TRAINING SCIENTISTS TO COMMUNICATE SCIENCE TO THE PUBLIC:

A CASE AT SCIENCE WORLD

by

Wei Hu

B. Eng., Tianjin University, 1994

M. Eng., Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1997

A GRADUATING PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF MUSEUM EDUCATION

in

The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies

(Curriculum and Pedagogy)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(Vancouver)

July 2014

© Wei Hu, 2014

Abstract

It is believed that science communication training can help scientists become better

communicators to promote the public engagement with science. In recent years a few science

museums have introduced programs to bring current science to the public and to create scientists

who are capable of effectively communicating with the public. In order to better understand what

pedagogical supports are effective to help scientists engage audiences the training provided to

Community Scientists in the Community Scientist Initiative (CSI) program at Science World was

examined.

A combination of surveys and interviews were used. In total 27 completed survey

responses were returned and 12 respondents were interviewed afterwards. The results and

findings indicate that the CSI program training workshops including the development of

hands-on activity indeed empowered the Community Scientists to successfully engage visitors in

science relevant to their expertise, but more experiential learning approaches are needed in the

pedagogical knowledge development of Community Scientists. It suggests that the knowledge

framework of the professional development of museum educators (Tran & King, 2007) can be a

reasonable theoretical framework to train scientists how to effectively communicate with the

general public.

ii
Preface

Ethics approval was required for this study. Ethics approval was successfully obtained from

the Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) of the University of British Columbia (UBC).

The BREB approval number for this study is H14-00238.

iii
Table of Contents

Abstract .....................................................................................................................................ii
Preface ..................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................iiv
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................vi
List of Figures .........................................................................................................................vii
Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................................viii
1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................4
2.1 The knowledge framework for training frontline museum educators.................................4
2.2 The knowledge framework for training scientists to communicate with the public............6
2.3 Pedagogical supports used by existing collaborative programs .........................................7
2.4 Research context and questions ........................................................................................................ 9
3. Methodology........................................................................................................................ 11
3.1 The theoretical framework ............................................................................................. 11
3.2 Community Scientists ....................................................................................................13
3.3 Research design and data collection ...............................................................................14
3.4 Ethical considerations ....................................................................................................16
3.5 Data analysis..................................................................................................................17
3.6 Limitation of this study ....................................................................................................................17
4. Results and Findings...........................................................................................................19
4.1 What pedagogical supports do museum educators provide to prepare Community
Scientists for delivering public scientific activities?.......................................................19
4.2 What teaching strategies and skills do Community Scientists use in order to engage
the public in science? ....................................................................................................24
4.3 How do Community Scientists improve their pedagogical knowledge? ...............................29
5. Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................................35
5.1 Pedagogical supports provided by museum educators to prepare Community Scientists
for delivering public scientific activities ........................................................................36
5.2 Communication strategies and skills used by Community Scientists to engage the
public in science............................................................................................................39
5.3 How Community Scientists improve their pedagogical knowledge.................................41
5.4 Recommendations for the CSI program..........................................................................44
5.5 Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................45
Reference.................................................................................................................................47

iv
Appendix A..............................................................................................................................51
Community Scientists Survey Questionnaires ...................................................................................51

v
List of Tables

Table 1 Community Scientists’ General Impression about Visitors in their Hands-on Activities
………………………………………………………………………………………25

vi
List of Figures

Figure 1 Comparison of communication skills and strategies used in previous communication

activities and that used in CSI activities……………………………………………28

vii
Acknowledgement

This study partially answered my questions of which I had been always exploring the

answers in my last fourteen years as a science editor. I offer my sincere appreciation for the

learning opportunities provided by the MMEd program at UBC. I would like to thank the faculty,

staff and my colleagues for inspiring me to continue my work in this field. I extend particular

thanks to Dr. David Anderson for asking me the questions that stimulated me to think practically

about my research.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor Dr. Lisa McIntosh for her

supportive advice on my academic work and consistent positive organizational influence.

My completion of this study could not have been accomplished without the support of the

CSI program Director Tammy Matheson at Science World, as well as all the Community

Scientists who participated in surveys and interviews.

Special thanks are owed to my husband Hongbin and my daughter Mindy—thank you for

allowing me time away from you to research and write.

At last, I would like to thank all my friends in Richmond for taking care of my daughter

during my hectic schedules.

viii
1. Introduction

Science communication refers to a wide variety of communication processes relevant to

science, ranging from communication among experts within specialties, to the mediated or direct

communication of science to lay audiences, which is generally called the public, to the influence

of messages on science policy (Dunwoody, 2010). It has become a part of the social life of the

scientific community. A survey in 2006 among research scientists and engineers in the United

Kingdom found nearly three quarters (74%) reported taking part in at least one science

communication or public engagement activity over the past year (Royal Society, 2006). The

public interacts with science through museums, science cafes, deliberative forums, and outreach

activities through a host of academic and community-based organizations. Such programs have

grown significantly in quantity and intensity over the past decade (Besley & Tanner, 2011;

Bucchi, 2013). However, in the practice of science communication, a common concern existing

among scientists is the disconnect with the general public, and some scientists argue that “some

of the blame lies with the lay public because many people have ‘little factual knowledge of

science’” (Baum, 2012, p. 5). This blame implies the “deficit model” in science communication

in which the general public is viewed as being deficit in knowledge, understanding and agency;

they are an empty vessel waiting to be filled with a collection of authoritative scientific facts

(Davies, McCallie, Simonsson, Lehr & Duensing, 2009). This deficit model also caused the

prevalence of top-down, one-way communication from scientists to the public (Durant, 2010).

The common concern of disconnect with the general public calls for a shift toward two-way

science communication, that is, the “dialogue model” of the relationship between scientists and

the public (Durant, 2010; Fischhoff & Scheufele, 2013). In other words, it calls for a transition

1
from promoting the public understanding of science to the public engagement with science. Then,

how can this transition be achieved? Many science communication scholars advocate conducting

communication training for scientists and undergraduate or graduate students who will be future

scientists in order to encourage the meaningful public dialogue model between scientists and the

public, as well as prepare scientist to interact with policy makers and the mass media (e.g. Besley

& Tanner, 2011; Bubela et al., 2009). Despite this increased interest in communicating science to

the public, little literature has reported what is taught in this training and why it is taught, what

educational resources are drawn upon, and what training techniques are used.

Based on the research of informal learning, museum educators successfully engage

audiences (Bevan & Xanthoudaki, 2008). Moreover, face-to-face scientific events usually take

place in museums and community centers which are informal learning settings. If these science

communication events are seen as educational activities happening in informal environments, the

nature of informal learning can be applied to them; teaching strategies and skills used in museum

education can be employed in facilitating these events to foster two-way science communication.

