simulated topic beforehand.

Putting the simulations on the Internet rather than delivering them as stand-alonecomputer programs would also provide important benefits. Almost all commercial softwaregames and simulations, whatever the platform, are moving to the Internet. The excitementand enjoyment created by the simulations is significantly enhanced when the process isavailable to hundreds or even thousands of other real-life participants scattered across thecountry. Making science simulations available online could enhance collaboration amongstudents of different schools, districts, or even countries. It might even foster friendlycompetition when simulations could be structured so that schools could compete indesigning theory-based experiments.

Educators have already acknowledged the value of simulation as a classroom tool. Forexample, Mayer (1992) argues for “helping students to model the process by which anexpert thinks about solving scientific, mathematical, or programming problems” andChampagne (1992: 126) notes that “. . . active engagement by the learner in authentic orreal-world tasks facilitates the development of thinking skills”. These have long beenimportant reasons why schools have incorporated laboratory components into the teachingof science. Web-based simulations would allow schools to offer many of the same benefitsoffered by labs at a fraction of the cost (or for free). In addition, Web simulations couldallow students to model processes that are not feasible in high school labs, such as thosedescribed above.

At present very few science sites make extensive use of simulations. And while someexcellent ones exist, they fall far short of what we have proposed for allowing extensiveteacher involvement and Web-based collaboration (cf. www.explorescience.com/activitiesfor some elegant but modest simulations that take advantage of Macromedia’s Shock-wave).




Future research: enhancing the value of science Web sites for teens

We believe that future research can most profitably be focused on building a collaborationbetween science organizations such as NASA and schools. As mentioned in the report, webelieve that such a relationship holds great value for both partners. The logical next step inthis research program is to conduct qualitative research with school teachers and with Webpersonnel at NASA.

As a first step, award-winning science teachers across the United States could beinterviewed either in person or by telephone. Teachers would be notified well in advance ofthe interview that the purpose of the research is to identify ways that NASA can make itsWeb site more useful for the teaching of middle and high school science. At a larger level,such research would serve as a feasibility study for a Web-based partnership betweenschools and NASA. Teachers would be encouraged to offer ideas and suggestions for how aportion of NASA’s site could evolve to serve their needs. The researchers would stress thevalue of “thinking big” rather than worrying about technological or budgetary restrictions.All ideas ranging from small modifications to large and ambitious projects would beencouraged.

As a second step, we would present these ideas to Web developers at NASA in order todetermine the feasibility and budgetary requirements necessary for fulfilling part or all of theteacher-inspired initiatives. Here the practical issues of time, energy, talent, and budgetwould be paramount. Web developers would be challenged to respond to the spirit of theteacher-inspired suggestions and to offer their own thoughts on meeting the spirit if not theletter of the recommendations.

The suggestions of the Web developers could then be summarized in a document thatcould be presented to the teachers for a final reaction. At this point, we would be interestedin knowing whether teachers would actually use NASA’s site in a significant way if theproposed changes were implemented.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge Ron Koczor at NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center and his entirescience communication operation.

Appendix A: Web site content analyzed for the study

Non-science Web sites

MTV (site affiliated with popular teen cable network): http://www.mtv.com/Sonicnet (music site affiliated with MTV and VH1): http://www.sonicnet.com/home/index.jhtmlIGN (focuses on computer games): http://www.ign.com/Smartgirl (teen lifestyle site for girls): http://www.smartgirl.com/Alloy (teen lifestyle site for girls): http://www.alloy.com/Bolt (lifestyle site for both boys and girls): http://www.bolt.com/Pogo (board game rather than computer game) site: http://www01.pogo.com/index.jsp?sls = 2Gurl (lifestyle site for teen girls): http://www.gurl.com Dr. Drew (health advice for teens): http://www.drdrew.com/Headbone (lifestyle site for kids and teens): http://www.headbone.com/




