{"paper_id":"29c59ea3-66aa-4554-a5d3-d074d9088cd8","body_text":"The Impact of Research Process Presentations on Secondary School Student’s Perception of Scientific Credibility and Tentativeness | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Impact of Research Process Presentations on Secondary School Student’s Perception of Scientific Credibility and Tentativeness Julia Cathérine Thomas, Katharina Düsing, Vanessa van den Bogaert, and 10 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8213759/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Supporting students in understanding how scientific knowledge is developed, including its inherent uncertainty, is a key challenge in science education. The research presented here investigated how the formatting of scientific practices and the representation of a scientist’s thought processes influence secondary school student’s perceptions of the scientist’s credibility, the research’s credibility, and the tentativeness of findings. Scientific practices were presented either as cookbook style (research without rationale) or with scientific reasoning style (explaining why each step was taken). The scientist’s thought process was shown authentically ( science-in-the-making , with visible deliberations) or canonized ( ready-made science , settled steps). Two field studies using bat ecology videos were conducted. In Study 1 ( N = 148), students viewed one of four videos corresponding to the experimental conditions. No main effects were found, but perceived tentativeness negatively correlated with both researcher and findings credibility across all conditions. Study 2 ( N = 607) was a full-day school intervention with the same four videos in a constructive learning format. A main effect indicated that findings were perceived as more tentative when presented as science-in-the-making. Again, negative correlations between tentativeness and credibility were observed in all conditions. These results inform the design of educational media that realistically portray scientific inquiry and help students develop a nuanced view of science as dynamic and provisional. They also point to a potential trade-off: While authentic representations can foster epistemic insight, they may simultaneously lower perceived credibility. Tentativeness Research Process Credibility Science Communication Science Education Introduction A central challenge in science education is helping students grasp not only scientific content but also the epistemic processes through which scientific knowledge is constructed. Despite growing calls for authenticity in science instruction, classroom practices often fail to convey the provisional and contested nature of scientific inquiry. This disconnect contributes to a limited understanding of science as a dynamic and socially embedded enterprise. The research presented here responds to this educational problem by investigating how video-based representations of scientific reasoning and researcher deliberation can support students in developing a more nuanced view of science – one that includes both its credibility and its inherent tentativeness. Understanding and applying scientific methods is a fundamental goal in science education. However, learning about science involves more than acquiring factual knowledge; it requires an understanding of the nature and dynamics of scientific inquiry itself. Despite its centrality, this epistemic dimension is often underrepresented or simplified in classroom settings [ 1 , 2 ]. Two pedagogical approaches frequently employed to address this gap are inquiry-based learning (IBL) [ 3 ] and case-based learning (CBL) [ 4 ]. IBL engages students in generating questions, designing investigations, and analyzing data in ways that simulate aspects of authentic research [ 5 , 6 ]. CBL, in contrast, emphasizes historical or contemporary examples to highlight how scientific knowledge is developed in specific contexts [ 7 , 8 ]. Both approaches have demonstrated effectiveness in promoting scientific reasoning, yet each has notable limitations. IBL is often operationalized through structured, stepwise protocols that risk oversimplifying the complexity and contingency of real scientific practice [ 9 ]. Historical case studies, while rich in contextual detail, typically present science as a finalized product rather than a process in motion, reinforcing the image of science as authoritative and conclusive [ 10 ]. This contributes to what Latour and WooIgar [ 11 ] call the ‘black box’ of science, in which the actual processes of knowledge production remain opaque to learners. Recent research has emphasized the importance of explicit and reflective approaches to nature of science (NOS) instruction, which encourage learners to critically engage with the epistemic foundations of scientific knowledge [ 12 , 13 ]. Such approaches aim to make the reasoning behind scientific practices visible and accessible, rather than leaving them implicit or abstract. Video-based instruction has shown particular promise in this regard, especially when it is epistemically framed to highlight the processes of scientific inquiry and decision-making [ 14 ]. Our research builds on this work by examining how different portrayals of scientific reasoning and researcher deliberation affect students’ perceptions of credibility and tentativeness – two dimensions central to scientific literacy. To address these challenges, we developed an instructional design that integrates core features of both IBL and CBL. Central to this design is a series of professionally produced videos that document an ongoing ecological research project – from the formulation of research questions, through fieldwork and data analysis, to the publication of results. These videos present science-in-the-making [ 11 , 15 ], providing students with epistemic access to the provisional and iterative nature of scientific work. In this way, they align with the goals of CBL by contextualizing scientific reasoning in an authentic case, while also incorporating reflective tasks that invite learners to engage with the epistemic justifications for research decisions, an aspect central to IBL. In Study 2, these videos were extended with structured reflection and application tasks to foster active engagement with the research process. Although students did not design or conduct their own investigations, they were guided to reconstruct and critically evaluate key elements of the inquiry, thus approximating the epistemic practices of scientific reasoning. Such approaches are crucial for fostering scientific literacy, which includes not only conceptual understanding but also the ability to critically evaluate how scientific knowledge is generated and validated [ 16 , 17 ]. In a digitalized knowledge society, this must be extended to include digital literacy, that is, the capacity to access, interpret, and communicate scientific information across online platforms [ 18 , 19 ]. As scientific communication increasingly takes place in digital media, students must learn to navigate competing claims and evidence. Developing a nuanced understanding of science as a contested, evolving, and socially embedded enterprise is therefore essential [ 20 , 21 ]. Despite increasing emphasis on authenticity in science education, realistic portrayals of scientists and their work remain rare in formal instruction [ 22 ]. Yet, such representations are crucial not only for conveying how science actually works, but also for challenging persistent stereotypes about who does science and under what conditions. Video-based media offer significant potential to make epistemic practices visible, especially when they depict science-in-action rather than as a finalized body of facts [ 23 ]. However, it remains underexplored how such portrayals affect students’ perceptions of scientific credibility and tentativeness of research findings – two dimensions that are central to scientific literacy but often overlooked in instructional design. To address these questions, we conducted two empirical studies as part of an interdisciplinary research collaboration spanning biology, science education, psychology, and the learning sciences. Drawing on the educational video series described above, the studies investigated how distinct representations of scientists’ deliberations and scientific practices influence students’ understanding of scientific inquiry, particularly in terms of their perceptions of the scientist’s credibility, the credibility of the research findings, and the perceived tentativeness of those findings. By explicitly examining these relationships, our study contributes to the evidence base for designing educational media that foster epistemically informed engagement with science – while also highlighting potential tensions between authenticity and perceived credibility. While our study focuses on the effects of video-based representations, we acknowledge that student learning is not solely determined by instructional format. Prior research has shown that students’ pre-existing conceptions, epistemological beliefs, and prior experiences strongly mediate how they interpret and respond to educational materials [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. Our design does not assume a direct causal pathway from video format to perception but rather explores how specific communicative features may interact with students’ existing frameworks of understanding. The Nature of Science and Scientific Reasoning A deeper understanding of scientific inquiry requires more than familiarity with experimental procedures. It demands insight into the NOS, including the tentative status of scientific knowledge, the relationship between empirical observation and theoretical interpretation, and the tension between objectivity and subjectivity [ 27 , 28 ]. While NOS is sometimes reduced to a singular, linear ‘scientific method’, it is now widely acknowledged that scientific inquiry is multifaceted, context-dependent, and shaped by creativity, prior knowledge, and methodological diversity [ 26 , 30 ]. These nuances are especially relevant for educational interventions that seek to promote more realistic conceptions of science. Contemporary frameworks position NOS as a core element of scientific literacy, supporting both conceptual understanding and the capacity to engage critically with science in personal and societal contexts [ 31 ]. NOS also highlights that science is a tentative, creative, and socially embedded enterprise – features that are essential for fostering a more reflective and inclusive view of knowledge [ 32 ]. Empirical evidence suggests that explicit incorporation of NOS into instruction significantly enhances student’s understanding and application of scientific thinking [ 33 ]. Closely related to NOS is the concept of scientific reasoning. This is a cognitive construct that encompasses the ability to solve scientific problems and critically reflect on the reasoning processes involved [ 34 , 35 ]. It is often described through interrelated sub-competencies, including problem definition, hypotheses development, evidence evaluation, and the communication of findings [ 36 ]. These skills reflect the iterative and integrative nature of scientific work and underscore the value of instructional formats that authentically mirror research processes [ 37 ]. Effective scientific reasoning depends on the integration of content knowledge with procedural and epistemic understanding [ 38 ]. Kind and Osborne propose distinct styles of reasoning that encompass these dimensions, showing that tasks such as experimentation require not only technical proficiency but also an appreciation of the epistemic foundations of concepts like validity, reliability, and uncertainty [ 29 ]. In addition, students’ scientific reasoning competencies and epistemic beliefs not only shape their own inquiry processes but also influence how they evaluate externally presented research. When confronted with portrayals of scientific inquiry, learners apply their internal epistemic frameworks to assess the credibility of both the researcher and the findings, thereby linking NOS understanding and scientific reasoning directly to credibility judgments [ 25 , 26 ]. Challenges in Science Education and the Need for New Approaches While these principles of scientific literacy and reasoning offer a strong conceptual foundation, their implementation in classroom settings remains challenging. Constraints such as curricular standards, time limitations, and teacher preparedness often hinder efforts to integrate the NOS concept meaningfully into instruction. Erduran argues that NOS frameworks must remain sufficiently broad to accommodate developmental and pedagogical variability across educational contexts [ 39 ]. In practice, however, this necessary flexibility can result in under-specification, which in turn may dilute the conceptual richness of NOS and obscure its epistemic relevance. Students frequently struggle to understand and apply scientific concepts in authentic ways. Documented difficulties include the abstraction of theoretical models, the disconnect between textbook science and real-world relevance, and a lack of sustained engagement or motivation [ 40 , 41 ]. Recent findings from PISA 2022 further underscore these issues, revealing declining performance in science and growing educational inequalities tied to socio-economic and cultural backgrounds [ 38 ]. These developments highlight the urgent need for adaptive, inclusive, and conceptually coherent instructional approaches. At the same time, broad and generic representations of science risk oversimplifying its complex, discipline-specific practices, which may limit students’ understanding of the epistemic processes that underlie scientific claims. Drawing on situated learning theory [ 42 ], an alternative approach emphasizes that meaningful learning occurs through participation in authentic scientific practices. From this perspective, science education should not convey factual knowledge, but also foster an understanding of the social, procedural, and epistemic dynamics of knowledge construction. Importantly, these frameworks foreground the credibility of scientific reasoning, both in terms of the scientist as a knowledge source and the findings they produce. Transparent, methodological rigor, and openness about uncertainty are key criteria by which scientific claims are judged [ 43 ]. The provisional and tentative nature of scientific knowledge thus calls for educational designs that make these characteristics visible. Doing so not only enhances students’ epistemic insight but also enables more critical and reflective engagement with science. The Paradox of Scientific Progress and Uncertainty Traditionally, science has been portrayed as a problem-solving enterprise aimed at reducing uncertainty through controlled experimentation and precise measurement. This image of science as a generator of clear, objective knowledge remains prevalent in education and public discourse. However, modern science increasingly recognizes that uncertainty is not merely a limitation to be overcome, but a fundamental and unavoidable feature of knowledge production – particularly in complex, dynamic, and unpredictable systems [ 44 , 45 ]. In fields such as climate science, biomedicine, and psychology, uncertainty arises not only from data variability or measurement error, but also from incomplete theories, evolving models, and the influence of contextual and societal factors. These forms of uncertainty are often irreducible, challenging the ideal of science as a purely deterministic endeavor [ 44 ]. Historically, such uncertainty was often downplayed or masked to maintain scientific authority [ 46 ]. Today, however, scientific credibility increasingly depends on the transparent communication of uncertainty, acknowledging limitations, model assumptions, and the provisional nature of findings. This shift is not a weakness but reflects a deeper epistemic maturity, that is, recognizing that science progresses not by eliminating all doubt, but by critically engaging with it. For science education, this reframing of uncertainty holds profound implications. Students must learn to interpret scientific knowledge not as a collection of static facts, but as the outcome of reasoned judgment under uncertainty. Educational approaches that make the tentative and interpretive character of science visible can promote more accurate and critical conceptions of scientific inquiry, including how trust is built in science and how findings are evaluated in light of incomplete evidence. Understanding Uncertainty and Tentativeness in Scientific Inquiry Building on the recognition that uncertainty is an inherent feature of scientific knowledge, it is crucial to distinguish between epistemic uncertainty – a feature of the knowledge itself – and tentativeness , the way in which that knowledge is communicated and evaluated. In this context, uncertainty refers to situations where available information is incomplete, ambiguous, or open to multiple interpretations, thus affecting reasoning and decision-making [ 47 , 48 ]. Scientists deal with uncertainty not as a sign of failure, but as a stimulus for further inquiry, through strategies such as data triangulation, probabilistic reasoning, and adaptive judgement [ 49 , 50 ]. Especially in complex systems with incomplete evidence and evolving theories, acknowledging uncertainty is essential for methodological rigor and transparency [ 44 , 45 ]. Tentativeness , by contrast, refers to the communicative stance of researchers that reflects an awareness of the provisional nature of their claims [ 51 ]. While uncertainty describes the epistemic quality of a knowledge claim, tentativeness concerns how that claim is framed: whether it is cautiously expressed, explicitly qualified, or open to revision in light of new data. Scientific knowledge thus exists on a continuum from preliminary, exploratory findings to well-established results with high intersubjective reliability. Positioning a claim appropriately along this continuum is crucial for scientific credibility and for helping learners evaluate claims accurately. In science education, promoting tentativeness as a rhetorical and cognitive practice is key to fostering scientific literacy. Encouraging students to consider alternative interpretations, articulate limitations, and qualify their conclusions promotes intellectual humility and epistemic flexibility. Rather than signaling indecisiveness, tentativeness in science reflects a commitment to evidence-based reasoning and revision, making it a central feature of authentic scientific inquiry and communication. Theoretical Rationale and Hypotheses To examine how portrayals of scientific inquiry affect learners’ evaluations of science, we developed two key dimensions of video-based science communication that align with distinctions established in science studies and science education literature. These two dimensions reflect contrasting epistemological narratives: one that simplifies and stabilizes science for communicative efficiency, and one that seeks to represent the complexity, tentativeness, and socially embedded nature of real-world inquiry. We explicitly define these two dimensions as follows: Representation of the scientist’s thought process. Contrasting ready-made science , where decisions and conclusions appear finalized without visible deliberation, with science-in-the-making , where uncertainties, deliberations, and revisions are made visible. This distinction reflects Latour and Woolgar’s [ 11 ] concept of finalized knowledge versus epistemic deliberation. Representation of scientific practices. Contrasting a cookbook-style format, presenting sequential procedural steps without epistemic context, with scientific reasoning style , which make explicit the rationale, justification, and iterative nature of research decisions. This distinction follows Kind and Osborne’s [ 29 ] framework on styles of scientific reasoning. Prior research on epistemic framing and NOS instruction suggests that making reasoning and uncertainty visible can foster tentativeness awareness but may challenge credibility perceptions due to lay expectations of scientific certainty [ 14 , 51 ]. However, to our knowledge, no prior study has systematically manipulated the transparency of the research process in science communication. This represents a specific research gap that we address in the present study. Our hypotheses are therefore grounded in theoretical considerations about epistemic transparency and the nature of science, while explicitly acknowledging the limited direct empirical precedent. These dimensions are likely to influence different facets of credibility. Perceptions of the researcher’s credibility may be shaped by visible uncertainty and deliberation, which can be interpreted either as openness and intellectual honesty or as lack of competence. In contrast, perceptions of the findings’ credibility depend more directly on whether procedures are presented as systematically justified rather than unelaborated steps. Based on these considerations, we formulated the following hypotheses: H1: Presenting the scientist’s thought process in a ready-made science mode will lead to higher perceived credibility of the scientist than presenting it in a science-in-the-making mode. H2: Presenting the scientist’s thought process in a science-in-the-making mode will lead to higher perceived credibility of the research findings than a ready-made science mode. H3: Presenting scientific practices with explanatory narration (scientific reasoning style) will lead to higher perceived credibility of the research findings than a cookbook-style presentation. H4: Presenting scientific practices with explanatory narration will lead to higher perceived tentativeness of the research findings than a cookbook-style presentation. To test these hypotheses, we conducted two experimental studies with secondary school students. Each study used custom-designed educational videos based on authentic fieldwork in bat ecology. The videos varied systematically along two dimensions: (1) whether or not the scientific practices were explicitly explained ( cookbook-style vs. scientific reasoning style ), and (2) whether the scientist’s thought process was presented in a ready-made science or science-in-the-making mode. In addition to the hypothesized main effects, we explored possible interaction effects between these two forms of science communication on students’ perceptions of scientific credibility and tentativeness. Moreover, we examined potential intercorrelations among the dependent variables, both across the experimental conditions as well as within each of these conditions. Method Design We conducted two school-based experiments using a 2 x 2 between-groups design, manipulating two independent variables: Scientist’s thought processes : Whether the scientist’s reasoning was presented as science-in-the-making (with visible deliberations and uncertainty) or as ready-made science (finalized decisions without visible reasoning). Scientific practices : Whether the research steps were explained through scientific reasoning style (with epistemic justification and explicitly narration) or presented in a cookbook-style format (procedural steps only with implicit narration). This design resulted in four distinct video conditions, each combining one level of each factor. Both studies employed the same four video conditions and identical measurement instruments but differed in instructional format. An overview of the four experimental conditions is provided in Table 1 . To clarify the operationalization of our two factors, we emphasize that the “scientist’s thought process” manipulation varied the visibility of epistemic deliberation: in the science-in-the-making condition, the scientist verbalized uncertainties and decision-making processes; in the ready-made science condition, decisions were presented as finalized. The “scientific practices” manipulation varied the depth of epistemic explanation: in the reasoning styles condition, each research step was justified; in the cookbook-style condition, steps were presented without rationale. These distinctions were reflected in the video scripts and systematically controlled across conditions. Table 1 Overview of Experimental Conditions Condition Scientist’s Thought Processes Scientific Practice Example Sentences from Video Script Condition 1 Science-in-the-making Scientific reasoning style “Formulating a hypothesis is always an important step, because it permeates the research process like a ‘common thread’. It influences the planning and execution of the study.” Condition 2 Science-in-the-making Cookbook-style “Of course, there is always a trade-off between what you would like to achieve, what data you would like to generate and what is possible.” Condition 3 Ready-made science Scientific reasoning style “Formulating a hypothesis is important because it influences the planning and execution of the study.” Condition 4 Ready-made science Cookbook-style “Daniel opts for loggers that measure temperature and air pressure. GPS loggers are too heavy for the small bats.” Material All four videos portrayed the same core