1887

Using the Tools of Informal Science Education to Connect Science and the Public

    Author: April Killikelly1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Received 06 August 2017 Accepted 18 November 2017 Published 30 March 2018
    • ©2018 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    • [open-access] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode), which grants the public the nonexclusive right to copy, distribute, or display the published work.

    • Corresponding author. Mailing address: 142 Guigues Ave, Ottawa ON, K1N 5H9, Canada. Phone: 613-371-2664. E-mail: a.killikelly@gmail.com.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. March 2018 vol. 19 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1427
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
    56.77 Kb
  • PDF
    476.87 Kb
  • HTML
    49.88 Kb

    Abstract:

    Traditional modes of communication within the scientific community, including presentation of data at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications, use technical jargon that limits public engagement. While altering word choice is an important method for increasing public engagement, the data itself may not be enough. For example, communicating the lack of evidence that vaccines cause autism did not convince many reluctant parents to vaccinate their kids (Nyhan, Reifler, Richey, Freed, 133:e835–e842, 2014). To address this gap between the scientific community and the public, many journals are adopting open-access policies and publishing lay-abstracts. Meanwhile, “meet a scientist” programs are creating opportunities for scientists to engage with the public in person. However, these programs may not be as effective as they could be. Many scientists still subscribe to an information-deficit model in which “the data speaks for itself.” Alternative tools that go beyond the data are needed. Here, I present three tools to create connections between the public and science: 3-D objects, games, and storytelling. These multidimensional and multisensory methods do more than promote understanding of scientific data; they may also be used to convey science as a verb and as an essential viewpoint in the human struggle for understanding.