In fact, in recent years a few science museums in the United Sates, Canada, and Australia have

already carried out collaborative programs with the scientific community and colleges or

universities to bring current science to the public and to create scientists who are capable of

effectively communicating with the public (e.g. Dougherty, Oliver & Fergusson, 2014;

Selvakumar & Storksdieck, 2013; Webb et al., 2012). In order to better understand what

pedagogical supports are effective to help scientists shift toward two-way science

communication, this research studied how Community Scientists—recruited scientist volunteers

in the Community Scientist Initiative (CSI) program at Science World British Columbia—were

trained to engage the public in science. Results from this study can assist museum educators to

2
better help Community Scientists engage audiences at science museums. Community Scientists’

experiences also provide a reference for how to provide communication training for both

working and future scientists.

3
2. Literature Review

Public science communication events can be seen as educational activities happening in

informal environments which are distinct from school education. Scientists in these events

therefore can be seen as museum educators. There is a significant body of literature on the roles

and identities of museum educators1 to explore their professional development. I will review

these studies to illustrate the knowledge framework for training frontline museum educators.

Then I will explain why this framework can also be used as a foundation for training scientists to

communicate with the public. Finally I will examine a few existing collaborative programs

among museums, scientists and universities or colleges to reveal what pedagogical support was

provided by museum educators.

2.1 The knowledge framework for training frontline museum educators

As critical agents to help museums fulfill their educational missions, frontline

interpreters/docents/facilitators/explainers2 come from widely disparate backgrounds and

probably inherit traditional pedagogical methods (most likely the transmission model) from their

school teachers because people teach as they are taught (Bevan & Xanthoudaki, 2008;

Lunenberg, Korthagen, & Swennen, 2007). Since frontline museum educators’ active interaction

1
Here museum educators are very broad, referring to educators in various informal

learning settings.
2
For convenience, I will use frontline museum educators referring to all these frontline

educational staff in museums.

4
with visitors has a significant and direct impact on the learning experience of visitors, it is

imperative to train them with contemporary professional knowledge of museum education

(Bevan & Xanthoudaki, 2008; Tran & King, 2007).

By and large, the dominant learning model in museums is the Contextual Model of

Learning seated in the theory of constructivism (Falk & Dierking, 2000). Constructivism

emphasizes the impact of learners’ prior knowledge and sociocultural context on interpreting

new knowledge (Erikson, 2000). It recognizes that all learners, even very young children, are

capable of constructing reasonable concepts and integrating them into their own knowledge

structure while engaging with their physical and social environment (Erikson, 2000). Numerous

studies have provided substantial evidence that constructivist pedagogies, such as scaffolding

and interpretive inquiry, could improve students’ understanding (Barron et al, 1998; Erikson,

2000; Hubard, 2011). Based in constructivism learning theory, Tran and King (2007) articulate

six components which construct the knowledge framework of science museum educators’

professional work. They are, context, choice and motivation, objects, content, theories of

learning, and talk, which are organized into three domains of knowledge by borrowing from Lee

Shulman’s (1986) conceptualization of professional knowledge for school teachers: museum

content knowledge, museum pedagogical knowledge, and museum contextual knowledge (Tran

& King, 2007).

The knowledge framework offered by Tran and King (2007) provides a sound ground for

frontline museum educators’ training. Among this framework, the theories of learning mainly

include constructivism and sociocultural theory. Context refers to the physical and sociocultural

environment of museums, as well as the rapport between visitors and museum staff. Choice and

motivation mean informal learning is free choice and visitors’ motivations shape their learning

5
experiences. Objects refer to exhibits in museums which are interpreted by museum educators in

multiple forms to best suit their understanding of visitors’ needs and provide tangible experiences

for visitors. Content refers to the specific disciplinary knowledge of museums that museum

educators should have. Talk means talk-based interactions between educators and visitors in the

context of social learning, including verbal and non-verbal interactions during casual

conversations or organized programs. More specifically, Tran and King (2007) argue that, “for

museum educators, their knowledge of talk must involve knowing how to speak about objects to

learners of different ages, abilities, and interests at the same time or for only brief instances”

(p.142). Seated in contextualized constructivism learning theory, Bevan and Xanthoudaki (2008)

express a similar idea by suggesting that museum educators design learning opportunities with

multiple participation structures and connections to everyday lives, so that visitors with varying

levels and areas of expertise can develop their conceptual agency upon their own identities and

funds of knowledge.

2.2 The knowledge framework for training scientists to communicate with the
public

Despite increasing attention to a more interactive pubic engagement or dialogue model in

science communication, the deficit model thinking remains prevalent in scientific community

(Besley & Tanner, 2011; Bubela et al., 2009). Generally, face-to-face science communication

with the general public can be seen as an educational activity which consists of the scientific

community, scientific knowledge and the public. Considering that scientists already have rich

content (subject matter) knowledge and drawing on Shulman (1986), scientists as teachers still

need pedagogical content knowledge and curricular knowledge in order to effectively deliver

scientific content knowledge to audiences. In the deficit model, science communication focuses

6
on the transmission of scientific knowledge from scientists to the public. The epistemology

behind this model is objectivism, realism or positivism (Castle, 2006; Hein, 1998) in which

knowledge is decontextualized and conceived as existing independently of the people who know

it. The pedagogy in this model easily goes to the traditional didactic knowledge transmission

model (Hein, 1998). At this point, we can see the same pedagogical defects existing in both

frontline museum educators and scientists. Therefore, in informal educational settings, the

museum educators’ professional knowledge framework offered by Tran and King (2007) also

provides a foundation for training scientists to communicate with the public. It is clear that

scientist need to learn some constructivist pedagogies in order to engage the audience. Based on

this assumption, some aspects of the professional knowledge of museum educators can be

transplanted to scientists’ training. On the other hand, scientists as an expert group have their

own features different from the roles of professional museum educators.

2.3 Pedagogical supports used by existing collaborative programs

In recent years, a few science museums realized they could play an important role in

making a connection between working scientists and the public, to bring current scientific

knowledge and the nature of science directly to every citizen by collaborating with scientists and

universities. In consideration of the common concern of a disconnect with the public among

scientists, museums usually set up training programs to prepare scientists to interact engagingly

with audiences. For example, Selvakumar and Storksdieck (2013) report a case of a science

communication program named the Portal to the Public at the Pacific Science Center in the

United States. In this program, working scientists, who are from universities, government

agencies, industries, or private research organizations, are trained by museum educators with

experience in inquiry-based learning to help them interact with museum audiences effectively.