scientific content: a field-based bat ecology research project conducted in Thailand, investigating the flight altitude of two bat species using miniaturized transmitters. The same scientist appeared in all videos; the variations arose solely from how the research process and the scientist’s thought processes were presented. Video development followed a systematic design framework that integrated insights from science education, philosophy of science, and multimedia learning. The framework structured educational videos across three levels: (1) a macro level that defined chapter structure based on scientific reasoning skills and NOS categories, (2) a meso level capturing authentic scientific research processes, and (3) a micro level which included specific variations in how scientific practices (‘ cookbook-style ’ vs. ‘ scientific reasoning style ’) and the scientist’s thought processes (‘ ready-made science ’ vs. ‘ science-in-the-making ’) were communicated. In our experimental setup, the micro-level dimensions were systematically manipulated: Videos in the scientific reasoning styles condition included explanations for procedural and epistemic choices (the how and why ) across eight phases of research. Videos in the cookbook-style condition presented only the procedural steps ( what ), omitting justifications. Videos in the science-in-the-making condition depicted the scientist verbalizing decision-making processes and expressing uncertainties. Videos in the ready-made science condition presented outcomes as finalized, with minimal insight into cognitive processes. Procedure In Study 1, the intervention consisted of a video-only format without accompanying tasks. It was implemented as a single 90-minute session during regular school hours. This time frame was chosen to ensure sufficient room for technical preparation and implementation, including access to iPads, individual headphones for each student, and a stable internet connection. Students watched one of four video versions (18–23 minutes in length, depending on condition) on digital classroom devices under standardized conditions. The videos were streamed via the research project’s homepage, which subsequently also provided direct access to the post-video questionnaire. The remaining time of the session allowed for debriefing about the study as well as for students to raise questions regarding the video or the research project in general. No additional tasks or follow-up discussions were included in Study 1. A trained member of the research team moderated each session to ensure procedural fidelity across classrooms. The intervention was designed to isolate the effects of the video content itself, without additional instructional scaffolding or reflection. In Study 2, the intervention extended the video format by embedding it in a full-day instructional sequence (approximately six hours), conducted at two research institutions in Germany. Students worked in dyads or small groups within a digital learning environment that guided them through structured phases of scientific inquiry: (1) formulating research questions and hypotheses, (2) planning and conducting investigations, (3) analyzing and interpreting data. The approach was the same as in Study 1. The videos (18–23 minutes, depending on condition) were paused and discussed thematically, serving as contextual and cognitive prompts to support epistemic reflection and collaborative reasoning. In addition, students engaged in epistemic scaffolding activities, which are instructional supports designed to guide learners in understanding and reflection on the reasoning behind scientific decisions. In Study 2, these activities included evaluating the clarity and testability of sample hypotheses, transforming informal questions into investigable ones, and documenting their inquiry steps. Although not all students submitted individual responses due to shared devices, all participated actively in the instructional sequence. Researchers at both locations facilitated the sessions to ensure consistency of implementation. Immediately following the intervention, all students completed an online posttest assessing three outcome variables: (1) the perceived credibility of the scientist, (2) the perceived credibility of the research findings, and (3) the perceived tentativeness of the findings. These dependent measures reflect core constructs derived from the study’s theoretical framework and were used consistently across both studies. Study 1 Participants The final sample consisted of 148 students from Grades 10 to 12, recruited from eight classes across five secondary schools in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. Participants were between 13 and 20 years old ( M = 16.33, SD = 1.11). The gender distribution was as follows: 92 female, 42 male, 2 non-binary; 12 participants did not report their gender. Measures All dependent measures were assessed using multi-item semantic differential scales. Instruments were adapted from validated tools in science communication research and aligned with the study’s theoretical framework. Specifically, items were based on Flemming et al. [ 51 ], Kimmerle et al. [ 52 ], and the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) [ 53 ]. The complete item sets are provided in Appendices A and B. To ensure applicability to audiovisual materials, all items were rephrased in reference to the video stimulus. Students responded on five-point semantic differential scales, with higher scores indicating stronger expression of the respective construct. Example anchor descriptors included unreliable–reliable , unconvincing–convincing , and implausible–plausible . Credibility of the Scientist This construct was measured using a 9-item scale adapted from the METI. A sample item was: “The scientist in the video seemed …” [incompetent – competent] . The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach’s α = .90). Credibility of the Research Findings This construct was assessed with three items targeting the perceived reliability and trustworthiness of the results presented in the video. A sample item was: “The research results presented in the video seemed …” [unconvincing – convincing] . The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s α = .74). Perceived Tentativeness of the Research Findings This scale consisted of three items evaluating whether the findings were seen as provisional, uncertain, or open to revision. A sample item was: “The conclusions of the research seemed …” [definitive – tentative] . The internal consistency was low (Cronbach’s α = .51), but within acceptable bounds for exploratory research [ 54 , 55 ]. To ensure methodological transparency and reduce researcher degrees of freedom, the complete study protocol (including hypotheses, experimental conditions, and analysis plans) was preregistered on AsPredicted ( https://aspredicted.org/szzh-xq23.pdf ). Results Descriptive Statistics Means and standard deviations for the three dependent variables across the four experimental conditions are summarized in Table 2 . Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for All Dependent Variables Across Experimental Conditions (Study 1) Thought Process Scientific Practice Scientist Credibility ( M / SD ) Findings Credibility ( M / SD ) Tentativeness ( M / SD ) Science-in-the-making Cookbook-style 4.20 / 0.62 3.95 / 0.62 3.53 / 0.70 Science-in-the-making Scientific reasoning style 4.11 / 0.77 4.19 / 0.65 3.47 / 0.67 Ready-made science Cookbook-style 4.11 / 0.71 4.20 / 0.68 3.59 / 0.66 Ready-made science Scientific reasoning style 4.23 / 0.46 4.23 / 0.64 3.71 / 0.64 Main Analyses To test the effects of the experimental manipulations, a series of two-way between-groups analyses of variance (ANOVAs) (2 x 2 design) were conducted for each dependent variable. The factors included the scientist’s thought processes ( science-in-the-making vs. ready-made science ), and the explanatory style of the scientific practices ( scientific reasoning style vs. cookbook-style ). Across all three dependent variables – perceived credibility of the scientist, perceived credibility of the research findings, and perceived tentativeness – no significant main effects or interaction effects were found, all Fs(1, 99) < 1.3, n.s. These null findings suggest that, in the given instructional context, the variations in reasoning and explanatory style did not substantially influence students' evaluations of the scientist or the scientific content. Exploratory Analyses To further explore relationships among the dependent variables, Kendall’s tau-b (τb) correlations were computed. As shown in Table 3 , perceived tentativeness of research findings was negatively correlated with both the credibility of the scientist and the credibility of the research findings. In contrast, the two credibility measures showed a positive correlation. In Table 4 , the intercorrelations between the dependent variables are presented separately for each experimental group, revealing consistent patterns across conditions. Table 3 Kendall’s Tau-b Correlations Among Key Dependent Variables (Study 1) Variable 1 2 3 1. Perceived Tentativeness - 2. Credibility of the Scientist − .32*** - 3. Credibility of Research Findings − .48*** .43*** - Note. *** p < .001 Table 4 Kendall’s Tau-b Intercorrelations Among Key Dependent Variables (Study 1) Group Correlation: Perceived Tentativeness / Credibility of the Scientist Correlation: Perceived Tentativeness / Credibility of the Findings Correlation: Credibility of the Scientist / Credibility of the Findings Science-in-the-making / Cookbook-style − .28*** − .46*** .32*** Ready-made science / Cookbook-style − .46*** − .50*** .55*** Science-in-the-making / Scientific reasoning style − .32*** − .43*** .47*** Ready-made science / Scientific reasoning style − .33*** − .59*** .48*** Note. *** p < .001 Discussion Study 1 examined whether two communicative design features of science videos—scientific thought processes ( science-in-the-making vs. ready-made science ) and scientific practices ( scientific reasoning style vs. cookbook-style ) – would influence students’ perceptions of the scientist and the research presented. Contrary to our hypotheses, the experimental manipulations produced no significant main or interaction effects on any of the three outcome variables: perceived credibility of the scientist, perceived credibility of the research findings, and perceived tentativeness. These null findings suggest that passively viewing variations in explanatory depth and epistemic transparency was not sufficient to alter students’ perceptions in a statistically detectable way. The absence of significant effects in Study 1 may reflect the limitations of passive video formats without opportunities for epistemic engagement. Unlike typical science communication studies that use short texts or simplified stimuli, our videos portrayed complex scientific reasoning and epistemic deliberation. Interpreting such features may require more scaffolding, especially for younger learners. Moreover, Study 1 deliberately avoided instructional framing to isolate video effects, which may have limited students’ ability to engage with the epistemic content. Prior research suggests that learners often require scaffolding to interpret uncertainty as a marker of scientific rigor rather than weakness [ 51 ]. The consistent negative correlation between tentativeness and credibility across conditions indicates that students may hold epistemic beliefs equating certainty with trustworthiness. These findings underscore the need for instructional designs that explicitly address the epistemic function of tentativeness. Exploratory correlation analyses revealed a systematic interrelation among the dependent variables. Specifically: Higher perceived tentativeness of the findings was negatively associated with both the credibility of the scientist and the credibility of the findings. In contrast, scientist credibility and research credibility were positively associated. These patterns indicate that students appear to apply an integrated evaluation framework: They assess the messenger (the scientist) and the message (the findings) as mutually reinforcing sources of credibility. When scientific knowledge is perceived as tentative, it may be judged as less trustworthy, perhaps reflecting common lay expectations of science as authoritative and definitive [ 51 , 56 ]. This finding raises important questions for science education. While epistemic tentativeness is a hallmark of scientific reasoning, learners may interpret such tentativeness as a signal of weakness rather than of intellectual integrity. Thus, efforts to promote epistemic understanding must also attend to students’ trust frameworks and their expectations regarding scientific certainty. The null effects observed in Study 1 also suggest possible limitations of purely observational formats. Without opportunities for active engagement or guided reflection, students may default to surface-level impressions, especially in short, classroom-based interventions. This aligns with prior critiques of passive video learning formats, which often fail to elicit deeper epistemic processing [ 2 , 9 ]. To address these limitations, Study 2 introduces a revised instructional format that integrates the same videos into a participatory learning environment, including structured reflection and application tasks. This design aligns more closely with core principles of IBL and aims to foster active epistemic engagement. In addition, the larger sample size in Study 2 enhances statistical power, enabling more robust testing of the hypothesized effects. Together, these changes aim to explore whether and how more immersive and reflective learning designs can influence students’ perceptions of scientific credibility and the tentative nature of knowledge production. Study 2 Study 2 was designed as a conceptual replication and extension of Study 1. While Study 1 tested the effects of video-based portrayals in a minimal instructional setting, Study 2 introduced a scaffolded, interactive learning environment to examine whether deeper engagement would influence students’ epistemic evaluations. This two-study approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of how instructional context shapes the impact of science communication formats. Participants The second sample consisted of 607 students from Grades 10 and 11, drawn from 41 school classes in two German federal states. Participants ranged in age from 13 to 20 years ( M = 16.49, SD = 1.13). Of the total sample, 324 students identified as female, 231 as male, and 13 as non-binary; 39 students did not report their gender, and gender information was missing for 12 students. Measures As in Study 1, all dependent variables were assessed using multi-item semantic differential scales (5-point format), with higher values indicating stronger endorsement of the respective construct. All item sets are provided in Appendices A and B. Credibility of the Scientist Assessed using a 9-item version of the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) [ 53 ]. A sample item reads: “The scientist in the video appeared …” ( incompetent – competent ). Internal consistency was excellent ( α = .90). Credibility of the Research Findings Measured with three items evaluating the plausibility and reliability of the presented results (e.g., unconvincing – convincing ). Internal consistency was acceptable ( α = .77). Perceived Tentativeness of the Findings Assessed using three items addressing the perceived provisionality of the conclusions (e.g., final – tentative ). Internal consistency was relatively low ( α = .54), but comparable to Study 1 and acceptable for exploratory research [ 54 , 55 ]. Results Descriptive Statistics Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations for all dependent variables across the four experimental conditions. Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations for All Dependent Variables Across Experimental Conditions (Study 2) Thought Process Scientific Practice Scientist Credibility ( M / SD ) Findings Credibility ( M / SD ) Tentativeness ( M / SD ) Science-in-the-making Cookbook-style 4.31 / 0.55 4.19 / 0.64 2.30 / 0.56 Science-in-the-making Scientific reasoning style 4.27 / 0.60 4.24 / 0.62 2.32 / 0.58 Ready-made science Cookbook-style 4.36 / 0.59 4.28 / 0.65 2.16 / 0.63 Ready-made science Scientific reasoning style 4.28 / 0.70 4.16 / 0.79 2.22 / 0.70 Main Analyses To examine the effects of the scientific thought processes ( science-in-the-making vs. ready-made science ) and the scientific practices ( scientific reasoning styles vs. cookbook-style ) on students’ perceptions, a series of two-way between-subjects ANOVAs was conducted for each dependent variable. Credibility of the Scientist No significant main effects or interaction were found, all Fs(1, 603) < 1.7, n.s . The visibility of the scientist’s reasoning or the inclusion of explanatory narration did not significantly alter how credible the scientist was perceived to be. Credibility of Research Findings Similarly, the perceived credibility of the research findings remained unaffected across conditions, all Fs(1, 603) < 2.5, n.s. Students’ credibility perceptions of the research findings were not significantly influenced by the scientist’s thought processes or the mode of scientific practices. Perceived Tentativeness of Research Findings A significant main effect emerged for the mode of presenting the scientist’s thought processes, F (1, 603) = 5.65, p = .018, η² = .009. Students exposed to the science-in-the-making condition perceived the findings as more tentative ( M = 2.31, SE = 0.05) than those in the ready-made science condition ( M = 2.19, SE = 0.05), with a Bonferroni-adjusted p = .018. Although this effect was not part of our preregistered hypotheses, it provides exploratory insight into how epistemic transparency may influence students’ perception of the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. This finding supports the idea that explicitly communicating the scientist’s reasoning – including moments of uncertainty – helps students recognize the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. There was neither a significant main effect for the scientific practices, F (1, 603) = 0.70, p = .403, nor an interaction effect, F (1, 603) = 0.10, p = .758. Pairwise post-hoc comparisons between all interaction conditions confirmed this pattern ( all p_adj > .14). Exploratory Analyses To explore the relationships between the key dependent variables, Kendall’s tau-b (τb) correlations were calculated. As shown in Table 6 , perceived tentativeness of the research findings was negatively correlated with both the credibility of the scientist and the credibility of the research findings. Conversely, a positive correlation was observed between the credibility of the scientist and that of the research findings. These correlations were further examined separately by condition in Table 7 , revealing consistent patterns across groups, with negative associations between perceived tentativeness and both credibility measures, and a positive association between the two credibility measures. Table 6 Kendall’s Tau-b Correlations Among Key Dependent Variables (Study 2) Variable 1 2 3 1. Perceived Tentativeness - 2. Credibility of the Scientist − .33*** - 3. Credibility of Research Findings − .46*** .47*** - Note. *** p < .001 Table 7 Kendall’s Tau-b Intercorrelations Among Key Dependent Variables (Study 2) Group Correlation: Perceived Tentativeness / Credibility of the Scientist Correlation: Perceived Tentativeness / Credibility of the Findings Correlation: Credibility of the Scientist / Credibility of the Findings Science-in-the-making / Cookbook-style − .26*** − .37*** .48*** Ready-made science / Cookbook-style − .36*** − .45*** .48*** Science-in-the-making / Scientific reasoning stye − .29*** − .48*** .43*** Ready-made science / Scientific reasoning style − .43*** − .56*** .51*** Note. *** p < .001 Discussion Study 2 replicated and extended the findings of Study 1 by implementing a larger sample and a scaffolded interactive instructional format. Consistent with Study 1, no significant effects were found for the mode of presenting scientific thought processes ( science-in-the-making vs. ready-made science ) or the style of scientific practices ( scientific reasoning styles vs. cookbook-style ) on students’ perceptions of the credibility of the scientist or the credibility of the research findings. A central difference, however, emerged in students’ perceptions of the tentativeness of scientific findings. In Study 2, a significant main effect was found for the mode of presenting scientific thought processes: Participants exposed to science-in-the-making rated the findings as more tentative than those who viewed a ready-made science portrayal. This suggests that when students are given insight into the scientist’s reasoning – including expressions of uncertainty and contextual justification – they are more likely to recognize the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. As this effect was not part of our preregistered hypotheses, it should be interpreted as exploratory. Nonetheless, it provides valuable insight into how epistemic transparency may foster students’ awareness of scientific tentativeness. This effect was not observed in Study 1, which lacked the reflective and interactive components implemented in Study 2. The structured learning environment in Study 2, including opportunities for discussion, epistemic prompts, and scaffolded reflection, may have allowed students to engage more deeply with the epistemic features of the material. These results underscore the importance of instructional context in supporting students’ epistemic sensitivity, that is, the ability to notice, interpret, and respond to indicators of how knowledge is constructed, justified, and revised. Interestingly, overall ratings of perceived tentativeness were lower in Study 2 than in Study 1, despite the more elaborate instructional design. This may reflect procedural differences: the full-day format with collaborative tasks and structured guidance may have encouraged students to focus on coherence and resolution rather than on epistemic ambiguity. Future research should examine how instructional pacing and task framing influence students’ sensitivity to scientific tentativeness. Importantly, the inclusion of science-in-the-making thought processes did not reduce the perceived credibility of the scientist or the research findings. This replicates the null effects found in Study 1 and suggests that making uncertainty and reasoning visible does not inherently undermine trust, especially when embedded in a learning environment that supports reflection and critical thinking. One possible explanation is that our manipulations focused on epistemic features of the communication rather than on personal characteristics of the scientist. Since the scientist's demeanour, tone, and role remained constant across all conditions, students may have formed credibility judgments based on these stable cues rather than on the structure of the scientific narrative. Overall, these findings highlight the potential of using science-in-the-making portrayals to foster a more nuanced understanding of the tentative and evolving nature of scientific knowledge. Making scientific thought processes visible may support epistemic growth, enabling students to critically engage with how knowledge is constructed, evaluated, and communicated. General Discussion This research investigated how video-based educational tools that authentically depict scientific inquiry can influence students’ understanding of the NOS. Rather than merely conveying scientific facts, the videos aimed to make visible how knowledge is generated, interpreted, and revised over time. The focus lay on two core dimensions of science communication: the presentation of scientific thought processes ( science-in-the-making vs. ready-made science ) and the depiction of scientific practices ( scientific reasoning styles vs. cookbook-style ). Across two school-based field experiments, we examined how these variations influenced students’ perceptions of the credibility and tentativeness of scientific findings. Across both studies, no significant effects emerged for credibility perceptions, neither for the scientist nor for the research findings, which suggests that credibility judgments may be relatively robust against variations in epistemic framing. However, in Study 2, participants rated findings as significantly more tentative when the scientist’s thought processes were presented in a science-in-the-making style. This exploratory effect indicates that the visibility of uncertainty and epistemic deliberation – when embedded in a structured, reflective learning context – can enhance students’ awareness of the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. Importantly, this finding underscores a key educational tension: While tentativeness is a hallmark of scientific rigor, learners often interpret it through everyday trust heuristics, potentially conflating uncertainty with unreliability. Notably, the experimental manipulations did not alter any personal characteristics of the scientist