Science and education Web sites

Exploratorium: 10 cool sites for astronomy http://www.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/cool/astronomy.html

NASA Kids: http://kids.msfc.nasa.gov/SOHO: Exploring the sun: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/Sun Gun: http://america.net/ ~ boo/html/sun_gun.htmlDetroit Observatory: http://www.detroitobservatory.umich.edu/VirtualTour.htmlInstructions for making a model of the Hubble Telescope: http://sol.stsci.edu/%7Emutchler/HSTmodel.htmlAmateur Astronomy: http://www.iolaks.com/softech/astro/astro.htmBad Astronomy: http://www.badastronomy.com/Canadians in Space: http://merlin.bethune.yorku.ca/trek/csa/sts-97.htmlDr. Strous’ Answer Book: http://louis.lmsal.com/PR/answerbook.htmlExploring planets in the classroom: http://www.spacegrant.hawaii.edu/class_acts/index.html

Exploratorium: Cool sites for chemistry http://www.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/cool/chemistry.html

A Chemical Jigsaw Puzzle: http://www.harmsy.freeuk.com/jig/index.htmlFood and Science: http://www.uen.org/utahlink/lp_res/nutri375.htmlThe Periodic Table of Comic Books: http://www.uky.edu/Projects/Chemcomics/The PH Factor: http://www.miamisci.org/ph/Chembalancer: http://www.dun.org/sulan/chembalancer/Reactive Reports: http://www.acdlabs.com/webzine/index.htmlThe Learning Matters of Chemistry: http://www.knowledgebydesign.com/tlmc/tlmc.htmlSimple, Common, and Interesting Molecules: http://www.recipnet.indiana.edu/common/common.htmlA Visual Interpretation of the Table of Elements: http://www.chemsoc.org/viselements/Multimedia Extravaganza: http://www.molecules.com/movies.shtml

Exploratorium: Cool sites for general science http://www.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/cool/general.html

History of the Universe: http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/Nobel E-Museum: http://www.nobel.se/Exploration: http://www.exploration.vanderbilt.edu/home.htmScience Playwiths: http://members.ozemail.com.au/%7Emacinnis/scifun/index.htmFun Science Gallery: http://www.funsci.com/The Reconstructors: http://reconstructors.rice.edu/Scientific Explorations and Adventures with Paul Doherty: http://www.exo.net/%7Epauld/index.htmlHunkin’s Experiments: http://www.hunkinsexperiments.com/Tryscience Experiments: http://www.tryscience.org/experiments.htmlBuilding Big: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/

Exploratorium: Cool sites for life sciences http://www.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/cool/life.html

Way Cool Surgery: http://www.waycoolsurgery.com/BOS USA: http://www.orangutan.com/index.htm




Artificial Anatomy: papier-mache anatomical models: http://americanhistory.si.edu/anatomy/Salmon: Spirit of Land and Sea: http://www.oneworldjourneys.com/salmon/MicroAngela’s Electron Microscope Image Gallery: http://www.pbrc.hawaii.edu/bemf/microangela/index.htmlThe Horseshoe Crab: http://www.horseshoecrab.org/Willo: The Dinosaur with a Heart: http://www.dinoheart.org/DNA from the Beginning: http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/E-Zoo Videos: http://www.sandiegozoo.com/virtualzoo/videos/index.htmlMadagascar: Biodiversity and Conservation: http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/mobot/madagascar/default.asp

Additional science sites

Discovery School: http://school.discovery.com/students/Schools Online Science: http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/sci/sol/contents.htmScientific American: http://www.sciam.com/Suremath: http://www2.hawaii.edu/suremath/intro_algebra.htmlAsk Dr. Math: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/drmath.high.htmlScience Links (AAAS): http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/

Appendix B: Content analysis protocol: coding sheet for Web site content analysis

Address of Web site:Number of pages:

First impressions

What are your overall first impressions of the Web site as you open it? Describe the Website:List the authorship of the Web site.What is the date of the last update of the Web site?