7
Scientists take away the four following constructs from the training workshops: (1)

understanding the features of informal learning based in the constructivist theory of learning, that

museum visitors have their own agenda and motivation; (2) designing materials-rich activities

that represent each scientist’s research work; (3) understanding and practicing inquiry-based

activity facilitation skills; and (4) recognizing the end goal of their communication training is to

present a public program. Comparing this with the professional knowledge framework proposed

by Tran and King (2007), we can see the pedagogical supports for scientists used in this example

includes the theory of learning, visitors’ agenda (free choice) and motivation, museum context,

museum objects, and inquiry-based talks. The component of “content” was left out because

scientists are experts in their specialties.

Webb et al. (2012) report a similar science communication program collaborated by

Washington University and the St. Louis Science Center—The Science Communication for

Brain Scientists, but they further studied the lasting effect of scientists’ participation in outreach

on their attitudes, as well as the effectiveness in science communication to the public. In this case,

scientists refer to a cohort of graduate students (PhD Candidates) in the cognitive, computational,

and systems neuroscience relevant to the general brain science. This program offered hands-on

training, modeling, and personalized coaching in workshops which covered (1) introduction to

informal science education and its approaches to science communication, (2) developing and

delivering educational experiences about graduate students’ research for a general public

audience while working closely with museum educators, (3) understanding the significant gap in

knowledge and language that exists between specialists and lay audiences in different settings,

and (4) identifying and improving audience engagement skills through observation,

experimentation, and practice (Webb et al., 2012). Through evaluating and comparing the

8
learning outcomes of visitors after they participated in the educational activities facilitated by

graduate students, Webb et al. (2012) conclude that all these training and educational activities

development positively impacted the audiences’ understanding of scientific content and

perception of scientists and demonstrates improvement in the effectiveness of graduate students

communicating about their scientific research and its importance with a large and varied public.

2.4 Research context and questions

Although a handful of literature has reported collaborative programs among science

museums, the scientific community and universities or colleges, what was taught for the training

and forms of cooperation are varied in terms of institutional sizes, stakeholders’ goals and the

resource of funding. And perceptions of trained (future) scientists to these programs might be

different because of different experiences of communicating with the public. Therefore,

extensive empirical studies on these programs are needed in order to formulate generalized

elements on how to teach scientists to engage the public in science.

The goal of the Community Scientist Initiative program is to “support Science World in

engaging British Columbians in science and inspiring future science and technology leadership

throughout province by providing regular opportunities for visitors to explore current science and

technology with local passionate professionals” (Science World, n.d.a). It is a substantial

platform for visitors to learn about current science and technology topics which are probably not

taught during school. In order to achieve this goal, all Community Scientists attend training

workshops focused on building skills to effectively engage visitors. In addition, museum

educators provide one-on-one mentorship with Community Scientists to help them design

hands-on activities so as to make their professional expertise tangible. Every Community

Scientist participates in at least four public programs per year. The CSI program has been run for

9
more than one year. So far there are about 60 Community Scientists involved in this program.

This study explored how Community Scientists were trained to engage the public in current

science relevant to their research work. Specifically, there are three research questions addressed

in this study:

1. What pedagogical supports do museum educators provide to prepare Community

Scientists for delivering public scientific activities?

2. What teaching strategies and skills do Community Scientists use in order to engage the

public in science?

3. How do Community Scientists improve their pedagogical knowledge?

10
3. Methodology

A case study approach (Creswell, 2007) was used with multiple research methods to

explore Community Scientists’ experiences of communicating their specialties with the public at

Science World in order to help community scientists better engage general audiences in science.

First, an online survey was sent out to 50 community scientists (10 Community Scientists were

excluded by the Director of the CSI program because they either moved out of Vancouver or

have not developed their hands-on activities yet). Twenty-seven complete responses were

returned. The last question in the survey invited Community Scientists to participant in a

voluntary follow-up interview. Fifteen Community Scientists left their contact information and

12 were interviewed. The training workshops should have been observed to understand how

museum educators facilitated the training, but a new round of training workshops did not occur

before the deadline of this study. Therefore, the data about pedagogical supports from Science

World educators was obtained indirectly from the workshop handouts, survey responses and

interviews with Community Scientists.

3.1 The theoretical framework

Science World is an open space for all visitors. Visitor demographics show that

approximately 60% of all visitors to science museums3 are family groups which consist of

parents and children (Dierking & Falk, 1994). Visitors decide to pass or stop by an exhibit

3
Here science museums refer to any kinds of informal science learning settings such as a

natural history museum, zoo, science center or planetarium.

11
depending on the interaction of the three overlapping contexts: the personal prior knowledge, the

sociocultural environment and the museum’s physical setting (such as the physical installation of

an exhibit) (Falk & Dierking, 2000). That is to say, visitors are self-led and voluntarily wander or

stay at any gallery in Science World. While visitors experience their meaning-making processes

at Science World, Community Scientists, who are experts at their specialties, play the role of

teachers by delivering their public educational activities to both parents and children at the same

time. How do these experts transform their expertise in their research area into forms that both

adults and children can comprehend?

Shulman (1986) divides teacher knowledge in formal education into three categories: (1)

subject matter content knowledge; (2) pedagogical content knowledge, and (3) curricular

knowledge. Pedagogical content knowledge transforms the subject matter of a particular

discipline through various forms of representation, including analogies, illustrations, examples,

explanations, and demonstrations, to make it comprehensible to learners; besides these ways of

representing and formulating the subject matter, pedagogical content knowledge also includes

the conceptions and preconceptions that learners at different levels bring in while reconciling

new knowledge (Shulman, 1986). Shulman (1986) further points out that “some of which [forms

of representation] derive from research whereas others originate in the wisdom of practice” (p. 9).

In other words, pedagogical content knowledge can be acquired through research and practice. In

addition, the curriculum and its associated materials provide pedagogy with instructional

materials from which the teacher draws appropriate teaching tools corresponding to learners’

academic levels (Shulman, 1986).

Compared with school learning, learning in museums is free choice, self-motivated,

non-evaluative, and not structured as much as school learning (Dierking, Falk, Rennie, Anderson,

12
& Ellenbogen, 2003; Tran, 2007); learners (or visitors) have more freedom in museums.