but focused exclusively on making epistemic reasoning more or less visible. This may help explain the absence of credibility effects: Students likely relied on comparatively stable cues, such as the scientist’s demeanor and professionalism, rather than on the narrative structure itself. Future research should investigate whether credibility judgments shift when uncertainty is communicated in contexts with higher societal stakes (e.g., climate science, health communication), where trust dynamics may play a more prominent role. Theoretical Implications The significant correlation patterns observed in both studies revealed a consistent epistemic logic: Perceived tentativeness was negatively associated with credibility, while judgments about the scientist and their findings were positively aligned. This finding mirrors previous results in science education and communication research, where tentativeness is often misunderstood as a lack of knowledge or confidence rather than a marker of epistemic caution and methodological rigor [ 51 , 56 ]. Students frequently hold epistemic beliefs that equate scientific validity with certainty, a misconception long identified in educational research [ 57 , 58 ]. At the same time, the observed alignment between judgments of the scientist’s credibility and the credibility of their findings – although conceptually distinct – highlights a critical nuance. As Mason et al. [ 59 ] argue, audiences form credibility judgments by evaluating both source trustworthiness and message plausibility, which interact in subtle ways. This suggests that educational interventions should systematically support learners in evaluating not only what is being said, but also who is saying it – and why. Interestingly, students appeared more likely to recognize the tentative nature of scientific findings when science-in-the-making portrayals were accompanied by explanatory narration, although no significant interaction effect was found. This pattern should be interpreted with caution and considered exploratory. This reinforces earlier findings that uncertainty is best understood when embedded in a coherent epistemic context [ 52 ]. If such context is lacking, expressions of uncertainty may be perceived as incompetence rather than insight. Thus, narrative coherence and epistemic scaffolding are crucial for supporting productive interpretations of scientific tentativeness. Limitations and Future Research Several limitations warrant careful consideration. First, the internal consistency of the tentativeness scale was modest in both studies, likely due to the limited item pool and conceptual breadth of tentativeness as a construct. Although acceptable for exploratory research [ 54 , 55 ], this lowers confidence in fine-grained interpretations and highlights the need for more robust, multidimensional instruments that capture facets such as epistemic caution, openness to revision, and degrees of evidential certainty. Future research should expand and validate item pools and consider complementary qualitative or mixed-methods approaches to better understand how students perceive and express tentativeness in authentic learning contexts. Second, the correlational findings – while theoretically coherent and replicated across both studies – do not permit causal inference. Although the experimental manipulations isolated different modes of presenting scientific thought processes, the associations between perceived tentativeness and credibility may still reflect unmeasured confounds, such as students’ pre-existing epistemic beliefs, domain knowledge, or trust dispositions. To more rigorously disentangle these relationships, future experiments should directly manipulate uncertainty expressions or trust cues and examine their causal impact on credibility judgements and epistemic outcomes. Third, the interventions were implemented in school settings and centered around a specific ecological research case. While this design enhances ecological validity, it also constrains generalizability. It remains unclear whether similar effects would emerge for science topics that carry higher emotional or societal relevance (e.g., climate science, public health), where trust dynamics and identity-related factors may shape how uncertainty is interpreted. Future research should extend this work to diverse scientific contexts and examine how issue salience, perceived stakes, and media framing interact with instructional representations of scientific reasoning. Fourth, we did not assess students’ prior knowledge regarding bats or their familiarity with ecological research practices. Although the videos were designed to be self-contained, individual differences in background knowledge may have influenced how students interpreted the research process and evaluated its credibility. Incorporating targeted pre-assessments would allow future studies to account for such heterogeneity and clarify how domain knowledge moderates learning outcomes. Fifth, the exclusive reliance on quantitative survey data constrained our ability to capture deeper insights into students’ reasoning processes. Without qualitative data – such as interviews, open-ended reflections, classroom observations, or think-aloud protocols – it remains unclear how students actually engaged with epistemic uncertainty to facilitate methodological triangulation and to illuminate the mechanisms through which students make sense of scientific reasoning. Sixth, we did not measure students’ prior NOS conceptions or their epistemological beliefs. These factors likely shaped how learners interpreted the instructional materials and responded to the survey items. Without accounting for such individual epistemic profiles, the explanatory power of our findings is limited. Future studies should administer epistemological pre-assessments or incorporate qualitative measures to examine how existing belief systems influence engagement with representations of scientific inquiry. Despite these limitations, the study offers important strengths. Implementing two studies across contrasting instructional formats (minimal vs. scaffolded) enhances ecological validity and provides comparative insight into student engagement. Moreover, the use of theory-informed video materials grounded in authentic scientific practice represents a novel attempt to bridge science communication and education. These design features position the present research as a valuable foundation for building instructional interventions that reconcile scientific credibility with epistemic tentativeness – a tension central to fostering scientific literacy in contemporary classrooms. Implications for Science Education The findings offer several important implications for science education. First, our results suggest that students may be capable of recognizing the tentative nature of scientific knowledge, particularly when scientific thought processes are presented in a science-in-the-making mode. However, this interpretation should be treated with caution, as the analyses were exploratory and the internal consistency of the tentativeness scale was modest. When the reasoning behind scientific decisions is made visible and explicitly explained, learners appear more attuned to the provisional, interpretive, and evolving nature of scientific inquiry. This underscores the value of epistemic transparency and the role of instructional design in fostering epistemic awareness. Educators should therefore not only emphasize what was done in a scientific study, but also why it was done and how methodological decisions were justified. Interestingly, the overall level of perceived tentativeness was lower in Study 2 than in Study 1, despite the more elaborate instructional design. This may reflect procedural differences: Study 2 involved collaborative tasks and structured guidance, which may have shifted students’ focus toward coherence and resolution rather than epistemic ambiguity. Alternatively, the extended format may have led to cognitive fatigue or reduced sensitivity to uncertainty cues. These possibilities warrant further investigation. Second, although portrayals of science-in-the-making did not reduce credibility in this study, several contextual factors may limit the generalizability of these findings. Students’ interpretation of uncertainty depends on their prior beliefs about science, their level of trust in institutional knowledge, and the societal or personal salience of the topic. Science education should therefore explicitly address the epistemic function of tentativeness – not as a deficit, but as a hallmark of scientific rigor. This may involve comparing different modes of communicating uncertainty and reflecting on how these modes relate to norms of scientific reasoning and discourse. Third, the conceptual distinction between scientific thought processes and scientific practices appears to be useful in both theory and application. Our findings suggest that simply illustrating procedural steps (as is typical of cookbook-style instructions) may not suffice to alter students’ perceptions of science. Instead, it is the epistemic framing of these steps (consistent with scientific reasoning styles ) that enables students to engage with scientific inquiry as a reasoned, reflective, and evidence-based process. Instructional tools should therefore integrate representations of science-in-the-making with clear rationales behind research actions to encourage students’ critical engagement with the logic of inquiry. Finally, our results reinforce the need to distinguish between credibility of the source (the scientist) and credibility of the content (the research findings). Although the two were positively correlated, they remain analytically distinct and may respond differently to instructional manipulations. Building on findings by Mason et al. [ 59 ], future research and instructional design should pay closer attention to how learners form these judgments and how they interact with developing epistemic beliefs. Conclusion Building on these implications for science education, the findings from both studies highlight a key interpretive tension: Students must navigate science as both credible and tentative. Educational portrayals that emphasize science-in-the-making can support learners in viewing science not as a body of static facts, but as a dynamic, evolving, and interpretive process of knowledge construction. However, these portrayals may challenge learners’ expectations of scientific certainty and therefore require careful scaffolding. To advance scientific literacy, education must support learners in reconciling scientific credibility with revisability. Scientific knowledge is not weakened by its tentativeness; rather, it is strengthened by transparency, methodological rigor, and its capacity for self-correction. Helping students understand this requires not only showing what scientists do but also making visible how and why they do it. Declarations Funding Statement: This work was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Grant number: [01IO2104C]. Conflict of Interest: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Ethics Statement: The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Science at Ruhr University Bochum (Approval No. EPE-2023–025). All procedures were conducted in accordance with institutional guidelines and the ethical standards of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie e.V. and the Berufsverband Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants and their legal guardians. Consent to Participate: All participating students and their legal guardians provided written informed consent prior to participation, in accordance with institutional and ethical guidelines. Consent to Publish: Participants and their legal guardians (if underage) provided consent for the publication of anonymized data and study results. Data Availability Statement: The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Clinical Trial Number: Not applicable. Authors’ Contributions: JCT: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Acquisition and Curation, Project Administration, Investigation, Resources, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft KD: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing VB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing HG: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing TB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing AS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing MB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing DL: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing CV: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing UH: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing JW: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing UC: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing JK: Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing - review & editing Corresponding Author: Julia Cathérine Thomas – [email protected] Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the VideT-Team for their valuable support and feedback throughout this project. References Duschl R. Science Education in Three-Part Harmony: Balancing Conceptual, Epistemic, and Social Learning Goals. Rev Res Educ. 2008;32:268–91. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20185118 . Osborne J, Collins S, Ratcliffe M, Millar R, Duschl R. What ideas-about-science should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. J Res Sci Teach. 2003;40(7):692–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105 . Friesen S, Scott D. (2013, June). Inquiry-based learning literature review. Retrieved from https://galileo.org/focus-on-inquiry-lit-review.pdf McLean S. Case-based learning and its application in medical and health-care fields: A review of worldwide literature. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2016;3:39–49. https://doi.org/10.4137/JMECD.S20377 . Bell RL, Smetana L, Binns I. Simplifying Inquiry Instruction: Assessing the Inquiry Level of Classroom Activities. Sci Teacher. 2005;72(7):30. Zion M, Mendelovici R. Moving from Structured to Open Inquiry: Challenges and Limits. Sci Educ Int. 2012;23(4):383–99. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1001631 . Allchin D, Andersen HM, Nielsen K. Complementary Approaches to Teaching Nature of Science: Integrating Student Inquiry, Historical Cases, and Contemporary Cases in Classroom Practice. Sci Educ. 2014;98(3):461–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21111 . Yadav A, Shaver GM, Meckl P. Lessons Learned: Implementing the Case Teaching Method in a Mechanical Engineering Course. J Eng Educ. 2010;99(1):55–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01042.x . Chinn CA, Malhotra BA. Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Sci Educ. 2002;86(2):175–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001 . Heering P. Douglas Allchin: Teaching the Nature of Science: Perspectives and Resources. Sci Educ. 2015;24(4):477–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9706-x . Latour B, WooIgar S. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press; 1986. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt32bbxc . Khishfe R, Abd-El-Khalick F. Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach. 2002;39(7):551–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10036 . Erduran S, Dagher ZR. Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Springer. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4 . Erduran S, Ioannidou O, Baird JA. The impact of epistemic framing of teaching videos and summative assessments on students’ learning of scientific methods. Int J Sci Educ. 2021;43(18):2885–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1998717 . Knorr-Cetina K. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press; 1999. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvxw3q7f . Lederman NG, Abell SK, editors. (2014). Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267 Norris SP, Phillips LM. How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Sci Educ. 2003;87(2):224–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066 . Jenkins H, Purushotma R, Weigel M, Clinton K, Robison AJ. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. The MIT Press; 2009. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8435.001.0001 . Siddiq F, Gochyyev P, Wilson M. Learning in Digital Networks – ICT literacy: A novel assessment of students’ 21st century skills. Comput Educ. 2017;109:11–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.014 . Feinstein NW, Waddington DI. Individual truth judgments or purposeful, collective sensemaking? Rethinking science education’s response to the post-truth era. Educational Psychol. 2020;55(3):155–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1780130 . McGrew S, Ortega T, Breakstone J, Wineburg S. The Challenge That’s Bigger than Fake News: Civic Reasoning in a Social Media Environment. Am Educ. 2017;41(3):4. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1156387 . Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B. Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy Cult Soc. 2013;21(1):171–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2012.748676 . Evagorou M, Erduran S, Mäntylä T. The role of visual representations in scientific practices: From conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to ‘seeing’ how science works. Int J STEM Educ. 2015;2(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0024-x . Schiefer J, Edelsbrunner PA, Bernholt A, Kampa N, Nehring A. Epistemic beliefs in science—A systematic integration of evidence from multiple studies. Educational Psychol Rev. 2022;34:1541–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09661-w . Kampa N, Neumann I, Heitmann P, Kremer K. Epistemological beliefs in science—a person-centered approach to investigate high school students' profiles. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2016;46:81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.04.007 . Mete P. The relationship between epistemological beliefs, science learning approaches and scientific inquiry skills: A path analysis. Res Sci Technological Educ. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2209845 . Lederman NG, Abd-El‐Khalick F, Bell RL, Schwartz RS. Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach. 2002;39(6):497–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034 . McComas WF. (2002). The Principal Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths. In W. F. McComas, editor, The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 53–70). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_3 Kind P, Osborne J. Styles of Scientific Reasoning: A Cultural Rationale for Science Education? Sci Educ. 2017;101(1):8–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21251 . Roden J. (1999). Young Children are Natural Scientists. In T. David, editor, Young Children Learning . https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446219416.n9 National Science Teachers Association. (2021). Nature of science . In NSTA official position statements . https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/nature-science iN Education Inc. (2021). Nature of Science – Understanding how Science Works. Retrieved from https://ineducationonline.org/2021/09/10/nature-of-science-understanding-how-science-works/ Namakula EK, Akerson VL. Explicit incorporation of the nature of science (NOS) in an undergraduate preservice teacher science content course: Action research. Int J Res Educ Sci (IJRES). 2024;10(2):241–78. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3354 . Krell M, Redman C, Mathesius S, Krüger D, van Driel J. Assessing Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Scientific Reasoning Competencies. Res Sci Educ. 2020;50(6):2305–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9780-1 . Morris BJ, Croker S, Masnick AM, Zimmerman C, Morris BJ, Croker S, Masnick AM, Zimmerman C. (2012). The Emergence of Scientific Reasoning. In: Current Topics in Children’s Learning and Cognition . IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/53885 Opitz A, Heene M, Fischer F. Measuring scientific reasoning – a review of test instruments. Educational Res Evaluation. 2017;23(3–4):78–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2017.1338586 . National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academies; 2012. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165 . OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption . OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en Erduran S. (2013). Nature of science and science education: Missing connections and potential interdisciplinary links. Plenary Lecture, World Congress of New Trends in Science Education, Krakow, Poland . Driver R, Asoko H, Leach J, Mortimer E, Scott P. Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom. Educational Researcher. 1994;23(7):5–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176933 . Osborne J, Dillon J, Nuffield F. Science education in Europe: Critical reflections: A report to the Nuffield Foundation. Nuffield Foundation; 2008. Lave J, Wenger E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (p. 138). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 Allchin D. Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Sci Educ. 2011;95(3):518–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20432 . Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. (1990). Science for Policy: Uncertainty and Quality. In S. O. Funtowicz & J. R. Ravetz, editors, Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy (pp. 7–16). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0621-1_3 Helton JC, Johnson JD, Sallaberry CJ, Storlie CB. Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2006;91(10):1175–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.11.017 . Kampourakis K, McCain K. Uncertainty: How It Makes Science Advance. Oxford University Press; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190871666.001.0001 . Fox CR, Ülkümen G. (2011). Distinguishing Two Dimensions of Uncertainty (SSRN Scholarly Paper 3695311). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3695311 Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, editors. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press; 1982. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477 . Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W. (2011). Heuristic Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology , 62 (Volume 62, 2011), 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346 Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press; 1993. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173933 . Flemming D, Kimmerle J, Cress U, Sinatra GM. Research is Tentative, but That’s Okay: Overcoming Misconceptions about Scientific Tentativeness through Refutation Texts. Discourse Processes. 2020;57(1):17–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1629805 . Kimmerle J, Flemming D, Feinkohl I, Cress U. How Laypeople Understand the Tentativeness of Medical Research News in the Media: An Experimental Study on the Perception of Information About Deep Brain Stimulation. Sci Communication. 2015;37(2):173–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014556541 . Hendriks F, Kienhues D, Bromme R. (2017). METI – Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory [Test documentation and questionnaire] . ZPID (Leibniz Institute for Psychology), Open Test Archive. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.6557 Eisinga R, te Grotenhuis M, Pelzer B. The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? Int J Public Health. 2013;58(4):637–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3 . Streiner DL. Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80(1):99–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18 . Osborne J, Erduran S, Simon S. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. J Res Sci Teach. 