References & Citations

1. Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, Freed GL2014Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trialPediatrics133e835e84210.1542/peds.2013-236524590751 http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2365
2. Simis MJ, Madden H, Cacciatore MA, Yeo SK2016The lure of rationality: why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Pub Underst Sci2540041410.1177/0963662516629749 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749
3. Sturgis P, Allum N2004Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudesPub Underst Sci13557410.1177/0963662504042690 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690
4. Kaplan JT, Gimbel SI, Harris S2016Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidenceSci Rep63958910.1038/srep39589 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep39589
5. Dube E, Vivion M, MacDonald NE2015Vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal and the anti-vaccine movement: influence, impact and implicationsExpert Rev Vaccines1419911710.1586/14760584.2015.964212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1586/14760584.2015.964212
6. Kahan DM, Braman D, Cohen GL, Gastil J, Slovic P2010Who fears the HPV vaccine, who doesn’t, and why? An experimental study of the mechanisms of cultural cognitionLaw Hum Behav3450151610.1007/s10979-009-9201-020076997 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9201-0
7. Poliakoff E, Webb TL2007What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Sci Commun2924226310.1177/1075547007308009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009
8. Falk JHD, Lynn D2010The 95 percent solution: school is not where most Americans learn most of their scienceAm Scientist98648649310.1511/2010.87.486 http://dx.doi.org/10.1511/2010.87.486
9. American Alliance of Museums2014Museum factshttp://www.aam-us.org/about-museums/museum-facts
10. Geyer C, Neubauer K, Lewalter D2013Public understanding of science via research areas in science museums: the evaluation of the EU project NanoToTouch5074 Locke L, Locke SKnowledges in publics: beyond deficit, engagement and transferCambridge Scholars PublishingNewcastle upon Tyne, UK
11. Lewalter D, Geyer C, Neubauer K2014Comparing the effectiveness of two communication formats on visitors’ understanding of nanotechnologyVisitor Studies1715917610.1080/10645578.2014.945345 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2014.945345
12. Falk JH, Dierking LD2000Learning from museums: visitor experiences and the making of meaningAltaMira PressLanham, MD
13. Falk JH, Dierking LD2012Museum experience revisitedLeft Coast PressWalnut Creek, CA
14. Schwan S, Grajal A, Lewalter D2014Understanding and engagement in places of science experience: science museums, science centers, zoos, and aquariumsEduc Psychol49708510.1080/00461520.2014.917588 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.917588
15. Durksen TL, Martin AJ, Burns EC, Ginns P, Williamson D, Kiss J2017Conducting research in a medical science museum: lessons learned from collaboration between researchers and museum educatorsJ Museum Educ4227328310.1080/10598650.2017.1339171 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2017.1339171
16. Allen S2004Designs for learning: studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertainSci Educ88S1S17S3310.1002/sce.20016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20016
17. Pekarik AJ, Doering ZD, Karns DA1999Exploring satisfying experiences in museumsCurator Museum J4215217310.1111/j.2151-6952.1999.tb01137.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1999.tb01137.x
18. Paris SG, Hapgood SE2002Children learning with objects in informal learning environments3754 Paris SGPerspectives on object-centered learning in museumsLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwah, NJ
19. Lepouras G, Katifori A, Vassilakis C, Charitos D2004Real exhibitions in a virtual museumVirt Real712012810.1007/s10055-004-0121-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10055-004-0121-5
20. Watermeyer R2015Science engagement at the museum school: teacher perspectives on the contribution of museum pedagogy to science teachingBr Educ Res J4188690510.1002/berj.3173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/berj.3173
21. Shea M2014The hands-on model of the Internet: engaging diverse groups of visitorsJ Museum Educ3921622610.1080/10598650.2014.11510812 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2014.11510812
22. Killikelly AM, Kanekiyo M, Graham BS2016Pre-fusion F is absent on the surface of formalin-inactivated respiratory syncytial virusSci Rep63410810.1038/srep34108276824265040956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep34108
23. Leinhardt G, Crowley K2002Objects of learning, objects of talk: changing minds in museums301324 Paris SGPerspectives on object-centered learning in museumsLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwah, NJ
24. Hooper-Greenhill E2007Museums and education: purpose, pedagogy, performanceRoutledgeNew York, NY
25. Gates B2017Here’s how virtual reality can help fight diseaseGates Noteshttps://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/How-Virtual-Reality-Can-Help-Us-Fight-Viruses
26. Su T, Cheng MT, Lin SH2014Investigating the effectiveness of an educational card game for learning how human immunology is regulatedCBE Life Sci Educ1350451510.1187/cbe.13-10-0197251852334152211 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-10-0197
27. Briseño-Garzón A, Anderson D, Anderson A2007Adult learning experiences from an aquarium visit: the role of social interactions in family groupsCurator Museum J5029931810.1111/j.2151-6952.2007.tb00274.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2007.tb00274.x
28. Rees M2017Museums as catalysts for changeNature Clim Ch716616710.1038/nclimate3237 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3237
29. Smithsonian Institution, Office of Policy and Analysis2004Results of the 2004 Smithsonian-wide survey of museum visitorsWashington, DC
30. World Health Organization, Regional Office for Africa2014Contact tracing during an outbreak of Ebola virus diseaseWorld Health OrganizationBrazzaville, Congo
31. Allen S, Gutwill JP2009Creating a program to deepen family inquiry at interactive science exhibitsCurator Museum J5228930610.1111/j.2151-6952.2009.tb00352.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2009.tb00352.x
32. Arya DJ, Maul A2012The role of the scientific discovery narrative in middle school science education: an experimental studyJ Educ Psychol104102210.1037/a0028108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028108
33. Glaser M, Garsoffky B, Schwan S2012What do we learn from docutainment? Processing hybrid television documentariesLearn Instruct22374610.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.006
34. Hong H-Y, Lin-Siegler X2012How learning about scientists’ struggles influences students’ interest and learning in physicsJ Educ Psychol10446910.1037/a0026224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026224
35. Töpper J, Glaser M, Schwan S2014Extending social cue based principles of multimedia learning beyond their immediate effectsLearn Instruct29102010.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.002
36. Bruner J2004Life as narrativeSoc Res5411132
37. Fisher WR1985The narrative paradigm: an elaborationCommunicat Monogr5234736710.1080/03637758509376117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637758509376117
38. Dahlstrom MF2014Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiencesProc Natl Acad Sci111136141362010.1073/pnas.1320645111252253684183170 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111
39. Cunningham RM, Boom JA2013Telling stories of vaccine-preventable diseases: why it worksS D MedSpec No212623444587
40. Downs JS2014Prescriptive scientific narratives for communicating usable scienceProc Natl Acad Sci111136271363310.1073/pnas.1317502111252253694183172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317502111
41. Spiegel AN, McQuillan J, Halpin P, Matuk C, Diamond J2013Engaging teenagers with science through comicsRes Sci Educ43610.1007/s11165-013-9358-x243477483859376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9358-x
42. Leiserowitz AA2004Day after tomorrow: study of climate change risk perceptionEnviron Sci Policy Sust Devt46223910.1080/00139150409603663 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139150409603663
43. van Renssen S2017The visceral climate experienceNature Clim Ch716817110.1038/nclimate3233 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3233
44. Selvakumar M, Storksdieck M2013Portal to the public: museum educators collaborating with scientists to engage museum visitors with current scienceCurator Museum J56697810.1111/cura.12007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cura.12007
45. Swim JK, Geiger N, Fraser J, Pletcher N2017Climate change education at nature-based museumsCurator Museum J6010111910.1111/cura.12187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cura.12187
46. Funk C, Rainie L2015Chapter 6: Public opinion about foodAmericans, politics, and science issuesPew Research CentreWashington, DCwww.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-6-public-opinion-about-food/
47. Gauchat G2012Politicization of science in the public sphere: a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010Am Sociol Rev7716718710.1177/0003122412438225 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225
48. Jamieson KH, Hardy BW2014Leveraging scientific credibility about Arctic sea ice trends in a polarized political environmentProc Natl Acad Sci111135981360510.1073/pnas.1320868111252253804183171 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320868111
49. US Food and Drug Administration2018Food from genetically engineered plantshttps://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/default.htm