According to these informal learning characteristics, Tran and King (2007) argue museum

education professionals are distinguished from school teachers and museum curators by having a

central knowledge framework of six components specific to their work environments: context,

choice and motivation, objects, content, theories of learning, and talk. Paralleling Shulman’s

(1986) teacher knowledge framework, these six components can also be organized into three

categories: museum content knowledge, museum pedagogical knowledge, and museum

contextual knowledge (Tran & King, 2007). Although Community Scientists have a deep

understanding of the knowledge in their research disciplines, they often lack museum

pedagogical knowledge and museum contextual knowledge, which cover the other five

components except for “content”. I will use these five components as well as Shulman’s (1986)

description of pedagogical content knowledge and curricular knowledge to discuss how

Community Scientists build up their museum pedagogical knowledge and museum contextual

knowledge, specifically the constructivist teaching methods, to prepare them for scientific

activity design and implementation.

3.2 Community Scientists

According to Science World (n.d.a), Community Scientists have completed at least one

year of graduate school in science, education of related fields before participating in the CSI

program. The participants’ background information acquired from the online survey shows that

the 27 survey respondents all have graduate level education and more than half of them (55.5%)

are either in the pursuit of PhD degree or having a PhD degree. Moreover, 74.1% of them have

an affiliation with universities (they are either graduate students or research scientists in

universities). Therefore, the assumption that Community Scientists excel at subject matter

13
content knowledge is reasonable.

After recruitment into the CSI program Community Scientists took part in a series of

professional enrichment workshops focused on building skills to effectively engage public

audiences. During the workshops, they would practice simple techniques for talking science with

non-scientists and refine key messages related to their areas of expertise. After the workshops,

one-on-one mentorship was provided for them upon demand to develop a hands-on educational

activity directly related to their research specialties. Upon the completion of their hands-on

activity, they could register to participate in a “Meet a Scientist Weekend” event or other Science

World public events. At the day of delivering, they were located at different galleries that are

relevant to their research area, such as Body Works corresponding to human life science, Search

Gallery to animals and plants, and Eureka to physics.

The top four reasons for Community Scientists to take part in the CSI program are to

inspire the next generation of researchers (96.3%), to increase awareness of the value of research

to society (81.5%), enjoyment and personal reward (81.5%,), and skills development (77.8%,)

respectively. These four reasons are far more popular than other reasons. The reason of acquiring

additional funding was least popular (3.7%). Majority of the Community Scientists accomplished

the commitment to deliver their activities in various Science World public programs four times

per year and a few over-fulfilled this task.

3.3 Research design and data collection

In case study research, the data collection is detailed and in-depth, involving multiple

sources of information such as observations, interviews, audiovisual materials, and documents

and reports (Creswell, 2007). Previous training workshops’ handouts provided initial data of

what pedagogical supports have been offered to community scientists by Science World

14
educators. The survey questionnaires and semi-structured interview are appropriate to investigate

Community Scientists’ attitudes toward communicating with the public, what teaching methods

and skills they used in facilitating their hands-on activities, and how they improve their

pedagogical knowledge and skills as well, because “a survey4 is a system for collecting

information from or about people to describe, compare, or explain their knowledge, attitudes,

and behavior” (Fink, 2003, p. 1). In addition, online survey questionnaires are easy to access and

return, and the completion is not restricted by location and time. Based on the survey responses,

the follow-up semi-structured interview further explored Community Scientists’ stories relevant

to science communication.

3.3.1 Online survey questionnaires

This online survey (see Appendix A) employed a combination of single choice, multiple

choice, five-point rating scale, and open-ended questions. Answer choices were formulated

according to the content of workshop handouts and relevant literature. There are 18 questions in

the Community Scientist survey, organized into four parts. Part I includes questions on the

background information of participants, including their research fields and prior experiences of

public engagement activities. Part II includes questions around the CSI program, mainly focusing

on the training workshops which aimed to help Community Scientists develop museum

pedagogical knowledge, museum context knowledge, and ended at making a hands-on activity

related to the Community Scientist’s research work. Part III investigates Community Scientists’

delivery of hands-on activities to the public audiences. Part IV is the implication of CSI program

4
According to Fink (2003), here the definition of “survey” is very broad, covering four

types of survey instruments: self-administered questionnaire, interview, structured record review,

and structured observation.

15
on personal benefits with regard to personal professional development. Twenty-seven of 50

Community Scientists completed the online survey. The responses were documented in digital

files and each file was named in a running number.

3.3.2 Follow-up interviews

To obtain a better understanding of Community Scientists’ responses provided in the survey

questionnaires, 12 of 27 survey respondents were interviewed because only these 12 Community

Scientists were interested in participating in a follow-up interview and available in the limited

time period to conduct these interviews. Eleven interviews were conducted face-to face and one

was through Skype. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, and each interviewee

was assigned a pseudonym.

3.4 Ethical considerations

This study was conducted with the permission of Science World. All participants are adults

providing their experiences of and opinions about the scientific activities taking place at Science

World, and the overall risk level of this study is assumed minimal. The online survey link was

sent out by the Director of CSI program through email with an initial contact letter included to

explain the purpose of this research, what would be investigated, and the approximate time to

complete a survey form. A consent letter was used as an opening page of the online survey. No

personal identity information was collected in the survey except if the respondent was willing to

participate in the follow-up interview, but this information is kept confidential. Upon completion

and return of the survey, it was assumed that consent had been given. For interviews consent

letters were sent in advance and signed before the interview started.

16
3.5 Data analysis

Both quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis were used in this study. Demographic

information of participants was analyzed, including educational level5, professional area, the

kinds of organizations they are affiliated to, and whether they have previous experiences of

communicating science with the public. The variables which were measured with five-point

rating scale on the online survey were evaluated and interpreted in terms of the meaning of the

variables. In multiple choice questions, the statistics of each choice were calculated and

compared. In some questions, such as Question 6 and Question 9, a few respondents added an

“other” choice and specified what it is. After reviewing these additional choices, I found that

they could be assimilated into the choices provided in the question. For example, in Question 6

which asked why Community Scientists take part in CSI program, one respondent added “Hey, it

is fun!” and another respondent added “I miss doing science”, whereas these two had already

selected the choice of “enjoyment and personal reward”. Therefore, I dropped the “other” choice

from their responses. If these two respondents had not selected the choice of “enjoyment and

personal reward”, I would add the count of this choice in statistics. The qualitative data from the

open questions on the online surveys and interviews were examined inductively, and finally

attributed to themes related to museum pedagogical knowledge and museum context knowledge.

3.6 Limitation of this study

As aforementioned, the purpose of CSI program is to provide regular opportunities for

Science World visitors to explore current science and technology. How much did visitors learn
5
One respondent’s educational level was corrected while analyzing data because in the

follow-up interview I found she selected a wrong choice on the survey.