2004;41(10):994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035 . Fiske ST, Dupree C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111 (supplement_4), 13593–13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111 van der Bles AM, van der Linden S, Freeman ALJ, Spiegelhalter DJ. (2020). The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 (14), 7672–7683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913678117 Mason L, Junyent AA, Tornatora MC. Epistemic evaluation and comprehension of web-source information on controversial science-related topics: Effects of a short-term instructional intervention. Comput Educ. 2014;76:143–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.016 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-8213759\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Research Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":575662941,\"identity\":\"f1d52752-05ac-47af-a769-664bc7d2fb57\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Julia Cathérine Thomas\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Julia\",\"middleName\":\"Cathérine\",\"lastName\":\"Thomas\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":575662942,\"identity\":\"468af5a0-d217-4fd7-9315-d52312857fe3\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Katharina Düsing\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"IPN – Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Katharina\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Düsing\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":575662944,\"identity\":\"9946effe-fc32-4a7c-8acd-a49c91f897be\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Vanessa van den Bogaert\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Ruhr University Bochum\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Vanessa\",\"middleName\":\"van den\",\"lastName\":\"Bogaert\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":575662946,\"identity\":\"70392f38-982c-4443-adc6-fcba552b0ba6\",\"order_by\":3,\"name\":\"Hannah Greving\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Hannah\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Greving\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":575662948,\"identity\":\"f1be538f-ea01-4ca7-9b97-ccaabf9cdac3\",\"order_by\":4,\"name\":\"Till Bruckermann\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Leibniz University Hannover\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Till\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Bruckermann\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":575662950,\"identity\":\"c61885b2-84d0-405d-abbd-6377b0006e8c\",\"order_by\":5,\"name\":\"Anke Schumann\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Anke\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Schumann\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":575662951,\"identity\":\"e4d6f794-ab4e-49f5-903a-7cd89fb81adb\",\"order_by\":6,\"name\":\"Miriam Brandt\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Miriam\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Brandt\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":575662953,\"identity\":\"864cfa1f-f0ee-40ac-8078-6a7c6b1b2c7a\",\"order_by\":7,\"name\":\"Daniel Lewanzik\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Daniel\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Lewanzik\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":575662957,\"identity\":\"27dc5a54-4d39-46b5-bccc-93e38b869a67\",\"order_by\":8,\"name\":\"Christian C. Voigt\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Christian\",\"middleName\":\"C.\",\"lastName\":\"Voigt\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":575662961,\"identity\":\"2d228343-f544-45c2-a529-247c32f15061\",\"order_by\":9,\"name\":\"Ute Harms\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"IPN – Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Ute\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Harms\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":575662963,\"identity\":\"98bf6a80-5a50-41fd-bdad-4a56428a88b8\",\"order_by\":10,\"name\":\"Joachim Wirth\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Ruhr University Bochum\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Joachim\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Wirth\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":575662966,\"identity\":\"bf28194c-c86c-4218-8551-6d5c7375af89\",\"order_by\":11,\"name\":\"Ulrike Cress\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Ulrike\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Cress\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":575662968,\"identity\":\"6f8fe2da-2353-4e21-8002-eacd30fc4b60\",\"order_by\":12,\"name\":\"Joachim Kimmerle\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Joachim\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Kimmerle\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-11-26 14:08:22\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8213759/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8213759/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":100695008,\"identity\":\"309ada32-5ab1-4958-8a68-d92c015436d5\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-20 14:49:54\",\"extension\":\"docx\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":73598,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"MinorRevisionManuscriptDiscoverEducationJCT.docx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8213759/v1/3809c02c02e3457568c0d4ca.docx\"},{\"id\":100694685,\"identity\":\"9356a229-af88-486f-8b81-10354776b8bf\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-20 14:46:01\",\"extension\":\"json\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":13682,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"48785663a9c94dcbb0567c6fe310fef5.json\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8213759/v1/acb9080801efd6f0a260b189.json\"},{\"id\":100694961,\"identity\":\"e27d5aba-dec9-4adb-88cb-1de6b9dbfb36\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-20 14:48:49\",\"extension\":\"xml\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":181834,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"48785663a9c94dcbb0567c6fe310fef51enriched.xml\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8213759/v1/8fc148c607bc5197de5dfdba.xml\"},{\"id\":100695013,\"identity\":\"b0658111-5df7-444b-83ef-5bd50a30b8f9\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-20 14:49:55\",\"extension\":\"xml\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":178470,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"48785663a9c94dcbb0567c6fe310fef51structuring.xml\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8213759/v1/4643f0cba102aa37599a00a6.xml\"},{\"id\":100694912,\"identity\":\"fabd5810-e62f-4200-b344-3a7ebcf1263f\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-20 14:48:01\",\"extension\":\"html\",\"order_by\":4,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":197795,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"earlyproof.html\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8213759/v1/f2b1a66601b0aeb69663860a.html\"},{\"id\":103405528,\"identity\":\"c198c3eb-7cba-41cd-8ac1-c6ecbc42c81f\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-02-25 09:58:34\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":1554833,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8213759/v1/70d3d220-3ced-4ebd-bb4b-210fdcb4aa3c.pdf\"},{\"id\":100694838,\"identity\":\"1ab27940-519b-4aeb-bbf1-af5e05c1dfda\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-20 14:47:29\",\"extension\":\"docx\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"supplement\",\"size\":16021,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Appendix.docx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8213759/v1/a113c1f3b23570b2f719ba8a.docx\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"The Impact of Research Process Presentations on Secondary School Student’s Perception of Scientific Credibility and Tentativeness\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eA central challenge in science education is helping students grasp not only scientific content but also the epistemic processes through which scientific knowledge is constructed. Despite growing calls for authenticity in science instruction, classroom practices often fail to convey the provisional and contested nature of scientific inquiry. This disconnect contributes to a limited understanding of science as a dynamic and socially embedded enterprise. The research presented here responds to this educational problem by investigating how video-based representations of scientific reasoning and researcher deliberation can support students in developing a more nuanced view of science \\u0026ndash; one that includes both its credibility and its inherent tentativeness.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnderstanding and applying scientific methods is a fundamental goal in science education. However, learning about science involves more than acquiring factual knowledge; it requires an understanding of the nature and dynamics of scientific inquiry itself. Despite its centrality, this epistemic dimension is often underrepresented or simplified in classroom settings [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTwo pedagogical approaches frequently employed to address this gap are inquiry-based learning (IBL) [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e] and case-based learning (CBL) [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e]. IBL engages students in generating questions, designing investigations, and analyzing data in ways that simulate aspects of authentic research [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e]. CBL, in contrast, emphasizes historical or contemporary examples to highlight how scientific knowledge is developed in specific contexts [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e7\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e8\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Both approaches have demonstrated effectiveness in promoting scientific reasoning, yet each has notable limitations. IBL is often operationalized through structured, stepwise protocols that risk oversimplifying the complexity and contingency of real scientific practice [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e9\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Historical case studies, while rich in contextual detail, typically present science as a finalized product rather than a process in motion, reinforcing the image of science as authoritative and conclusive [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e10\\u003c/span\\u003e]. This contributes to what Latour and WooIgar [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e11\\u003c/span\\u003e] call the \\u0026lsquo;black box\\u0026rsquo; of science, in which the actual processes of knowledge production remain opaque to learners.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRecent research has emphasized the importance of explicit and reflective approaches to nature of science (NOS) instruction, which encourage learners to critically engage with the epistemic foundations of scientific knowledge [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e12\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e13\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Such approaches aim to make the reasoning behind scientific practices visible and accessible, rather than leaving them implicit or abstract. Video-based instruction has shown particular promise in this regard, especially when it is epistemically framed to highlight the processes of scientific inquiry and decision-making [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e14\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Our research builds on this work by examining how different portrayals of scientific reasoning and researcher deliberation affect students\\u0026rsquo; perceptions of credibility and tentativeness \\u0026ndash; two dimensions central to scientific literacy.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo address these challenges, we developed an instructional design that integrates core features of both IBL and CBL. Central to this design is a series of professionally produced videos that document an ongoing ecological research project \\u0026ndash; from the formulation of research questions, through fieldwork and data analysis, to the publication of results. These videos present science-in-the-making [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e11\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e15\\u003c/span\\u003e], providing students with epistemic access to the provisional and iterative nature of scientific work. In this way, they align with the goals of CBL by contextualizing scientific reasoning in an authentic case, while also incorporating reflective tasks that invite learners to engage with the epistemic justifications for research decisions, an aspect central to IBL. In Study 2, these videos were extended with structured reflection and application tasks to foster active engagement with the research process. Although students did not design or conduct their own investigations, they were guided to reconstruct and critically evaluate key elements of the inquiry, thus approximating the epistemic practices of scientific reasoning.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSuch approaches are crucial for fostering scientific literacy, which includes not only conceptual understanding but also the ability to critically evaluate how scientific knowledge is generated and validated [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e16\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e17\\u003c/span\\u003e]. In a digitalized knowledge society, this must be extended to include digital literacy, that is, the capacity to access, interpret, and communicate scientific information across online platforms [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e18\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e19\\u003c/span\\u003e]. As scientific communication increasingly takes place in digital media, students must learn to navigate competing claims and evidence. Developing a nuanced understanding of science as a contested, evolving, and socially embedded enterprise is therefore essential [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e20\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e21\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDespite increasing emphasis on authenticity in science education, realistic portrayals of scientists and their work remain rare in formal instruction [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e22\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Yet, such representations are crucial not only for conveying how science actually works, but also for challenging persistent stereotypes about who does science and under what conditions. Video-based media offer significant potential to make epistemic practices visible, especially when they depict science-in-action rather than as a finalized body of facts [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e23\\u003c/span\\u003e]. However, it remains underexplored how such portrayals affect students\\u0026rsquo; perceptions of scientific credibility and tentativeness of research findings \\u0026ndash; two dimensions that are central to scientific literacy but often overlooked in instructional design.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo address these questions, we conducted two empirical studies as part of an interdisciplinary research collaboration spanning biology, science education, psychology, and the learning sciences. Drawing on the educational video series described above, the studies investigated how distinct representations of scientists\\u0026rsquo; deliberations and scientific practices influence students\\u0026rsquo; understanding of scientific inquiry, particularly in terms of their perceptions of the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s credibility, the credibility of the research findings, and the perceived tentativeness of those findings. By explicitly examining these relationships, our study contributes to the evidence base for designing educational media that foster epistemically informed engagement with science \\u0026ndash; while also highlighting potential tensions between authenticity and perceived credibility.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWhile our study focuses on the effects of video-based representations, we acknowledge that student learning is not solely determined by instructional format. Prior research has shown that students\\u0026rsquo; pre-existing conceptions, epistemological beliefs, and prior experiences strongly mediate how they interpret and respond to educational materials [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e24\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e25\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e26\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Our design does not assume a direct causal pathway from video format to perception but rather explores how specific communicative features may interact with students\\u0026rsquo; existing frameworks of understanding.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eThe Nature of Science and Scientific Reasoning\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eA deeper understanding of scientific inquiry requires more than familiarity with experimental procedures. It demands insight into the NOS, including the tentative status of scientific knowledge, the relationship between empirical observation and theoretical interpretation, and the tension between objectivity and subjectivity [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR27\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e27\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e28\\u003c/span\\u003e]. While NOS is sometimes reduced to a singular, linear \\u0026lsquo;scientific method\\u0026rsquo;, it is now widely acknowledged that scientific inquiry is multifaceted, context-dependent, and shaped by creativity, prior knowledge, and methodological diversity [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e26\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e30\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese nuances are especially relevant for educational interventions that seek to promote more realistic conceptions of science. Contemporary frameworks position NOS as a core element of scientific literacy, supporting both conceptual understanding and the capacity to engage critically with science in personal and societal contexts [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e31\\u003c/span\\u003e]. NOS also highlights that science is a tentative, creative, and socially embedded enterprise \\u0026ndash; features that are essential for fostering a more reflective and inclusive view of knowledge [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR32\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e32\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Empirical evidence suggests that explicit incorporation of NOS into instruction significantly enhances student\\u0026rsquo;s understanding and application of scientific thinking [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e33\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eClosely related to NOS is the concept of scientific reasoning. This is a cognitive construct that encompasses the ability to solve scientific problems and critically reflect on the reasoning processes involved [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR34\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e34\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e35\\u003c/span\\u003e]. It is often described through interrelated sub-competencies, including problem definition, hypotheses development, evidence evaluation, and the communication of findings [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR36\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e36\\u003c/span\\u003e]. These skills reflect the iterative and integrative nature of scientific work and underscore the value of instructional formats that authentically mirror research processes [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR37\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e37\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEffective scientific reasoning depends on the integration of content knowledge with procedural and epistemic understanding [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e38\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Kind and Osborne propose distinct styles of reasoning that encompass these dimensions, showing that tasks such as experimentation require not only technical proficiency but also an appreciation of the epistemic foundations of concepts like validity, reliability, and uncertainty [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e29\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn addition, students\\u0026rsquo; scientific reasoning competencies and epistemic beliefs not only shape their own inquiry processes but also influence how they evaluate externally presented research. When confronted with portrayals of scientific inquiry, learners apply their internal epistemic frameworks to assess the credibility of both the researcher and the findings, thereby linking NOS understanding and scientific reasoning directly to credibility judgments [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e25\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e26\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec3\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eChallenges in Science Education and the Need for New Approaches\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWhile these principles of scientific literacy and reasoning offer a strong conceptual foundation, their implementation in classroom settings remains challenging. Constraints such as curricular standards, time limitations, and teacher preparedness often hinder efforts to integrate the NOS concept meaningfully into instruction. Erduran argues that NOS frameworks must remain sufficiently broad to accommodate developmental and pedagogical variability across educational contexts [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR39\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e39\\u003c/span\\u003e]. In practice, however, this necessary flexibility can result in under-specification, which in turn may dilute the conceptual richness of NOS and obscure its epistemic relevance.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eStudents frequently struggle to understand and apply scientific concepts in authentic ways. Documented difficulties include the abstraction of theoretical models, the disconnect between textbook science and real-world relevance, and a lack of sustained engagement or motivation [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e40\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR41\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e41\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Recent findings from PISA 2022 further underscore these issues, revealing declining performance in science and growing educational inequalities tied to socio-economic and cultural backgrounds [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e38\\u003c/span\\u003e]. These developments highlight the urgent need for adaptive, inclusive, and conceptually coherent instructional approaches.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAt the same time, broad and generic representations of science risk oversimplifying its complex, discipline-specific practices, which may limit students\\u0026rsquo; understanding of the epistemic processes that underlie scientific claims. Drawing on situated learning theory [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR42\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e42\\u003c/span\\u003e], an alternative approach emphasizes that meaningful learning occurs through participation in authentic scientific practices. From this perspective, science education should not convey factual knowledge, but also foster an understanding of the social, procedural, and epistemic dynamics of knowledge construction.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eImportantly, these frameworks foreground the credibility of scientific reasoning, both in terms of the scientist as a knowledge source and the findings they produce. Transparent, methodological rigor, and openness about uncertainty are key criteria by which scientific claims are judged [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR43\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e43\\u003c/span\\u003e]. The provisional and tentative nature of scientific knowledge thus calls for educational designs that make these characteristics visible. Doing so not only enhances students\\u0026rsquo; epistemic insight but also enables more critical and reflective engagement with science.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eThe Paradox of Scientific Progress and Uncertainty\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTraditionally, science has been portrayed as a problem-solving enterprise aimed at reducing uncertainty through controlled experimentation and precise measurement. This image of science as a generator of clear, objective knowledge remains prevalent in education and public discourse. However, modern science increasingly recognizes that uncertainty is not merely a limitation to be overcome, but a fundamental and unavoidable feature of knowledge production \\u0026ndash; particularly in complex, dynamic, and unpredictable systems [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e44\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e45\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn fields such as climate science, biomedicine, and psychology, uncertainty arises not only from data variability or measurement error, but also from incomplete theories, evolving models, and the influence of contextual and societal factors. These forms of uncertainty are often irreducible, challenging the ideal of science as a purely deterministic endeavor [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e44\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHistorically, such uncertainty was often downplayed or masked to maintain scientific authority [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR46\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e46\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Today, however, scientific credibility increasingly depends on the transparent communication of uncertainty, acknowledging limitations, model assumptions, and the provisional nature of findings. This shift is not a weakness but reflects a deeper epistemic maturity, that is, recognizing that science progresses not by eliminating all doubt, but by critically engaging with it.