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1427
2018-03-30
2018-04-22

Abstract:

Traditional modes of communication within the scientific community, including presentation of data at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications, use technical jargon that limits public engagement. While altering word choice is an important method for increasing public engagement, the data itself may not be enough. For example, communicating the lack of evidence that vaccines cause autism did not convince many reluctant parents to vaccinate their kids (Nyhan, Reifler, Richey, Freed, 133:e835–e842, 2014). To address this gap between the scientific community and the public, many journals are adopting open-access policies and publishing lay-abstracts. Meanwhile, “meet a scientist” programs are creating opportunities for scientists to engage with the public in person. However, these programs may not be as effective as they could be. Many scientists still subscribe to an information-deficit model in which “the data speaks for itself.” Alternative tools that go beyond the data are needed. Here, I present three tools to create connections between the public and science: 3-D objects, games, and storytelling. These multidimensional and multisensory methods do more than promote understanding of scientific data; they may also be used to convey science as a verb and as an essential viewpoint in the human struggle for understanding.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/19/1/jmbe-19-31.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1427&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Data versus 3-D object. A) Binding of antibody AM14 to Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) surface proteins decreases over time as these proteins become inactivated and change shape. B) These 3-D printed models show proteins on the surface of RSV flipping from active (red) to inactive (blue) over time. These two figures illustrate the same concept but with different target audiences. Figure 1A is intended for a peer-reviewed scientific journal audience with field-specific previous knowledge ( 22 ). Figure 1B is more accessible to a nonspecialist audience both inside and outside the scientific community.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. March 2018 vol. 19 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1427
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Visitors engage with the outbreak activity in Q?rius at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. This activity promotes social learning by asking visitors to solve a puzzle: “Who is patient zero?” and “What is the path of illness spread?” This activity also encourages social and intergenerational learning. Pictured here is a son showing his mother and brother a clue to solving the puzzle.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. March 2018 vol. 19 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1427
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error