17
about current science and technology from these Community Scientists’ educational activities?

Visitors’ learning outcomes can be an indicator to assess the effectiveness of these activities, and

visitors’ perceptions of these hands-on activities may provide practical suggestions for

Community Scientists to improve their activity design and communication skills. However, in

the current study visitor data were not collected. Also, the overall response rate of the online

survey is only 54% (27 out of 50); bias was also introduced into this research by those that did

not respond. Further, during the follow-up interviews, a couple of interviews said that they took

part in the training workshop more than one year ago and their memory was kind of vague. In

addition, how Science World educators facilitate the training workshops was not observed

because of the time limitation of this study. Information about the workshop was derived from

training handouts and interview data, and this second hand data may distort current study.

18
4. Results and Findings

In total 27 (Nt=27) completed survey responses were returned and 12 respondents were

interviewed afterwards. Through statistically calculating the quantitative data and inductively

interpreting the qualitative data, the results and findings are presented in answer to the following

research questions:

1. What pedagogical supports do museum educators provide to prepare Community

Scientists for delivering public scientific activities?

2. What communication strategies and skills do Community Scientists use in order to

engage the public in science?

3. How do Community Scientists improve their pedagogical knowledge?

4.1 What pedagogical supports do museum educators provide to prepare

Community Scientists for delivering public scientific activities?

Pedagogical supports were provided by Science World educators through a series of

training workshops and one-on-on mentorship of developing hands-on activities.

4.1.1 Helping Community Scientists understand educational theories

According to the workshop handouts (Science World, n.d.b), the training workshops

covered the following content related to educational theories: learning in informal environments,

how people learn, visitor learning behaviors, and expert blind spot and how people teach. Expert

blind spot refers to when subject matter content experts cannot perceive the difficulties that

novices will experience while learning new subject matter (Nathan & Petrosino, 2003). In the

workshop handouts, it is explicitly explained as “the tendency of content expert to forget what

19
it’s like to be a non-expert” (Science World, n.d.b). When asked to reflect on the training

workshops and indicate what concepts related to educational theories participants now

understand, the two choices that most respondents selected were observing visitors’ behaviors

(nt=22, 81.5%) and the characteristics of informal learning (nt=20, 74%). The percentages of

them were significantly higher than that of the other two choices—“learning builds on prior

knowledge and is socioculturally and environmentally contextualized” and “the expert blind

spot”—which are 55.5% (nt=15) and 44.4% (nt=12) respectively.

Of the 27 survey respondents, only two selected all the four choices. Three respondents

added the “other” choices respectively specified as: “visitors arrive with family, all of whom

have different interest levels” (File 519873796), “learned the appropriate level for their target

audience” (File 52908440), and “learned to change gears when talking to kids and their parents

at the same time” (File 52970849). The first one was interpreted as a description of the

characteristics of informal learning happening in science museums, as well as considering

visitors’ prior knowledge (Dierking & Falk, 1994). The second one and the third one both were

interpreted as considering visitors’ prior knowledge (Dierking & Falk, 1994). However, these

three respondents did not choose the corresponding choices. In the follow-up interviews, I

explored this apparent contradiction by asking the reasons why Community Scientists did not

check other options, and asked them to give me examples of these educational concepts that they

thought they already knew.

The most common reasons they gave were that they already knew that educational concepts

before they took CSI training workshops; or they did not connect what was taught in the

workshop about how people learn to the corresponding choice. For example, when I asked why

6
Running number file is survey data.

20
she did not choose the choice of “expert blind spot”, Vanessa said, “Because I think that’s

something maybe I already learned before. So it is not something new that I learned I guess”; and

after I explained what “learning builds on prior knowledge” means, Rose said, “I guess they

[Science World educators] did cover that…I just didn’t know that this sentence was meant that.

So that’s why I didn’t pick it”. While asked to give examples of those four concepts,

interviewees mostly described them accurately except sometimes they mixed “the characteristics

of informal learning” and “learning builds on prior knowledge” together. For instance, a

community scientist gave an example of “the characteristics of informal learning” like this, “The

characteristics of informal learning, for example, not using jargon is a good thing…is informal

learning. I can just give examples…tropical, hot waters; temperate, cold waters”.

4.1.2 Helping Community Scientists gain curriculum knowledge through developing

hands-on activities

Inexperienced Community Scientists knew little about visitors’ needs and curriculum

materials that can be used in hands-on activities to support teaching. Hence, the last part of the

training workshops asked Community Scientists to propose and brainstorm possible knowledge

concepts of their scientific expertise that could be translated into hands-on activities. One survey

respondent described, “We bounced off ideas for the hands-on activity during the workshops and

that shaped the direction of the activity” (File 52923182).

After training workshops, one-on-one mentorship was provided upon demand to develop

the hands-on activity specific to the Community Scientist’s research field. Although the

mentoring was unstructured and informal, of those survey respondents, 89% (nt=24) thought they

got professional help from mentors mainly on:

(1) Sorting out the subject concepts and ideas that are feasible and appropriate to the

knowledge levels of visitors (mainly children at different age levels). A large proportion of

21
respondents had been struggling to decide what concepts or ideas in their research area were

appropriate to Science World visitors. They said, working with mentors “advised the correct

level of detail that would be appropriate for the majority of Science World visitors” (File

51966310); “gave me perspective on who would be visiting as I had little experience with

Science World” (File 51987379); “helped me discard some ideas that wouldn’t work” (File

51966310); “helped me define the appropriate message to deliver and subsequently establish the

activity that most optimally conveyed that message in an easy-to-understand manner” (File

53447094); and “helped bring my ideas into working activities; narrowed my scope from too

many ideas to ones that would be most beneficial”(File 53734744).