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFor science education, this reframing of uncertainty holds profound implications. Students must learn to interpret scientific knowledge not as a collection of static facts, but as the outcome of reasoned judgment under uncertainty. Educational approaches that make the tentative and interpretive character of science visible can promote more accurate and critical conceptions of scientific inquiry, including how trust is built in science and how findings are evaluated in light of incomplete evidence.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eUnderstanding Uncertainty and Tentativeness in Scientific Inquiry\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBuilding on the recognition that uncertainty is an inherent feature of scientific knowledge, it is crucial to distinguish between \\u003cem\\u003eepistemic uncertainty\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u0026ndash; a feature of the knowledge itself \\u0026ndash; and \\u003cem\\u003etentativeness\\u003c/em\\u003e, the way in which that knowledge is communicated and evaluated. In this context, \\u003cem\\u003euncertainty\\u003c/em\\u003e refers to situations where available information is incomplete, ambiguous, or open to multiple interpretations, thus affecting reasoning and decision-making [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR47\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e47\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e48\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Scientists deal with uncertainty not as a sign of failure, but as a stimulus for further inquiry, through strategies such as data triangulation, probabilistic reasoning, and adaptive judgement [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR49\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e49\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR50\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e50\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Especially in complex systems with incomplete evidence and evolving theories, acknowledging uncertainty is essential for methodological rigor and transparency [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e44\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e45\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cem\\u003eTentativeness\\u003c/em\\u003e, by contrast, refers to the communicative stance of researchers that reflects an awareness of the provisional nature of their claims [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e51\\u003c/span\\u003e]. While uncertainty describes the epistemic quality of a knowledge claim, tentativeness concerns how that claim is framed: whether it is cautiously expressed, explicitly qualified, or open to revision in light of new data. Scientific knowledge thus exists on a continuum from preliminary, exploratory findings to well-established results with high intersubjective reliability. Positioning a claim appropriately along this continuum is crucial for scientific credibility and for helping learners evaluate claims accurately.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn science education, promoting tentativeness as a rhetorical and cognitive practice is key to fostering scientific literacy. Encouraging students to consider alternative interpretations, articulate limitations, and qualify their conclusions promotes intellectual humility and epistemic flexibility. Rather than signaling indecisiveness, tentativeness in science reflects a commitment to evidence-based reasoning and revision, making it a central feature of authentic scientific inquiry and communication.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eTheoretical Rationale and Hypotheses\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTo examine how portrayals of scientific inquiry affect learners\\u0026rsquo; evaluations of science, we developed two key dimensions of video-based science communication that align with distinctions established in science studies and science education literature. These two dimensions reflect contrasting epistemological narratives: one that simplifies and stabilizes science for communicative efficiency, and one that seeks to represent the complexity, tentativeness, and socially embedded nature of real-world inquiry.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWe explicitly define these two dimensions as follows:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003col\\u003e \\u003cspan\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRepresentation of the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought process. Contrasting \\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e, where decisions and conclusions appear finalized without visible deliberation, with \\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e, where uncertainties, deliberations, and revisions are made visible. This distinction reflects Latour and Woolgar\\u0026rsquo;s [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e11\\u003c/span\\u003e] concept of finalized knowledge versus epistemic deliberation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003c/span\\u003e \\u003cspan\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRepresentation of scientific practices. Contrasting a \\u003cem\\u003ecookbook-style\\u003c/em\\u003e format, presenting sequential procedural steps without epistemic context, with \\u003cem\\u003escientific reasoning style\\u003c/em\\u003e, which make explicit the rationale, justification, and iterative nature of research decisions. This distinction follows Kind and Osborne\\u0026rsquo;s [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e29\\u003c/span\\u003e] framework on styles of scientific reasoning.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003c/span\\u003e \\u003c/ol\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePrior research on epistemic framing and NOS instruction suggests that making reasoning and uncertainty visible can foster tentativeness awareness but may challenge credibility perceptions due to lay expectations of scientific certainty [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e14\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e51\\u003c/span\\u003e]. However, to our knowledge, no prior study has systematically manipulated the transparency of the research process in science communication. This represents a specific research gap that we address in the present study. Our hypotheses are therefore grounded in theoretical considerations about epistemic transparency and the nature of science, while explicitly acknowledging the limited direct empirical precedent.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese dimensions are likely to influence different facets of credibility. Perceptions of the researcher\\u0026rsquo;s credibility may be shaped by visible uncertainty and deliberation, which can be interpreted either as openness and intellectual honesty or as lack of competence. In contrast, perceptions of the findings\\u0026rsquo; credibility depend more directly on whether procedures are presented as systematically justified rather than unelaborated steps.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBased on these considerations, we formulated the following hypotheses:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cul\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eH1: Presenting the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought process in a \\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e mode will lead to higher perceived credibility of the scientist than presenting it in a \\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e mode.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eH2: Presenting the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought process in a \\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e mode will lead to higher perceived credibility of the research findings than a \\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e mode.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eH3: Presenting scientific practices with explanatory narration (scientific reasoning style) will lead to higher perceived credibility of the research findings than a \\u003cem\\u003ecookbook-style\\u003c/em\\u003e presentation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eH4: Presenting scientific practices with explanatory narration will lead to higher perceived tentativeness of the research findings than a \\u003cem\\u003ecookbook-style\\u003c/em\\u003e presentation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003c/ul\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo test these hypotheses, we conducted two experimental studies with secondary school students. Each study used custom-designed educational videos based on authentic fieldwork in bat ecology. The videos varied systematically along two dimensions: (1) whether or not the scientific practices were explicitly explained (\\u003cem\\u003ecookbook-style\\u003c/em\\u003e vs. \\u003cem\\u003escientific reasoning style\\u003c/em\\u003e), and (2) whether the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought process was presented in a \\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e or \\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e mode. In addition to the hypothesized main effects, we explored possible interaction effects between these two forms of science communication on students\\u0026rsquo; perceptions of scientific credibility and tentativeness. Moreover, we examined potential intercorrelations among the dependent variables, both across the experimental conditions as well as within each of these conditions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Method\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec8\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eDesign\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWe conducted two school-based experiments using a 2 x 2 between-groups design, manipulating two independent variables:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cul\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eScientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought processes\\u003c/b\\u003e: Whether the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s reasoning was presented as \\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e (with visible deliberations and uncertainty) or as \\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e (finalized decisions without visible reasoning).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eScientific practices\\u003c/b\\u003e: Whether the research steps were explained through \\u003cem\\u003escientific reasoning style\\u003c/em\\u003e (with epistemic justification and explicitly narration) or presented in a \\u003cem\\u003ecookbook-style\\u003c/em\\u003e format (procedural steps only with implicit narration).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003c/ul\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis design resulted in four distinct video conditions, each combining one level of each factor. Both studies employed the same four video conditions and identical measurement instruments but differed in instructional format. An overview of the four experimental conditions is provided in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo clarify the operationalization of our two factors, we emphasize that the \\u0026ldquo;scientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought process\\u0026rdquo; manipulation varied the visibility of epistemic deliberation: in the science-in-the-making condition, the scientist verbalized uncertainties and decision-making processes; in the ready-made science condition, decisions were presented as finalized. The \\u0026ldquo;scientific practices\\u0026rdquo; manipulation varied the depth of epistemic explanation: in the reasoning styles condition, each research step was justified; in the cookbook-style condition, steps were presented without rationale. These distinctions were reflected in the video scripts and systematically controlled across conditions.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab1\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOverview of Experimental Conditions\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCondition\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScientist\\u0026rsquo;s Thought Processes\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScientific Practice\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eExample Sentences from Video Script\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCondition 1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScience-in-the-making\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScientific reasoning style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Formulating a hypothesis is always an important step, because it permeates the research process like a \\u0026lsquo;common thread\\u0026rsquo;. It influences the planning and execution of the study.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCondition 2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScience-in-the-making\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCookbook-style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Of course, there is always a trade-off between what you would like to achieve, what data you would like to generate and what is possible.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCondition 3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eReady-made science\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScientific reasoning style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Formulating a hypothesis is important because it influences the planning and execution of the study.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCondition 4\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eReady-made science\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCookbook-style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Daniel opts for loggers that measure temperature and air pressure. GPS loggers are too heavy for the small bats.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eMaterial\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAll four videos portrayed the same core scientific content: a field-based bat ecology research project conducted in Thailand, investigating the flight altitude of two bat species using miniaturized transmitters. The same scientist appeared in all videos; the variations arose solely from how the research process and the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought processes were presented.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVideo development followed a systematic design framework that integrated insights from science education, philosophy of science, and multimedia learning. The framework structured educational videos across three levels: (1) a macro level that defined chapter structure based on scientific reasoning skills and NOS categories, (2) a meso level capturing authentic scientific research processes, and (3) a micro level which included specific variations in how scientific practices (\\u0026lsquo;\\u003cem\\u003ecookbook-style\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rsquo; vs. \\u0026lsquo;\\u003cem\\u003escientific reasoning style\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rsquo;) and the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought processes (\\u0026lsquo;\\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rsquo; vs. \\u0026lsquo;\\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rsquo;) were communicated.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn our experimental setup, the micro-level dimensions were systematically manipulated:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cul\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVideos in the \\u003cem\\u003escientific reasoning styles\\u003c/em\\u003e condition included explanations for procedural and epistemic choices (the \\u003cem\\u003ehow\\u003c/em\\u003e and \\u003cem\\u003ewhy\\u003c/em\\u003e) across eight phases of research.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVideos in the \\u003cem\\u003ecookbook-style\\u003c/em\\u003e condition presented only the procedural steps (\\u003cem\\u003ewhat\\u003c/em\\u003e), omitting justifications.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVideos in the \\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e condition depicted the scientist verbalizing decision-making processes and expressing uncertainties.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVideos in the \\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e condition presented outcomes as finalized, with minimal insight into cognitive processes.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003c/ul\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eProcedure\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn Study 1, the intervention consisted of a video-only format without accompanying tasks. It was implemented as a single 90-minute session during regular school hours. This time frame was chosen to ensure sufficient room for technical preparation and implementation, including access to iPads, individual headphones for each student, and a stable internet connection. Students watched one of four video versions (18\\u0026ndash;23 minutes in length, depending on condition) on digital classroom devices under standardized conditions. The videos were streamed via the research project\\u0026rsquo;s homepage, which subsequently also provided direct access to the post-video questionnaire. The remaining time of the session allowed for debriefing about the study as well as for students to raise questions regarding the video or the research project in general. No additional tasks or follow-up discussions were included in Study 1. A trained member of the research team moderated each session to ensure procedural fidelity across classrooms. The intervention was designed to isolate the effects of the video content itself, without additional instructional scaffolding or reflection.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn Study 2, the intervention extended the video format by embedding it in a full-day instructional sequence (approximately six hours), conducted at two research institutions in Germany. Students worked in dyads or small groups within a digital learning environment that guided them through structured phases of scientific inquiry: (1) formulating research questions and hypotheses, (2) planning and conducting investigations, (3) analyzing and interpreting data. The approach was the same as in Study 1. The videos (18\\u0026ndash;23 minutes, depending on condition) were paused and discussed thematically, serving as contextual and cognitive prompts to support epistemic reflection and collaborative reasoning. In addition, students engaged in epistemic scaffolding activities, which are instructional supports designed to guide learners in understanding and reflection on the reasoning behind scientific decisions. In Study 2, these activities included evaluating the clarity and testability of sample hypotheses, transforming informal questions into investigable ones, and documenting their inquiry steps. Although not all students submitted individual responses due to shared devices, all participated actively in the instructional sequence. Researchers at both locations facilitated the sessions to ensure consistency of implementation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eImmediately following the intervention, all students completed an online posttest assessing three outcome variables: (1) the perceived credibility of the scientist, (2) the perceived credibility of the research findings, and (3) the perceived tentativeness of the findings. These dependent measures reflect core constructs derived from the study\\u0026rsquo;s theoretical framework and were used consistently across both studies.\\u003c/p\\u003e \"},{\"header\":\"Study 1\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec11\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec12\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eParticipants\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe final sample consisted of 148 students from Grades 10 to 12, recruited from eight classes across five secondary schools in the German state of Baden-W\\u0026uuml;rttemberg. Participants were between 13 and 20 years old (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;16.33, \\u003cem\\u003eSD\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1.11). The gender distribution was as follows: 92 female, 42 male, 2 non-binary; 12 participants did not report their gender.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec13\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eMeasures\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAll dependent measures were assessed using multi-item semantic differential scales. Instruments were adapted from validated tools in science communication research and aligned with the study\\u0026rsquo;s theoretical framework. Specifically, items were based on Flemming et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e51\\u003c/span\\u003e], Kimmerle et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR52\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e52\\u003c/span\\u003e], and the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e53\\u003c/span\\u003e]. The complete item sets are provided in Appendices A and B.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo ensure applicability to audiovisual materials, all items were rephrased in reference to the video stimulus. Students responded on five-point semantic differential scales, with higher scores indicating stronger expression of the respective construct. Example anchor descriptors included \\u003cem\\u003eunreliable\\u0026ndash;reliable\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003eunconvincing\\u0026ndash;convincing\\u003c/em\\u003e, and \\u003cem\\u003eimplausible\\u0026ndash;plausible\\u003c/em\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec14\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eCredibility of the Scientist\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis construct was measured using a 9-item scale adapted from the METI. A sample item was: \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;The scientist in the video seemed \\u0026hellip;\\u0026rdquo; [incompetent \\u0026ndash; competent]\\u003c/em\\u003e. The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach\\u0026rsquo;s α\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.90).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec15\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eCredibility of the Research Findings\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis construct was assessed with three items targeting the perceived reliability and trustworthiness of the results presented in the video. A sample item was: \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;The research results presented in the video seemed \\u0026hellip;\\u0026rdquo; [unconvincing \\u0026ndash; convincing]\\u003c/em\\u003e. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach\\u0026rsquo;s α\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.74).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec16\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003ePerceived Tentativeness of the Research Findings\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis scale consisted of three items evaluating whether the findings were seen as provisional, uncertain, or open to revision. A sample item was: \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;The conclusions of the research seemed \\u0026hellip;\\u0026rdquo; [definitive \\u0026ndash; tentative]\\u003c/em\\u003e. The internal consistency was low (Cronbach\\u0026rsquo;s α\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.51), but within acceptable bounds for exploratory research [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR54\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e54\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR55\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e55\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo ensure methodological transparency and reduce researcher degrees of freedom, the complete study protocol (including hypotheses, experimental conditions, and analysis plans) was preregistered on AsPredicted (\\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://aspredicted.org/szzh-xq23.