Front page—visual

1—Does the page use colors? Yes h No h2—How many colors? 3—Presence of photographs? Yes h No h

How many?

Description:

4—Presence of graphics? Yes h No h

How many?

Description:

5—Number of fonts used?6—Movement on site? (excluding advertising) Yes h No h




Description:

7—Is the front page on one page? Yes h No h8—Describe the layout:

Front page—content

9—Are there links to other sites provided? Yes h No h

How many?

Links to what?

10—How would you categorize the purpose of the content?

Entertainment hEducational hShopping hNews hWeb page creation h

Other:

11—How would you categorize the content?

FictionPoetryChat

User content

12—Are there interactive activities on the Web site? Yes h No h

Description:

Science Web sites only

13—What are the science subject areas on the Web site?14—What types of stories are found on the Web site?15—To what grade level does this Web site appear to be aimed?16—What degree of science literacy is assumed on this Web site?17—Is there a way to contact a person? Yes h No h18—Is there a way to contact a person for help with projects? Yes h No h19—Is there a way to contact a person for help with homework? Yes h No h20—Is there evidence on the site that creators work with schools? Yes h No h

How?

21—Is there a mechanism for the viewer to create content? Yes h No h

Description:

22—How accurate is the information?

References

AOL Digital Marketing Services (2002) “Moms Wired” [online]. Available: http://www.dmsdallas.com/momwired0204.pdf




Angleman, S. D. (2001) “Uses and Gratifications and Internet Profiles: A Factor Analysis.” Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Western Science Social Association, Reno, NV, April [online]. Available: http://www.jrily.com/LiteraryIllusions/InternetGratificationStudyIndex.html£StudyIndex.

Belch, G. E. and Belch, M. A. (2001) Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing CommunicationsPerspective. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Center for Media Education (2000) “TeenSites.com: A Field Guide to the New Digital Landscape” [online].Available: http://www.cme.org/teenstudy/index.html

Champagne, A. B. (1992) “Cognitive Research on Thinking in Academic Science and Mathematics: Implicationsfor Practice and Policy,” in D. F. Halpern (ed.) Enhancing Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics,pp. 117–33. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cheskin Research (1999) “Teens and the Future of the Internet” [online]. Available: http://www.cheskin.com/think/studies/netteens.html

CNN (2002) “Wanted: Math and Science Teachers” [online]. Available: http://fyi.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/07/31/teachers.needed.reut/index.html

Crane, V., Nicholson, H., Chen, M. and Bitgood, S. (1994) Informal Science Learning, What the Research Saysabout Television, Science Museums and Community-based Projects. Dedham, MA: Research Communica-tions, Ltd.

Ebersol, S. (2000) “Uses and Gratifications of the Web among Students,” Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication 6 [online]. Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/ebersole.html

Enos, L. (2000) “Kids Surf Online, Spend Offline,” E-Commerce Times [online]. Available: http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/4272.html

Ferguson, D. and Perse, E. (2000) “The World Wide Web as a Functional Alternative to Television,” Journal ofBroadcasting & Electronic Media 44: 155–74.

Finn, S. (1997) “Origins of Media Exposure,” Communication Research 24: 507–29.Gately, G. (2000) “Kids Click Web Ads Most,” E-Commerce Times [online]. Available: http://www.

ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/4029.html Halpern, D. F. (1992) “A Cognitive Approach to Improving Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics,” in

D. F. Halpern (ed.) Enhancing Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics, pp. 1–14. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Jeffs, T. and Smith, M. (1990) “Using Informal Education,” in T. Jeffs and M. Smith (eds) Using InformalEducation: An Alternative to Casework, Teaching, and Control, pp. 1–24. Philadelphia: Open UniversityPress.