(2) Choosing and preparing activity materials. A few respondents also expressed that the

mentor “helped to design graphics that would be used by visitors” (File 51966310) and “told me

that water and sand are not good things to use, but coloured beads would be” (File 53274218), as

well as one described:

helped me think of more graphic ways of communicating…This helped decide on what I

was going to use for the hands-on activity—use of coloring sheets, posters, plastified

question and answer sheets—to engage the kids and use of products (canned goods) and the

laptop to engage the older visitors. (File 52970848)

(3) Refining the hands-on activities. Some mentors gave feedback to refine the activity’s

design. As one survey respondent described, “Receiving feedback from someone familiar with,

but not practicing within my field, was incredibly helpful in developing fun, comprehensible, and

age-specific activities” (File 52274526). Similarly one participant commented that, “Giving me

tips on how to make my exhibit more interactive, and accessible to both children and adults”

(File 54008498), and another stated:

22
 It was helpful to be able to run ideas past someone who has experience with the visitors at

science world to get a better idea of how long people will usually want to stop to see a

presentation. This helped me to develop a quick version of my activity and presentation

(and then allow for more questions if people are interested in more details and a deeper

level of engagement). (File 52122355, parenthesis in original)

On the other hand, although all Community Scientists succeeded in developing their

hands-on activities, most of them thought that the training workshops could improve by giving

more concrete and specific guidance on developing the hands-on activities that were appropriate

to Science World visitors, such as “maybe a more structured approach to developing activities

(providing little structure has its creative benefits, but also can be difficult if ideas are limited)”

(File 51966310, parenthesis in original), “more emphasis on developing activities for the actual

audience we will be working with--in my experience, young children and families”(File

52082321), “more emphasis on drawing out the available ideas and helping form them into

usable presentations” (File 52908400), and “focus more time on how to tailor your area of

expertise into a simplified concept, and then working on ways to make it fun and interactive”

(File 54008498), just to name a few. In addition, they hoped that the training workshops could

provide opportunities to watch Science World educators or other fellow Community Scientists

delivering their hands-on programs or activities in order to get some ideas from concrete

examples.

Hoping the training workshops could leave more time on discussing how to design feasible

and effective hands-on activities is also one of the two main reasons that the average overall

effectiveness of the training workshops was graded as 4 out of 5.

23
4.2 What teaching strategies and skills do Community Scientists use in order

to engage the public in science?

Visitors in Science World are self-guided and free to make choices between exhibits. They

decide to pass by or stay beside the Community Scientists’ presentation tables. Emerging in a

typical environment of informal education, Community Scientists became aware of the

demographics of visitors, which mainly are adult-child family groups. A typical dilemma for

them to deliver their activities is described by one participant:

People are not interested in approaching the table. Most audiences are parents with small

kids. The kids want to participate, but parents are not as interested...have a different agenda.

[Parents] May drag the kids away, or let me talk to the kids, but are not interested in helping

their kid understand what they are doing. (File 53281294)

Nevertheless, Community Scientist tried to overcome these challenges by using effective

teaching strategies and skills, and refined their activities through visitor observation,

self-evaluation and self-improvement.

4.2.1 The overall level of visitor engagement

Although visitors were not surveyed to measure their level of engagement with the

Community Scientist’s activities, the scientists were asked in the survey to reflect on the level of

visitor engagement. The five statements of visitors’ behaviors in Table 1 describe the ongoing

process of interactions between Community Scientists and visitors from initial stage (visitors

approached the presentation table and stayed there), transition stage (visitors actively participated

in the hands-on activity and asked questions) to breakthrough stage (visitors expressed positive

emotional responses or shared their experiences related to the activity), which reflect increasing

levels of visitor engagement and depth of visitors’ learning experience (Barriault & Pearson,

24
2010).

Table 1

Community Scientists’ General Impression about Visitors in their Hands-on Activities

1=few visitors 5= most visitors
Visitors’ Behaviors
1 2 3 4 5

They stay for a few seconds and leave. 10 8 5 4 0

They actively participate in your activity and ask 0 1 12 10 4

you questions.
They cannot understand you and leave without 19 4 3 1 0
asking questions further.
They can understand what you are doing after 1 1 3 14 8
your explanation.
They express positive emotional responses or 1 3 4 12 7
share their experiences related to your activity.

According to Table 1, two thirds of survey respondents (18 out of 27) felt that only a small

number of visitors stayed for a few seconds to take a look and left without participating in the

activity (rating score 2 and below on the first row), although one third felt that half or more than

half of passing visitors stayed for a few seconds and left (rating score 3 and up on the first row).

However, once visitors started to participate in their activities, almost all survey respondents (26

out of 27) thought that half or more than half of visitors actively asked them questions (rating

score 3 and up on the second row). Further, only one respondent felt that more than half of

visitors could not understand her/him and left without asking questions further (rating score 4

and up on the third row), while the majority of respondents (25 out of 27) believed that half or

more than half visitors could understand what she/he was doing after her/his explanation (rating

score 3 and up on the fourth row). After that, most respondents (23 out of 27) perceived that half

or more than half of visitors expressed positive emotional responses or shared their experiences

related to the activity (rating score 3 and up on the fifth row). All these Community Scientists’

25
impressions on visitors’ behaviors indicate that the interaction between Community Scientists

and visitors went well and the overall level of visitor engagement steadily increased. This

suggests that in general Community Scientist’s teaching strategies and skills are effective at

engaging visitors.

4.2.2 Attracting visitors

The first thing that Community Scientists did was to attract visitors to approach their

presentations. The attracting power of Community Scientists’ activities varied with respect to

topics and components of the hands-on activity. In their first delivery, some hands-on activities

already incorporated game elements which were attractive to children or general audiences. For

example, two Community Scientists used the ideas of “Stem Cell Race” and “Smell

Mix-and-Match” respectively to attract visitors and they reported that most passers-by stayed

beside their presentation tables. In the follow-up interviews, these two Community Scientists

Jenny7 and Mary described respectively how engaging these two activities were:

I go like “Hey! Do you want to be in a stem cell race?” there is like “oh, what is a stem cell

race?” I go “Okay, you can pick a track, we get three tracks, you can pick a ball, and then

we start to race”. (Jenny)

People they had to guess, they were given these different bottles, they were all one color,

and they had closed their eyes and sniff what was inside … So people really, really like that,

they loved smelling the essential oils, they loved to play the games. (Mary)

Another interesting example of an activity that attracted visitors was making a model of DNA

strand using sweets, which were appealing to young children but also a distraction. Community

Scientist Rose said in the interview, “I think what helped us was because we had sweets, and we

7
Each interviewee is assigned a pseudonym.

26
use those sweets to make DNA [strand]. So we made DNA out of like jelly beans and Twizzlers.

So that actually helped them stay”.

Some hands-on activities, however, in the first delivery seemed not attractive enough; then

Community Scientists made improvements in the next delivery either on the components of the

hands-on activity or communication skills. For example, one survey respondent wrote how she

tried to get visitors going to her activity table, “[I] use sound to get attention. Actively encourage

people to come and ‘try an experiment’” (File 51969376). In addition, some Community

Scientists expressed they would take the first step to invite visitors to participate because, “the

visitor is less likely to engage with you if he has to take the first step” (File 53447094).