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://aspredicted.org/szzh-xq23.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eResults\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec18\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eDescriptive Statistics\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMeans and standard deviations for the three dependent variables across the four experimental conditions are summarized in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab2\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMeans and Standard Deviations for All Dependent Variables Across Experimental Conditions (Study 1)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThought Process\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScientific Practice\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScientist Credibility (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e/\\u003cem\\u003eSD\\u003c/em\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFindings Credibility (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e/\\u003cem\\u003eSD\\u003c/em\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTentativeness (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e/\\u003cem\\u003eSD\\u003c/em\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScience-in-the-making\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCookbook-style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.20 / 0.62\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3.95 / 0.62\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3.53 / 0.70\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScience-in-the-making\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScientific reasoning style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.11 / 0.77\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.19 / 0.65\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3.47 / 0.67\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eReady-made science\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCookbook-style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.11 / 0.71\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.20 / 0.68\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3.59 / 0.66\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eReady-made science\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScientific reasoning style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.23 / 0.46\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.23 / 0.64\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3.71 / 0.64\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec19\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eMain Analyses\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo test the effects of the experimental manipulations, a series of two-way between-groups analyses of variance (ANOVAs) (2 x 2 design) were conducted for each dependent variable. The factors included the \\u003cem\\u003escientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought processes\\u003c/em\\u003e (\\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e vs. \\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e), and the explanatory style of the \\u003cem\\u003escientific practices\\u003c/em\\u003e (\\u003cem\\u003escientific reasoning style\\u003c/em\\u003e vs. \\u003cem\\u003ecookbook-style\\u003c/em\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAcross all three dependent variables \\u0026ndash; perceived credibility of the scientist, perceived credibility of the research findings, and perceived tentativeness \\u0026ndash; no significant main effects or interaction effects were found, all Fs(1, 99)\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;1.3, \\u003cem\\u003en.s.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese null findings suggest that, in the given instructional context, the variations in reasoning and explanatory style did not substantially influence students' evaluations of the scientist or the scientific content.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec20\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eExploratory Analyses\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo further explore relationships among the dependent variables, Kendall\\u0026rsquo;s tau-b (τb) correlations were computed. As shown in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e, perceived tentativeness of research findings was negatively correlated with both the credibility of the scientist and the credibility of the research findings. In contrast, the two credibility measures showed a positive correlation. In Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab4\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e, the intercorrelations between the dependent variables are presented separately for each experimental group, revealing consistent patterns across conditions.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab3\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 3\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eKendall\\u0026rsquo;s Tau-b Correlations Among Key Dependent Variables (Study 1)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVariable\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1. Perceived Tentativeness\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2. Credibility of the Scientist\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.32***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3. Credibility of Research Findings\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.48***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.43***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003ctfoot\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd colspan=\\\"4\\\"\\u003eNote. ***\\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tfoot\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab4\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 4\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eKendall\\u0026rsquo;s Tau-b Intercorrelations Among Key Dependent Variables (Study 1)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGroup\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCorrelation:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePerceived Tentativeness / Credibility of the Scientist\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCorrelation:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePerceived Tentativeness / Credibility of the Findings\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCorrelation:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCredibility of the Scientist / Credibility of the Findings\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScience-in-the-making / Cookbook-style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.28***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.46***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.32***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eReady-made science / Cookbook-style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.46***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.50***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.55***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScience-in-the-making / Scientific reasoning style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.32***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.43***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.47***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eReady-made science / Scientific reasoning style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.33***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.59***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.48***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003ctfoot\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd colspan=\\\"4\\\"\\u003eNote. ***\\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tfoot\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eDiscussion\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eStudy 1 examined whether two communicative design features of science videos\\u0026mdash;scientific thought processes (\\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e vs. \\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e) and scientific practices (\\u003cem\\u003escientific reasoning style\\u003c/em\\u003e vs. \\u003cem\\u003ecookbook-style\\u003c/em\\u003e) \\u0026ndash; would influence students\\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the scientist and the research presented.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eContrary to our hypotheses, the experimental manipulations produced no significant main or interaction effects on any of the three outcome variables: perceived credibility of the scientist, perceived credibility of the research findings, and perceived tentativeness. These null findings suggest that passively viewing variations in explanatory depth and epistemic transparency was not sufficient to alter students\\u0026rsquo; perceptions in a statistically detectable way. The absence of significant effects in Study 1 may reflect the limitations of passive video formats without opportunities for epistemic engagement.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnlike typical science communication studies that use short texts or simplified stimuli, our videos portrayed complex scientific reasoning and epistemic deliberation. Interpreting such features may require more scaffolding, especially for younger learners. Moreover, Study 1 deliberately avoided instructional framing to isolate video effects, which may have limited students\\u0026rsquo; ability to engage with the epistemic content.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePrior research suggests that learners often require scaffolding to interpret uncertainty as a marker of scientific rigor rather than weakness [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e51\\u003c/span\\u003e]. The consistent negative correlation between tentativeness and credibility across conditions indicates that students may hold epistemic beliefs equating certainty with trustworthiness. These findings underscore the need for instructional designs that explicitly address the epistemic function of tentativeness.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eExploratory correlation analyses revealed a systematic interrelation among the dependent variables. Specifically:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cul\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHigher perceived tentativeness of the findings was negatively associated with both the credibility of the scientist and the credibility of the findings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn contrast, scientist credibility and research credibility were positively associated.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003c/ul\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese patterns indicate that students appear to apply an integrated evaluation framework: They assess the messenger (the scientist) and the message (the findings) as mutually reinforcing sources of credibility. When scientific knowledge is perceived as tentative, it may be judged as less trustworthy, perhaps reflecting common lay expectations of science as authoritative and definitive [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e51\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR56\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e56\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis finding raises important questions for science education. While epistemic tentativeness is a hallmark of scientific reasoning, learners may interpret such tentativeness as a signal of weakness rather than of intellectual integrity. Thus, efforts to promote epistemic understanding must also attend to students\\u0026rsquo; trust frameworks and their expectations regarding scientific certainty.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe null effects observed in Study 1 also suggest possible limitations of purely observational formats. Without opportunities for active engagement or guided reflection, students may default to surface-level impressions, especially in short, classroom-based interventions. This aligns with prior critiques of passive video learning formats, which often fail to elicit deeper epistemic processing [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e9\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo address these limitations, Study 2 introduces a revised instructional format that integrates the same videos into a participatory learning environment, including structured reflection and application tasks. This design aligns more closely with core principles of IBL and aims to foster active epistemic engagement. In addition, the larger sample size in Study 2 enhances statistical power, enabling more robust testing of the hypothesized effects. Together, these changes aim to explore whether and how more immersive and reflective learning designs can influence students\\u0026rsquo; perceptions of scientific credibility and the tentative nature of knowledge production.\\u003c/p\\u003e \"},{\"header\":\"Study 2\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec22\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eStudy 2 was designed as a conceptual replication and extension of Study 1. While Study 1 tested the effects of video-based portrayals in a minimal instructional setting, Study 2 introduced a scaffolded, interactive learning environment to examine whether deeper engagement would influence students\\u0026rsquo; epistemic evaluations. This two-study approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of how instructional context shapes the impact of science communication formats.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec23\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eParticipants\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe second sample consisted of 607 students from Grades 10 and 11, drawn from 41 school classes in two German federal states. Participants ranged in age from 13 to 20 years (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;16.49, \\u003cem\\u003eSD\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1.13). Of the total sample, 324 students identified as female, 231 as male, and 13 as non-binary; 39 students did not report their gender, and gender information was missing for 12 students.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec24\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eMeasures\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAs in Study 1, all dependent variables were assessed using multi-item semantic differential scales (5-point format), with higher values indicating stronger endorsement of the respective construct. All item sets are provided in Appendices A and B.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec25\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eCredibility of the Scientist\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAssessed using a 9-item version of the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e53\\u003c/span\\u003e]. A sample item reads: \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;The scientist in the video appeared \\u0026hellip;\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e (\\u003cem\\u003eincompetent \\u0026ndash; competent\\u003c/em\\u003e). Internal consistency was excellent (\\u003cem\\u003eα\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.90).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec26\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eCredibility of the Research Findings\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMeasured with three items evaluating the plausibility and reliability of the presented results (e.g., \\u003cem\\u003eunconvincing \\u0026ndash; convincing\\u003c/em\\u003e). Internal consistency was acceptable (\\u003cem\\u003eα\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.77).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec27\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003ePerceived Tentativeness of the Findings\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAssessed using three items addressing the perceived provisionality of the conclusions (e.g., \\u003cem\\u003efinal \\u0026ndash; tentative\\u003c/em\\u003e). Internal consistency was relatively low (\\u003cem\\u003eα\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.54), but comparable to Study 1 and acceptable for exploratory research [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR54\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e54\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR55\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e55\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eResults\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec29\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eDescriptive Statistics\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTable\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab5\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e shows the means and standard deviations for all dependent variables across the four experimental conditions.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab5\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 5\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMeans and Standard Deviations for All Dependent Variables Across Experimental Conditions (Study 2)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThought Process\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScientific Practice\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScientist Credibility (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e/\\u003cem\\u003eSD\\u003c/em\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFindings Credibility (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e/\\u003cem\\u003eSD\\u003c/em\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTentativeness (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e/\\u003cem\\u003eSD\\u003c/em\\u003e)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScience-in-the-making\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCookbook-style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.31 / 0.55\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.19 / 0.64\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2.30 / 0.56\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScience-in-the-making\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScientific reasoning style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.27 / 0.60\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.24 / 0.62\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2.32 / 0.58\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eReady-made science\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCookbook-style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.36 / 0.59\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.28 / 0.65\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2.16 / 0.63\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eReady-made science\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScientific reasoning style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.28 / 0.70\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.16 / 0.79\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"char\\\" char=\\\".\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2.22 / 0.70\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eMain Analyses\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTo examine the effects of the scientific thought processes (\\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e vs. \\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e) and the scientific practices (\\u003cem\\u003escientific reasoning styles\\u003c/em\\u003e vs. \\u003cem\\u003ecookbook-style\\u003c/em\\u003e) on students\\u0026rsquo; perceptions, a series of two-way between-subjects ANOVAs was conducted for each dependent variable.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec31\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eCredibility of the Scientist\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNo significant main effects or interaction were found, all Fs(1, 603)\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;1.7, \\u003cem\\u003en.s\\u003c/em\\u003e. The visibility of the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s reasoning or the inclusion of explanatory narration did not significantly alter how credible the scientist was perceived to be.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec32\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eCredibility of Research Findings\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSimilarly, the perceived credibility of the research findings remained unaffected across conditions, all Fs(1, 603)\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;2.5, \\u003cem\\u003en.s.\\u003c/em\\u003e Students\\u0026rsquo; credibility perceptions of the research findings were not significantly influenced by the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought processes or the mode of scientific practices.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec33\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003ePerceived Tentativeness of Research Findings\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eA significant main effect emerged for the mode of presenting the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought processes, \\u003cem\\u003eF\\u003c/em\\u003e(1, 603)\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;5.65, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.018, η\\u0026sup2; = .009. Students exposed to the \\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e condition perceived the findings as more tentative (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;2.31, \\u003cem\\u003eSE\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.05) than those in the \\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e condition (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;2.19, \\u003cem\\u003eSE\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.05), with a Bonferroni-adjusted \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.018. Although this effect was not part of our preregistered hypotheses, it provides exploratory insight into how epistemic transparency may influence students\\u0026rsquo; perception of the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. This finding supports the idea that explicitly communicating the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s reasoning \\u0026ndash; including moments of uncertainty \\u0026ndash; helps students recognize the provisional nature of scientific knowledge.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThere was neither a significant main effect for the scientific practices, \\u003cem\\u003eF\\u003c/em\\u003e(1, 603)\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.70, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.403, nor an interaction effect, \\u003cem\\u003eF\\u003c/em\\u003e(1, 603)\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0.10, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.758. Pairwise post-hoc comparisons between all interaction conditions confirmed this pattern (\\u003cem\\u003eall p_adj\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;.14).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec34\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eExploratory Analyses\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo explore the relationships between the key dependent variables, Kendall\\u0026rsquo;s tau-b (τb) correlations were calculated. As shown in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab6\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e, perceived tentativeness of the research findings was negatively correlated with both the credibility of the scientist and the credibility of the research findings. Conversely, a positive correlation was observed between the credibility of the scientist and that of the research findings. These correlations were further examined separately by condition in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab7\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e7\\u003c/span\\u003e, revealing consistent patterns across groups, with negative associations between perceived tentativeness and both credibility measures, and a positive association between the two credibility measures.