Developing science outreach events based on stakeholders’ objectives and expectations – A case study of a lecture day for schools
References
- Anderson, D., Kisiel, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2006). Understanding teachers’ perspectives on field trips: discovering common ground in three countries. Curator the Museum Journal, 49(3), 365-386.
- Baram‐Tsabari, A. & Osborne, J. (2015). Bridging science education and science communication research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52 (2). 135‐144.
- Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., & Yuan, S. (2018). Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science. 27 (6). 708‐730.
- Canovan, C. (2019). More than a grand day out? Learning on school trips to science festivals from the perspectives of teachers, pupils and organisers. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 10(1), 1‐16.
- Claussen, C., Kapitza, M., Knapp, J. M., Bernholt, A., Schulenburg, H., & Kremer, K. (2020). Metaorganismusforschung trifft Schule: Wissenschaftskommunikation an der Universität zu Kiel. Biologie in unserer Zeit, 50(4), 270‐277. https://doi.org/10.1002/biuz.202010713
- Davidson, S. K, Passmore, C., & Anderson, D. (2009). Learning on zoo field trips: The interaction of the agendas and practices of students, teachers, and zoo educators. Science Education, 94(1), 122‐141. doi: 10.1002/sce.20356
- Davies S.R. (2008) Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication 29(4): 413–434.
- D’Este, P., Ramos‐Vielba, I., Woolley, R., Amara, N. (2018). How do researchers generate scientific and societal impacts? Toward an analytical and operational framework, Science and Public Policy, Volume 45 (6) Issue 6, 752–763, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy023
- Dudo A. and Besley J.C. (2016) Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS ONE 11(2): e0148867.
- Dudo, A., Besley, J. C., & Yuan, S. (2021). Science Communication Training in North America: Preparing Whom to Do What With What Effect? Science Communication, 43(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020960138
- Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 25(1), 147‐164.
- Engeln, K. (2004). Schülerlabors: authentische, aktivierende Lernumgebungen als Möglichkeit, Interesse an Naturwissenschaften und Technik zu wecken. Logos Verlag.
- Garner, N., & Eilks, I. (2015). The expectations of teachers and students who visit a nonformal student chemistry laboratory. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education Education, 11(5), 1197–1210. doi: 0.12973/eurasia.2015.1414a
- Glowinski, I. (2007). Schülerlabore im Themenbereich Molekularbiologie als Interesse fördernde Lernumgebungen (Doctoral dissertation).
- Goodwin J, Dahlstrom MF (2014). Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates. WIREs Climate Change 5(1), 151–160. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.262
- Husher, K. (2010). Building an Evaluation Framework for Australian Science and Maths Outreach Programs in Schools. University of Newcastle.
- Kisiel, J. (2005). Understanding elementary teacher motivations for science field trips. Science Education, 89(6), 936–955.
- Knogler, M., Harackiewicz, J. M., Gegenfurtner, A. & Lewalter, D. (2015). How situational is situational interest? Investigating the longitudinal structure of situational interest. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.004
- Krüger, J. T., Höffler, T. N., & Parchmann, I. (2022). Trust in science and scientists among secondary school students in two out‐of‐ School learning activities. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 12(2). 111‐125.
- Lee, H., Stern, M.J. & Powell, R. B. (2020). Do pre‐visit preparation and post‐visit activities improve student outcomes on field trips? Environmental Education Research, 26:7, 989‐1007, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2020.1765991
- Little, H., Fogg‐Rogers, L., & Sardo, A. M. (2022). The Christmas Lectures: extending the experience outside the lecture theatre. Journal of Science Communication, 21(2), A01.
- Nadelson, L., Jorcyk, C., Yang, D., Jarratt Smith Mary, Matson, S., Cornell, K. & Husting, V. (2014). I just don’t trust them: The development and validation of an assessment instrument to measure trust in science and scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 114 (2), 76–86.
- Nisbet M.C., Scheufele D.A. (2009). What’s next for science communication: Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany. 96(10). 1767–78. doi: 10.3732/ajb.0900041
- Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures, and software solution. Klagenfurt.
- Miller P. H., Slawinski Blessing, J. & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender Differences in High‐school Students’ Views about Science, International Journal of Science Education, 28:4, 363‐381, doi: 10.1080/09500690500277664
- Monroe, M.C. (2011). Engaging the public in environmental decisions: Strategies for environmental education and communication. 741–749. In: Gökçekus, H., Türker, U., LaMoreaux, J.W., eds. Survival and Sustainability: Environmental Concerns in the 21st Century. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
- Phipps, M. (2010). Research Trends and Findings from a Decade (1997–2007) of Research on Informal Science Education and Free‐Choice Science Learning, Visitor Studies, 13 (1), 3‐22, doi: 10.1080/10645571003618717
- Piirainen, K. A., Andersen, A. D., & Andersen, P. D. (2016). Foresight and the third mission of universities: the case for innovation system foresight. Foresight.
- Rakoczy, K., Buff, A. & Lipowsky, F. (2005). Befragungsinstrumente. In E. Klieme & C. Pauli & K. Reusser (Hrsg.), Dokumentation der Erhebungs‐und Auswertungsinstrumente zur schweizerisch‐deutschen Videostudie” Unterrichtsqualität, Lernverhalten und mathematisches Verständnis”, Teil, 1.
- Sadler, K., Eilam, E., Bigger S.W. & Barry, F. (2016). University‐led STEM outreach programs: purposes, impacts, stakeholder needs and institutional support at nine Australian universities, Studies in Higher Education, 43(3), 586‐599. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1185775
- Schwarzer, S., & Parchmann, I. (2015). Erwartungen von Schülern und Wissenschaftlern an Schülerlaborbesuche. Heterogenität und Diversität‐Vielfalt der Voraussetzungen im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. Berlin: LIT, 232‐234.
- Suldovsky, B. (2016). In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit always return? Exploring key influences. Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629750
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/ristal-2023-3 | Journal eISSN: 2616-7697
Language: English
Page range: 49 - 66
Published on: Aug 10, 2023
Published by: Gesellschaft für Fachdidaktik (GfD e.V.)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 times per year
Keywords:
Related subjects:
© 2023 Christina Claussen, Carolin Enzingmüller, Kerstin Kremer, Hinrich Schulenburg, Ilka Parchmann, published by Gesellschaft für Fachdidaktik (GfD e.V.)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License.