Johnson, C. C. (1996) “World-Wide Web Sites for the Dissemination of Science to the Public: A Classification intoThree Types,” Science Communication 18: 80–87.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. and Gurevitch, M. (1974) “Uses of Mass Communication by the Individual,” in W. P.Davidson and F. Yu (eds) Mass Communication Research: Major Issues and Future Directions, pp. 11–35.New York: Praeger.

Mariano, G. (2001) “MTV Brings Web Efforts Up-to-date” [online]. Available: http://news.com.com/2100–1023–254847.html

Marketing to kids, tweens & teens (2002). Advertising Age 73(4 February): S1–6Markus, H. and Nurius, P. (1986) “Possible Selves,” American Psychologist 41: 954–69.Markus, H. and Ruvolo, A. (1989) “Possible Selves: Personalized Representations of Goals,” in L. A. Pervin (ed.)

Goal Concepts in Personality and Social Psychology, pp. 211–41. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Mayer, R. E. (1992) “Teaching of Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics,” in D. F. Halpern (ed.)

Enhancing Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics, pp. 95–116 . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.McQuail, D. (1985) “Sociology of Mass Communication,” in R. H. Turner and J. F. Short (eds.) Annual Review of

Sociology, pp. 93–111. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews Inc.Media Metrix (2003) “Superior Methodology Delivers Unparalleled Insight” [online]. Available: http:/

/www.comscore.com/metrix/xpc.aspMitretek Systems (1999) “Criteria for Assessing the Quality of Health Information on the Internet” [online].

Available: http://hitiweb.mitretek.org/docs/policy.htmlNeff, J. (2001) “P&G Targets Teens via Tremor, Toejam Sites,” Advertising Age 72(5 March): 12.Netfrog (2002) “Netfrog: The Digital Dissection” [online]. Available: http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/go/frog/Palmgreen, P. and Rayburn, J. D. (1982) “Gratifications Sought and Media Exposure: An Expectancy Value

Model,” Communication Research 9: 561–80.Papacharissi, Z. and Rubin, A. (2000) “Predictors of Internet Use,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media

44: 175–96.Pappas, C. (2002) “How Wired Volunteers Track ‘Cool’ in America,” Advertising Age (May 20): 8.




Pastore, M. (2000) “Young Consumers Shy Away from E-commerce,” CyberAtlas [online]. Available: http://www.cyberatlas.Internet.com/big_picture/demographics/print/0,,5901_386591,00.html

Rubin, A. M. (1981) “An Examination of Television Viewing Motivations,” Communication Research 5:109–20.

Shimp, T. A. (2003) Advertising, Promotion, and Supplemental Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications.Mason, OH: Southwestern.

Tressel, G. (1988) “A Rationale,” in M. Druger (ed.) Science for the Fun of it: A Guide to Informal ScienceEducation, pp. 1–23. Washington: National Science Teachers Association.

Veronis Suhler Stevenson (2000) “Industry Segment Performance” [online]. Available: http://www.veronissuhler.com/filmed/segment.html

Wells, W. D., Burnett, J. and Moriarty, S. (2003) Advertising. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Yahoo! (2003) “Yahoo! and Carat Unveil Research Results Showing Teens are Truly ‘Born to Be Wired”’ [online].

Available: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030724/245198_1.html

Authors

Michael F. Weigold is an Associate Professor in the Department of Advertising, Universityof Florida. He teaches courses in persuasion and science policy and his research interestsinclude health and science communication. Address: 2018 Weimer Hall, Box 118400,College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL32611-8400, USA. Tel: (1) 352 392 8199. E-mail: [email protected]

Debbie Treise is a professor and Associate Dean of Graduate Studies in the College ofJournalism and Communications at the University of Florida. She teaches seminars inscience communication and doctoral qualitative methods. Her research centers on scienceand health communication. Address: 2012 Weimer Hall, College of Journalism andCommunications, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-8400, USA. Tel: (1) 353 3926557. E-mail: [email protected]




Documents

Attracting Teen Surfers to Science Web Sites