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab6\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 6\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eKendall\\u0026rsquo;s Tau-b Correlations Among Key Dependent Variables (Study 2)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVariable\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1. Perceived Tentativeness\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2. Credibility of the Scientist\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.33***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3. Credibility of Research Findings\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.46***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.47***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003ctfoot\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd colspan=\\\"4\\\"\\u003eNote. ***\\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tfoot\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab7\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 7\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eKendall\\u0026rsquo;s Tau-b Intercorrelations Among Key Dependent Variables (Study 2)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGroup\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCorrelation:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePerceived Tentativeness / Credibility of the Scientist\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCorrelation:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePerceived Tentativeness / Credibility of the Findings\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCorrelation:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCredibility of the Scientist / Credibility of the Findings\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScience-in-the-making / Cookbook-style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.26***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.37***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.48***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eReady-made science / Cookbook-style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.36***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.45***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.48***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eScience-in-the-making / Scientific reasoning stye\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.29***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.48***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.43***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eReady-made science / Scientific reasoning style\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.43***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;.56***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.51***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003ctfoot\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd colspan=\\\"4\\\"\\u003eNote. ***\\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tfoot\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eDiscussion\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eStudy 2 replicated and extended the findings of Study 1 by implementing a larger sample and a scaffolded interactive instructional format. Consistent with Study 1, no significant effects were found for the mode of presenting scientific thought processes (\\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e vs. \\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e) or the style of scientific practices (\\u003cem\\u003escientific reasoning styles\\u003c/em\\u003e vs. \\u003cem\\u003ecookbook-style\\u003c/em\\u003e) on students\\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the credibility of the scientist or the credibility of the research findings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eA central difference, however, emerged in students\\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the tentativeness of scientific findings. In Study 2, a significant main effect was found for the mode of presenting scientific thought processes: Participants exposed to \\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e rated the findings as more tentative than those who viewed a \\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e portrayal. This suggests that when students are given insight into the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s reasoning \\u0026ndash; including expressions of uncertainty and contextual justification \\u0026ndash; they are more likely to recognize the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. As this effect was not part of our preregistered hypotheses, it should be interpreted as exploratory. Nonetheless, it provides valuable insight into how epistemic transparency may foster students\\u0026rsquo; awareness of scientific tentativeness.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis effect was not observed in Study 1, which lacked the reflective and interactive components implemented in Study 2. The structured learning environment in Study 2, including opportunities for discussion, epistemic prompts, and scaffolded reflection, may have allowed students to engage more deeply with the epistemic features of the material. These results underscore the importance of instructional context in supporting students\\u0026rsquo; epistemic sensitivity, that is, the ability to notice, interpret, and respond to indicators of how knowledge is constructed, justified, and revised.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInterestingly, overall ratings of perceived tentativeness were lower in Study 2 than in Study 1, despite the more elaborate instructional design. This may reflect procedural differences: the full-day format with collaborative tasks and structured guidance may have encouraged students to focus on coherence and resolution rather than on epistemic ambiguity. Future research should examine how instructional pacing and task framing influence students\\u0026rsquo; sensitivity to scientific tentativeness.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eImportantly, the inclusion of \\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e thought processes did not reduce the perceived credibility of the scientist or the research findings. This replicates the null effects found in Study 1 and suggests that making uncertainty and reasoning visible does not inherently undermine trust, especially when embedded in a learning environment that supports reflection and critical thinking. One possible explanation is that our manipulations focused on epistemic features of the communication rather than on personal characteristics of the scientist. Since the scientist's demeanour, tone, and role remained constant across all conditions, students may have formed credibility judgments based on these stable cues rather than on the structure of the scientific narrative.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOverall, these findings highlight the potential of using science-in-the-making portrayals to foster a more nuanced understanding of the tentative and evolving nature of scientific knowledge. Making scientific thought processes visible may support epistemic growth, enabling students to critically engage with how knowledge is constructed, evaluated, and communicated.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"General Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis research investigated how video-based educational tools that authentically depict scientific inquiry can influence students\\u0026rsquo; understanding of the NOS. Rather than merely conveying scientific facts, the videos aimed to make visible how knowledge is generated, interpreted, and revised over time. The focus lay on two core dimensions of science communication: the presentation of scientific thought processes (\\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e vs. \\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e) and the depiction of scientific practices (\\u003cem\\u003escientific reasoning styles\\u003c/em\\u003e vs. \\u003cem\\u003ecookbook-style\\u003c/em\\u003e). Across two school-based field experiments, we examined how these variations influenced students\\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the credibility and tentativeness of scientific findings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAcross both studies, no significant effects emerged for credibility perceptions, neither for the scientist nor for the research findings, which suggests that credibility judgments may be relatively robust against variations in epistemic framing. However, in Study 2, participants rated findings as significantly more tentative when the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought processes were presented in a \\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e style. This exploratory effect indicates that the visibility of uncertainty and epistemic deliberation \\u0026ndash; when embedded in a structured, reflective learning context \\u0026ndash; can enhance students\\u0026rsquo; awareness of the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. Importantly, this finding underscores a key educational tension: While tentativeness is a hallmark of scientific rigor, learners often interpret it through everyday trust heuristics, potentially conflating uncertainty with unreliability.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNotably, the experimental manipulations did not alter any personal characteristics of the scientist but focused exclusively on making epistemic reasoning more or less visible. This may help explain the absence of credibility effects: Students likely relied on comparatively stable cues, such as the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s demeanor and professionalism, rather than on the narrative structure itself. Future research should investigate whether credibility judgments shift when uncertainty is communicated in contexts with higher societal stakes (e.g., climate science, health communication), where trust dynamics may play a more prominent role.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec37\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eTheoretical Implications\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe significant correlation patterns observed in both studies revealed a consistent epistemic logic: Perceived tentativeness was negatively associated with credibility, while judgments about the scientist and their findings were positively aligned. This finding mirrors previous results in science education and communication research, where tentativeness is often misunderstood as a lack of knowledge or confidence rather than a marker of epistemic caution and methodological rigor [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e51\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR56\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e56\\u003c/span\\u003e]. Students frequently hold epistemic beliefs that equate scientific validity with certainty, a misconception long identified in educational research [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR57\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e57\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR58\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e58\\u003c/span\\u003e].\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAt the same time, the observed alignment between judgments of the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s credibility and the credibility of their findings \\u0026ndash; although conceptually distinct \\u0026ndash; highlights a critical nuance. As Mason et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR59\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e59\\u003c/span\\u003e] argue, audiences form credibility judgments by evaluating both source trustworthiness and message plausibility, which interact in subtle ways. This suggests that educational interventions should systematically support learners in evaluating not only what is being said, but also who is saying it \\u0026ndash; and why.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInterestingly, students appeared more likely to recognize the tentative nature of scientific findings when science-in-the-making portrayals were accompanied by explanatory narration, although no significant interaction effect was found. This pattern should be interpreted with caution and considered exploratory. This reinforces earlier findings that uncertainty is best understood when embedded in a coherent epistemic context [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR52\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e52\\u003c/span\\u003e]. If such context is lacking, expressions of uncertainty may be perceived as incompetence rather than insight. Thus, narrative coherence and epistemic scaffolding are crucial for supporting productive interpretations of scientific tentativeness.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec38\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eLimitations and Future Research\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSeveral limitations warrant careful consideration. First, the internal consistency of the tentativeness scale was modest in both studies, likely due to the limited item pool and conceptual breadth of tentativeness as a construct. Although acceptable for exploratory research [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR54\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e54\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR55\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e55\\u003c/span\\u003e], this lowers confidence in fine-grained interpretations and highlights the need for more robust, multidimensional instruments that capture facets such as epistemic caution, openness to revision, and degrees of evidential certainty. Future research should expand and validate item pools and consider complementary qualitative or mixed-methods approaches to better understand how students perceive and express tentativeness in authentic learning contexts.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSecond, the correlational findings \\u0026ndash; while theoretically coherent and replicated across both studies \\u0026ndash; do not permit causal inference. Although the experimental manipulations isolated different modes of presenting scientific thought processes, the associations between perceived tentativeness and credibility may still reflect unmeasured confounds, such as students\\u0026rsquo; pre-existing epistemic beliefs, domain knowledge, or trust dispositions. To more rigorously disentangle these relationships, future experiments should directly manipulate uncertainty expressions or trust cues and examine their causal impact on credibility judgements and epistemic outcomes.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThird, the interventions were implemented in school settings and centered around a specific ecological research case. While this design enhances ecological validity, it also constrains generalizability. It remains unclear whether similar effects would emerge for science topics that carry higher emotional or societal relevance (e.g., climate science, public health), where trust dynamics and identity-related factors may shape how uncertainty is interpreted. Future research should extend this work to diverse scientific contexts and examine how issue salience, perceived stakes, and media framing interact with instructional representations of scientific reasoning.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFourth, we did not assess students\\u0026rsquo; prior knowledge regarding bats or their familiarity with ecological research practices. Although the videos were designed to be self-contained, individual differences in background knowledge may have influenced how students interpreted the research process and evaluated its credibility. Incorporating targeted pre-assessments would allow future studies to account for such heterogeneity and clarify how domain knowledge moderates learning outcomes.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFifth, the exclusive reliance on quantitative survey data constrained our ability to capture deeper insights into students\\u0026rsquo; reasoning processes. Without qualitative data \\u0026ndash; such as interviews, open-ended reflections, classroom observations, or think-aloud protocols \\u0026ndash; it remains unclear how students actually engaged with epistemic uncertainty to facilitate methodological triangulation and to illuminate the mechanisms through which students make sense of scientific reasoning.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSixth, we did not measure students\\u0026rsquo; prior NOS conceptions or their epistemological beliefs. These factors likely shaped how learners interpreted the instructional materials and responded to the survey items. Without accounting for such individual epistemic profiles, the explanatory power of our findings is limited. Future studies should administer epistemological pre-assessments or incorporate qualitative measures to examine how existing belief systems influence engagement with representations of scientific inquiry.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDespite these limitations, the study offers important strengths. Implementing two studies across contrasting instructional formats (minimal vs. scaffolded) enhances ecological validity and provides comparative insight into student engagement. Moreover, the use of theory-informed video materials grounded in authentic scientific practice represents a novel attempt to bridge science communication and education. These design features position the present research as a valuable foundation for building instructional interventions that reconcile scientific credibility with epistemic tentativeness \\u0026ndash; a tension central to fostering scientific literacy in contemporary classrooms.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec39\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eImplications for Science Education\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe findings offer several important implications for science education.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFirst, our results suggest that students may be capable of recognizing the tentative nature of scientific knowledge, particularly when scientific thought processes are presented in a science-in-the-making mode. However, this interpretation should be treated with caution, as the analyses were exploratory and the internal consistency of the tentativeness scale was modest. When the reasoning behind scientific decisions is made visible and explicitly explained, learners appear more attuned to the provisional, interpretive, and evolving nature of scientific inquiry. This underscores the value of epistemic transparency and the role of instructional design in fostering epistemic awareness. Educators should therefore not only emphasize what was done in a scientific study, but also why it was done and how methodological decisions were justified.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInterestingly, the overall level of perceived tentativeness was lower in Study 2 than in Study 1, despite the more elaborate instructional design. This may reflect procedural differences: Study 2 involved collaborative tasks and structured guidance, which may have shifted students\\u0026rsquo; focus toward coherence and resolution rather than epistemic ambiguity. Alternatively, the extended format may have led to cognitive fatigue or reduced sensitivity to uncertainty cues. These possibilities warrant further investigation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSecond, although portrayals of science-in-the-making did not reduce credibility in this study, several contextual factors may limit the generalizability of these findings. Students\\u0026rsquo; interpretation of uncertainty depends on their prior beliefs about science, their level of trust in institutional knowledge, and the societal or personal salience of the topic. Science education should therefore explicitly address the epistemic function of tentativeness \\u0026ndash; not as a deficit, but as a hallmark of scientific rigor. This may involve comparing different modes of communicating uncertainty and reflecting on how these modes relate to norms of scientific reasoning and discourse.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThird, the conceptual distinction between scientific thought processes and scientific practices appears to be useful in both theory and application. Our findings suggest that simply illustrating procedural steps (as is typical of \\u003cem\\u003ecookbook-style\\u003c/em\\u003e instructions) may not suffice to alter students\\u0026rsquo; perceptions of science. Instead, it is the epistemic framing of these steps (consistent with \\u003cem\\u003escientific reasoning styles\\u003c/em\\u003e) that enables students to engage with scientific inquiry as a reasoned, reflective, and evidence-based process. Instructional tools should therefore integrate representations of \\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e with clear rationales behind research actions to encourage students\\u0026rsquo; critical engagement with the logic of inquiry.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFinally, our results reinforce the need to distinguish between credibility of the source (the scientist) and credibility of the content (the research findings). Although the two were positively correlated, they remain analytically distinct and may respond differently to instructional manipulations. Building on findings by Mason et al. [\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR59\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e59\\u003c/span\\u003e], future research and instructional design should pay closer attention to how learners form these judgments and how they interact with developing epistemic beliefs.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Conclusion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eBuilding on these implications for science education, the findings from both studies highlight a key interpretive tension: Students must navigate science as both credible and tentative. Educational portrayals that emphasize \\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e can support learners in viewing science not as a body of static facts, but as a dynamic, evolving, and interpretive process of knowledge construction. However, these portrayals may challenge learners\\u0026rsquo; expectations of scientific certainty and therefore require careful scaffolding.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo advance scientific literacy, education must support learners in reconciling scientific credibility with revisability. Scientific knowledge is not weakened by its tentativeness; rather, it is strengthened by transparency, methodological rigor, and its capacity for self-correction. Helping students understand this requires not only showing \\u003cem\\u003ewhat\\u003c/em\\u003e scientists do but also making visible \\u003cem\\u003ehow\\u003c/em\\u003e and \\u003cem\\u003ewhy\\u003c/em\\u003e they do it.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFunding Statement:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eThis work was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Grant number: [01IO2104C].\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eConflict of Interest:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eEthics Statement:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eThe study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Science at Ruhr University Bochum (Approval No. EPE-2023\\u0026ndash;025). All procedures were conducted in accordance with institutional guidelines and the ethical standards of the Deutsche Gesellschaft f\\u0026uuml;r Psychologie e.V. and the Berufsverband Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants and their legal guardians.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eConsent to Participate:\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/strong\\u003eAll participating students and their legal guardians provided written informed consent prior to participation, in accordance with institutional and ethical guidelines.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eConsent to Publish:\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/strong\\u003eParticipants and their legal guardians (if underage) provided consent for the publication of anonymized data and study results.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eData Availability Statement:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eThe datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eClinical Trial Number:\\u003c/strong\\u003e Not applicable.