4.2.3 Applying communication strategies and skills

In CSI program, the seven communication skills and strategies (red bars in Figure 1) that

more than half of the survey respondents (Nt=27, nt≥14) used in delivering their hands-on

activities are, in order of most to least used, using simple analogies (nt=25), considering the

appropriate level of detail (nt=25), using known vocabulary (nt=24), designing activities with

multiple participation structures (nt=20), framing the big picture (nt=18), asking open-ended

questions (nt==16), and comparing and contrasting to familiar objects (nt=15).

27
 data visualization 11
comparing and consructing to familiar 12
objects 15

framing the "big picture" 15

18

using known vocabulary 16

24

considering the appropriate level of detail 14

25

using simple analogies 15

25
designing activities with multiple
participation structures 20

asking open-ended questions 16

all survey partipants(Nt=27) participants who have previous experiences(Ns=19)

Figure 1. Comparison of communication skills and strategies used in previous

communication activities and that used in CSI activities.

Of the 27 (Nt=27) survey respondents, 70.4% (Ns=19) had previous experiences of

participating in science communication activities with the public in various forms. But only one

person mentioned in the survey answers that she/he had received training elsewhere before. All

the interviewees who had prior experiences said they had not received any training similar to

what Science World offered them. The six communication skills and strategies (blue bars in

Figure 1) that more than half of the participants who have previous experiences (Ns=19, ns≥10)

used in their previous communication activities are, in order of most to least used, using known

vocabulary (ns=16), framing the big picture (ns=15), using simple analogies (ns=15), considering

the appropriate level of detail (ns=14), comparing and contrasting to familiar objects (ns=12), and

data visualization (ns=11).

Comparing these two sets of communication skills and strategies, there are five in common

(see Figure 1). The one skill popularly used in previous public scientific activities but not in CSI

program is data visualization, while the two skills popularly used in CSI program but not in the

28
previous public scientific activities are designing activities with multiple participation structures

and asking open-ended questions.

In survey responses, many respondents wrote they realized the Science World visitors

mostly were family groups with multiple levels of interest, and they needed to design or modify

their activities with multiple participation structure to cater to the different age groups while the

emphasis is placed on children. For instance, one respondent described the barrier that she/he

noticed in engaging visitors as “The multiple levels of interest from a family unit. Typically the

lowest common denominator stole the show” (File 51987379), and she/he addressed the barrier

by using multiple participation entries, “Be flexible. Provide colouring for children, information

for adults and hands on work for kids of the right age. But you can't win them all....” (File

51987379). Individual Community Scientists’ activities targeted children, but this caused a

barrier to reach adult visitors who do not have children. Nevertheless as one respondent

described:

By being friendly and open to chat—often adults are willing to come over. Also, I play

some videos that are appropriate for all ages. They may not engage in the Play-Doh activity,

but then they are interested in speaking with me about psychology. (File 52452780)

Also Community Scientists said they would ask more open-ended questions to evaluate

what visitors already knew and what they were interested in. For example, one survey respondent

found that “it’s harder to reach younger children who want to play the activity but aren’t

interested in listening to the explanation”, so “I try to ask more questions before proceeding with

the next step of activity.” (File 52086286)

4.3 How do Community Scientists improve their pedagogical knowledge?

In the CSI program, some pedagogical knowledge was covered in the training workshops,

29
such as what communication strategies and skills can be used to avoid expert blind spot, and

using a discrepant event8 to capture learners’ attention. Also in the one-on-one mentorship, some

pedagogical knowledge materialized through developing hands-on activity, such as “think[ing]

of more graphic ways of communicating” (File 52923182). Nevertheless, many Community

Scientists mentioned both in survey responses and during interviews that they learned or

improved their pedagogical skills through observing similar activities or exhibits, observing

visitors and doing self-evaluation.

4.3.1 Observing similar activities or exhibits

Marine biologist Daisy, who did not have previous experience of communicating science to

the public, said she went to Science World the day before she delivered her activity to see how

other Community Scientists were presenting their activities, “I got most of the ideas from the

preview. I went to the Meet a Scientist day [Weekend] and I looked at what others are doing. And

I got ideas from them, for what they had…” And she also said after taking part in the CSI

program, she often went to Vancouver Aquarium to observe what exhibits were most visited by

children, and got inspiration from websites which involve in learning activities.

Furthermore, when asking survey participants what else the training workshops should

address to help them better deliver public scientific activities, many respondents mentioned they

would like to have a chance to watch how Science World educators delivering their programs, or

they wanted to compare or contrast with other fellow Community Scientists’ activities. For

example, one respondent said:

Watching another peer educating the public could be useful to see the interaction of a peer

8
According to CSI program training workshop handouts, “a discrepant event is something

that surprises, startles, puzzles, or astonishes the observer” (p. 12).

30
 educating the public. To learn who the audience is and how they are interacting with the

public and what kind of questions would they get. This can also be done by showing a

short video. (File 53069646)

In fact, while interviewing the Community Scientists who had prior experiences of

communicating their expertise to the public, the idea of modeling was widely referred to as the

way to acquire communication skills. They said they learned communication skills by modeling

how they were taught before and learning through peers. For example, one Community Scientist

Jeff said he learned and practiced teaching from sports class:

I can see how they want things done, what works with people…It was very practical thing;

it’s not theoretical thing after I actually do…There is a way to present things…you have to

set their feet; you give example…make sure they have fun; find something that they can

enjoy there.

Another Community Scientist Mary said she developed her communication skills by learning

through from peers:

I just learn that through being in academia. I gave a lot of presentations to people.

Sometimes they were not in the scientific field, so I just learned through my

peers…feedback through…giving the presentation, getting feedback, that kind of thing…

4.3.2 Observing visitors and doing self-evaluation

In the CSI program, every Community Scientist can deliver her/his activity at Science

World several times per year. Community Scientists reported that in the process of interacting

with visitors, they asked questions and used analogies, illustrations, examples, comparison and

contrast, explanations, and demonstrations to transform their expertise, trying to make it

comprehensible to visitors. Meanwhile Community Scientists said they would observe visitors’

31
responses to see if they understood or not, and self-assessed the effectiveness of the way in

which they presented their expertise. For example, one survey respondent wrote, “From talking

with people and hearing the questions they ask I have been challenged to find new ways of

explaining things and different analogies that help people to understand my work” (File

52122355).

Community Scientists wrote in the survey responses or explained in the interviews that

they learned from mistakes, removed what did not work, and changed the activity or adjusted it

to the knowledge level which is appropriate to audiences, such as “Through experience, if

something doesn't seem to be working then I try to alter it” (File 52086296), “I changed my

activity slightly after my first presentation because the way I initially designed it took longer and

had to be ‘re-set’ between visitors so it wasn't ideal for people just wanting to stop by briefly”

(File 52122355) and:

I see how the kids respond to me, and make adjustments. They tend to be at different levels

in terms of understanding concepts. For those that are too young to understand, I make it

simple by just explaining from my cartoon drawing. For those that respond to me while I am

explaining, I push a bit further. (File 52923182)

They also brought in new strategies, approaches, or framing through “trial and error”. For

example, “I improved my skills in delivering my activity through trial-and-error ‘on the ground’.