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAuthors\\u0026rsquo; Contributions:\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eJCT:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eConceptualization, Methodology, Data Acquisition and Curation, Project Administration, Investigation, Resources, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eKD:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eConceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review \\u0026amp; editing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eVB:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eConceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review \\u0026amp; editing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eHG:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eConceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review \\u0026amp; editing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eTB:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eConceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review \\u0026amp; editing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAS:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eConceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review \\u0026amp; editing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eMB:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eConceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review \\u0026amp; editing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eDL:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eConceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review \\u0026amp; editing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCV:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eConceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review \\u0026amp; editing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eUH:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eConceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review \\u0026amp; editing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eJW:\\u003c/strong\\u003e Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review \\u0026amp; editing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eUC:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eConceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review \\u0026amp; editing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eJK:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eConceptualization, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing - review \\u0026amp; editing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCorresponding Author:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eJulia Cath\\u0026eacute;rine Thomas \\u0026ndash; j.thomas@iwm-tuebingen.de\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAcknowledgements:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eWe would like to thank the VideT-Team for their valuable support and feedback throughout this project. \\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDuschl R. Science Education in Three-Part Harmony: Balancing Conceptual, Epistemic, and Social Learning Goals. Rev Res Educ. 2008;32:268\\u0026ndash;91. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/20185118\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.jstor.org/stable/20185118\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eOsborne J, Collins S, Ratcliffe M, Millar R, Duschl R. What ideas-about-science should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. J Res Sci Teach. 2003;40(7):692\\u0026ndash;720. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1002/tea.10105\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFriesen S, Scott D. (2013, June). Inquiry-based learning literature review. Retrieved from \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://galileo.org/focus-on-inquiry-lit-review.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://galileo.org/focus-on-inquiry-lit-review.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMcLean S. Case-based learning and its application in medical and health-care fields: A review of worldwide literature. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2016;3:39\\u0026ndash;49. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4137/JMECD.S20377\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.4137/JMECD.S20377\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBell RL, Smetana L, Binns I. Simplifying Inquiry Instruction: Assessing the Inquiry Level of Classroom Activities. Sci Teacher. 2005;72(7):30.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eZion M, Mendelovici R. Moving from Structured to Open Inquiry: Challenges and Limits. Sci Educ Int. 2012;23(4):383\\u0026ndash;99. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1001631\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1001631\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAllchin D, Andersen HM, Nielsen K. Complementary Approaches to Teaching Nature of Science: Integrating Student Inquiry, Historical Cases, and Contemporary Cases in Classroom Practice. Sci Educ. 2014;98(3):461\\u0026ndash;86. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21111\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1002/sce.21111\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eYadav A, Shaver GM, Meckl P. Lessons Learned: Implementing the Case Teaching Method in a Mechanical Engineering Course. J Eng Educ. 2010;99(1):55\\u0026ndash;69. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01042.x\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01042.x\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eChinn CA, Malhotra BA. Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Sci Educ. 2002;86(2):175\\u0026ndash;218. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1002/sce.10001\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHeering P. Douglas Allchin: Teaching the Nature of Science: Perspectives and Resources. Sci Educ. 2015;24(4):477\\u0026ndash;9. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9706-x\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s11191-014-9706-x\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLatour B, WooIgar S. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press; 1986. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt32bbxc\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.2307/j.ctt32bbxc\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKhishfe R, Abd-El-Khalick F. Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach. 2002;39(7):551\\u0026ndash;78. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10036\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1002/tea.10036\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eErduran S, Dagher ZR. Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Springer. 2014. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eErduran S, Ioannidou O, Baird JA. The impact of epistemic framing of teaching videos and summative assessments on students\\u0026rsquo; learning of scientific methods. Int J Sci Educ. 2021;43(18):2885\\u0026ndash;910. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1998717\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/09500693.2021.1998717\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKnorr-Cetina K. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press; 1999. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvxw3q7f\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.2307/j.ctvxw3q7f\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLederman NG, Abell SK, editors. (2014). \\u003cem\\u003eHandbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II\\u003c/em\\u003e. Routledge. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.4324/9780203097267\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNorris SP, Phillips LM. How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Sci Educ. 2003;87(2):224\\u0026ndash;40. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1002/sce.10066\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eJenkins H, Purushotma R, Weigel M, Clinton K, Robison AJ. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. The MIT Press; 2009. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8435.001.0001\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.7551/mitpress/8435.001.0001\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSiddiq F, Gochyyev P, Wilson M. Learning in Digital Networks \\u0026ndash; ICT literacy: A novel assessment of students\\u0026rsquo; 21st century skills. Comput Educ. 2017;109:11\\u0026ndash;37. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.014\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.014\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFeinstein NW, Waddington DI. Individual truth judgments or purposeful, collective sensemaking? Rethinking science education\\u0026rsquo;s response to the post-truth era. Educational Psychol. 2020;55(3):155\\u0026ndash;66. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1780130\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/00461520.2020.1780130\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMcGrew S, Ortega T, Breakstone J, Wineburg S. The Challenge That\\u0026rsquo;s Bigger than Fake News: Civic Reasoning in a Social Media Environment. Am Educ. 2017;41(3):4. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1156387\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1156387\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eArcher L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B. Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous\\u0026rsquo;: primary school girls\\u0026rsquo; and parents\\u0026rsquo; constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy Cult Soc. 2013;21(1):171\\u0026ndash;94. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2012.748676\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/14681366.2012.748676\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eEvagorou M, Erduran S, M\\u0026auml;ntyl\\u0026auml; T. The role of visual representations in scientific practices: From conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to \\u0026lsquo;seeing\\u0026rsquo; how science works. Int J STEM Educ. 2015;2(1):11. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0024-x\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1186/s40594-015-0024-x\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSchiefer J, Edelsbrunner PA, Bernholt A, Kampa N, Nehring A. Epistemic beliefs in science\\u0026mdash;A systematic integration of evidence from multiple studies. Educational Psychol Rev. 2022;34:1541\\u0026ndash;75. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09661-w\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s10648-022-09661-w\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKampa N, Neumann I, Heitmann P, Kremer K. Epistemological beliefs in science\\u0026mdash;a person-centered approach to investigate high school students' profiles. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2016;46:81\\u0026ndash;93. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.04.007\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.04.007\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMete P. The relationship between epistemological beliefs, science learning approaches and scientific inquiry skills: A path analysis. Res Sci Technological Educ. 2023. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2209845\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/02635143.2023.2209845\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLederman NG, Abd-El‐Khalick F, Bell RL, Schwartz RS. Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners\\u0026rsquo; conceptions of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach. 2002;39(6):497\\u0026ndash;521. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1002/tea.10034\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMcComas WF. (2002). The Principal Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths. In W. F. McComas, editor, \\u003cem\\u003eThe Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies\\u003c/em\\u003e (pp. 53\\u0026ndash;70). Springer Netherlands. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_3\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/0-306-47215-5_3\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKind P, Osborne J. Styles of Scientific Reasoning: A Cultural Rationale for Science Education? Sci Educ. 2017;101(1):8\\u0026ndash;31. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21251\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1002/sce.21251\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRoden J. (1999). Young Children are Natural Scientists. In T. David, editor, \\u003cem\\u003eYoung Children Learning\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4135/9781446219416.n9\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.4135/9781446219416.n9\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNational Science Teachers Association. (2021). \\u003cem\\u003eNature of science\\u003c/em\\u003e. In \\u003cem\\u003eNSTA official position statements\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/nature-science\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/nature-science\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eiN Education Inc. (2021). Nature of Science \\u0026ndash; Understanding how Science Works. Retrieved from \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://ineducationonline.org/2021/09/10/nature-of-science-understanding-how-science-works/\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://ineducationonline.org/2021/09/10/nature-of-science-understanding-how-science-works/\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNamakula EK, Akerson VL. Explicit incorporation of the nature of science (NOS) in an undergraduate preservice teacher science content course: Action research. Int J Res Educ Sci (IJRES). 2024;10(2):241\\u0026ndash;78. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3354\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.46328/ijres.3354\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKrell M, Redman C, Mathesius S, Kr\\u0026uuml;ger D, van Driel J. Assessing Pre-Service Science Teachers\\u0026rsquo; Scientific Reasoning Competencies. Res Sci Educ. 2020;50(6):2305\\u0026ndash;29. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9780-1\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s11165-018-9780-1\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMorris BJ, Croker S, Masnick AM, Zimmerman C, Morris BJ, Croker S, Masnick AM, Zimmerman C. (2012). The Emergence of Scientific Reasoning. In: \\u003cem\\u003eCurrent Topics in Children\\u0026rsquo;s Learning and Cognition\\u003c/em\\u003e. IntechOpen. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5772/53885\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.5772/53885\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eOpitz A, Heene M, Fischer F. Measuring scientific reasoning \\u0026ndash; a review of test instruments. Educational Res Evaluation. 2017;23(3\\u0026ndash;4):78\\u0026ndash;101. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2017.1338586\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/13803611.2017.1338586\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNational Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academies; 2012. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17226/13165\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.17226/13165\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eOECD. (2023). \\u003cem\\u003ePISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During \\u0026ndash; and From \\u0026ndash; Disruption\\u003c/em\\u003e. OECD. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1787/a97db61c-en\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eErduran S. (2013). Nature of science and science education: Missing connections and potential interdisciplinary links. \\u003cem\\u003ePlenary Lecture, World Congress of New Trends in Science Education, Krakow, Poland\\u003c/em\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDriver R, Asoko H, Leach J, Mortimer E, Scott P. Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom. Educational Researcher. 1994;23(7):5\\u0026ndash;12. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/1176933\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.2307/1176933\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eOsborne J, Dillon J, Nuffield F. Science education in Europe: Critical reflections: A report to the Nuffield Foundation. Nuffield Foundation; 2008.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLave J, Wenger E. (1991). \\u003cem\\u003eSituated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation\\u003c/em\\u003e (p. 138). Cambridge University Press. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1017/CBO9780511815355\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAllchin D. Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Sci Educ. 2011;95(3):518\\u0026ndash;42. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20432\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1002/sce.20432\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFuntowicz SO, Ravetz JR. (1990). Science for Policy: Uncertainty and Quality. In S. O. Funtowicz \\u0026amp; J. R. Ravetz, editors, \\u003cem\\u003eUncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy\\u003c/em\\u003e (pp. 7\\u0026ndash;16). Springer Netherlands. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0621-1_3\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/978-94-009-0621-1_3\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHelton JC, Johnson JD, Sallaberry CJ, Storlie CB. Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2006;91(10):1175\\u0026ndash;209. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.11.017\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.ress.2005.11.017\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKampourakis K, McCain K. Uncertainty: How It Makes Science Advance. Oxford University Press; 2019. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190871666.001.0001\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1093/oso/9780190871666.001.0001\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFox CR, \\u0026Uuml;lk\\u0026uuml;men G. (2011). \\u003cem\\u003eDistinguishing Two Dimensions of Uncertainty\\u003c/em\\u003e (SSRN Scholarly Paper 3695311). Social Science Research Network. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3695311\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.2139/ssrn.3695311\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, editors. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press; 1982. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1017/CBO9780511809477\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W. (2011). Heuristic Decision Making. \\u003cem\\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e62\\u003c/em\\u003e(Volume 62, 2011), 451\\u0026ndash;482. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePayne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press; 1993. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173933\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1017/CBO9781139173933\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFlemming D, Kimmerle J, Cress U, Sinatra GM. Research is Tentative, but That\\u0026rsquo;s Okay: Overcoming Misconceptions about Scientific Tentativeness through Refutation Texts. Discourse Processes. 2020;57(1):17\\u0026ndash;35. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1629805\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/0163853X.2019.1629805\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKimmerle J, Flemming D, Feinkohl I, Cress U. How Laypeople Understand the Tentativeness of Medical Research News in the Media: An Experimental Study on the Perception of Information About Deep Brain Stimulation. Sci Communication. 2015;37(2):173\\u0026ndash;89. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014556541\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/1075547014556541\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHendriks F, Kienhues D, Bromme R. (2017). \\u003cem\\u003eMETI \\u0026ndash; Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory [Test documentation and questionnaire]\\u003c/em\\u003e. ZPID (Leibniz Institute for Psychology), Open Test Archive. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.6557\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.23668/psycharchives.6557\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eEisinga R, te Grotenhuis M, Pelzer B. The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? Int J Public Health. 2013;58(4):637\\u0026ndash;42. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eStreiner DL. Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80(1):99\\u0026ndash;103. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eOsborne J, Erduran S, Simon S. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. J Res Sci Teach. 2004;41(10):994\\u0026ndash;1020. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1002/tea.20035\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFiske ST, Dupree C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. \\u003cem\\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e111\\u003c/em\\u003e(supplement_4), 13593\\u0026ndash;13597. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1073/pnas.1317505111\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003evan der Bles AM, van der Linden S, Freeman ALJ, Spiegelhalter DJ. (2020). The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. \\u003cem\\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e117\\u003c/em\\u003e(14), 7672\\u0026ndash;7683. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913678117\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1073/pnas.1913678117\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMason L, Junyent AA, Tornatora MC. Epistemic evaluation and comprehension of web-source information on controversial science-related topics: Effects of a short-term instructional intervention. Comput Educ. 2014;76:143\\u0026ndash;57. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.016\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.016\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":true,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"Tentativeness, Research Process, Credibility, Science Communication, Science Education\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8213759/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8213759/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eSupporting students in understanding how scientific knowledge is developed, including its inherent uncertainty, is a key challenge in science education. The research presented here investigated how the formatting of scientific practices and the representation of a scientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought processes influence secondary school student\\u0026rsquo;s perceptions of the scientist\\u0026rsquo;s credibility, the research\\u0026rsquo;s credibility, and the tentativeness of findings. Scientific practices were presented either as \\u003cem\\u003ecookbook style\\u003c/em\\u003e (research without rationale) or with \\u003cem\\u003escientific reasoning style\\u003c/em\\u003e (explaining \\u003cem\\u003ewhy\\u003c/em\\u003e each step was taken). The scientist\\u0026rsquo;s thought process was shown authentically (\\u003cem\\u003escience-in-the-making\\u003c/em\\u003e, with visible deliberations) or canonized (\\u003cem\\u003eready-made science\\u003c/em\\u003e, settled steps). Two field studies using bat ecology videos were conducted. In Study 1 (\\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;148), students viewed one of four videos corresponding to the experimental conditions. No main effects were found, but perceived tentativeness negatively correlated with both researcher and findings credibility across all conditions. Study 2 (\\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;607) was a full-day school intervention with the same four videos in a constructive learning format. A main effect indicated that findings were perceived as more tentative when presented as science-in-the-making. Again, negative correlations between tentativeness and credibility were observed in all conditions. These results inform the design of educational media that realistically portray scientific inquiry and help students develop a nuanced view of science as dynamic and provisional. They also point to a potential trade-off: While authentic representations can foster epistemic insight, they may simultaneously lower perceived credibility.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"The Impact of Research Process Presentations on Secondary School Student’s Perception of Scientific Credibility and Tentativeness\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2026-01-20 12:19:45\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8213759/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"da923aa8-84f1-451c-b738-71ad1fd01b8c\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"January 20th, 2026\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"posted\",\"subjectAreas\":[],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2026-02-25T09:57:25+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2026-01-20 12:19:45\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-8213759\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-8213759\",\"identity\":\"rs-8213759\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}