I tried new strategies, approaches, or framing, and observed the visitors’ responses. Shortly, I

arrived at what I feel to be an effective facilitation plan” (File 53269962).

Moreover, Community Scientists said, by listening to the questions that visitors asked, or

the conversation between parents and children, they got inspiration and applied them in practice.

For example, “In some cases, I learned how to interact with very young kids from the way the

32
parents explain DNA (topic of our activity) to them” (File 52923182, parenthesis in original).

Individual Community Scientists even directly asked for feedback from visitors and wrote

notes of what went well and what could have gone better. Community Scientist Jenny said in the

interview, “I asked the audiences… ‘What did you think?’, ‘What did you learn today?’ And then

from their responses, I can tell whether I explain too much or too little or too complicated…”.

She also wrote in the survey answer, “After each session, I would evaluate the effectiveness of

my workshop and identify what were the challenges during the workshop and then proceed by

altering the activities or altering the way that I explain the topic to the audiences”. (File

52946960)

Although Community Scientists expressed they improved their pedagogical knowledge on

individual observation and self evaluation, many also hoped to watch Science World educators

and other fellow Community Scientists facilitating their programs or activities in order to make

sense of what pedagogies are effective for Science World visitors. A typical suggestion was:

it would be helpful for the new people to be able to come in one day and watch a similar

demonstration... they are happening all the time at Science World. Doesn't have to be a

‘CSI’ demonstration, but just seeing it in action would be helpful because graduate students

might have never seen or done anything like this before. (File 53274218)

Some respondents even suggested that they should review their hands-on activities after their

first few deliveries, such as:

Perhaps a follow up session with Community Scientists, after one or two public

presentations, so that stories and strategies can be shared and the main points of the training

reiterated in the context of our experiences. The workshop was good, but nothing beats on

the ground experience, which could then be leveraged for further training. (File 53269962)

33
Watching teachers’ or peers’ public programs and sharing experiences is another main reason that

the average overall effectiveness of the training workshops was graded as 4 out of 5.

34
5. Discussion and Conclusions

The current study is based on the idea that science communication training may be helpful

for scientists to engage the general public with science, so as to shift to a dialogue model of

science communication. The entire CSI program can be divided into two modules: (1) discursive

module, which includes discussing critical issues in an informal education format and the subject

concepts and ideas that can be presented in hands-on activities; (2) practical module, which

includes developing and delivering hands-on activities.

According to results and findings, these two modules basically covered five components of

the science museum educators’ professional knowledge framework proposed by Tran and King

(2007): context, choice and motivation, objects, theories of learning, and talk. The sixth

component in Tran and King’s (2007) framework—content—is not needed because Community

Scientists brought in the expertise of their research, that is, they brought in “content” to the CSI

program. Paralleling Shulman’s (1986) teacher knowledge framework, Tran and King (2007)

further categorized these six components into three kinds of knowledge specific to museum

educators: museum content knowledge, museum contextual knowledge, and museum

pedagogical knowledge. It is arguable that through CSI program, Community Scientists

developed this essential knowledge set to become informal science educators. This argument

echoes Selvakumar and Storksdieck’s (2013) opinion on the professional development

experiences for scientists in the Portal to the Public project. After training, “they [active

researchers, scientists and those who use science as part of their daily work] become informal

science educators, at least in regard to their own research or areas of expertise” (Selvakumar &

Storksdieck, 2013, p. 72). Nevertheless, Community Scientists still need more field experiences

35
to refine and enrich this knowledge and skills.

Drawing upon results and findings in terms of those three research questions, I will discuss

how Community Scientists acquired and improved this essential knowledge set, so that we can

see what pedagogical supports are effective to help Community Scientists, and more broadly

scientists in general, to promote public engagement with science.

5.1 Pedagogical supports provided by museum educators to prepare

Community Scientists for delivering public scientific activities

Science World educators provide pedagogical supports through training workshops and

one-on-one mentorship of developing hands-on activities. The workshops covered four

educational themes: learning in informal environments, how people learn, expert blind spot and

how people teach, and visitor learning behaviors. “Learning in informal environments” and

“visitors learning behaviors” help Community Scientists understand museum visitors; “how

people learn” gives Community Scientists ideas of learning theories; “expert blind spot and how

people teach” teach Community Scientists how to use communication strategies and skills to

avoid the expert blind spot. It is clear that what Community Scientists learn from these four

educational themes constitutes museum pedagogical knowledge in Tran and King’s (2007)

framework, which encapsulates the ideas and arguments included in “theories of learning”,

‘‘talk”, and ‘‘choice and motivation (of museum visitors)”.

Survey results indicate that learning in informal environments and visitor learning

behaviors are significantly understood by more Community Scientists than how people learn and

the expert blind spot hypothesis. I think it is probably because Community Scientists worked in

Science World—a typical informal learning environment which gave them real and in-person

experiences of what informal learning is, and they observed visitors’ behaviors to evaluate

36
whether their activities were interesting to visitors or not while delivering them. These two

concepts are visible and easily applicable when they interact with visitors. Therefore,

Community Scientists had a deeper understanding about them as reflected by the survey answers.

This supports Grenier and Sheckley‘s (2008) contention that contextualized experiential learning

is valuable in adult education and specifically within museum education,

However, in the follow-up interviews, sometimes after my explanation of those educational

concepts, all interviewees could give examples of those four educational concepts except that

sometimes they mixed “the characteristics of informal learning” and “learning is contextualized”

together. This also contradicts that only two out of 27 respondents selected all four choices of

these educational concepts. This may indicate that Community Scientists may not connect the

museum pedagogical knowledge applied in delivering hands-on activities to these theoretical

statements. Therefore, they need an opportunity to reflect on their teaching practices and review

these educational concepts so as to connect theoretical knowledge to the teaching practice. Beven

and Xanthoudaki (2008) also argue that opportunities to reflect on and analyze the processes of

learning and the practices of teaching is key to the professional development of museum

educators.

In the CSI program, Community Scientists communicate their expertise to visitors through

hands-on activities. In this case, the hands-on activities are both teaching tools and museum

objects which are displayed for their interactivity (Tran & King, 2007). Most Community

Scientists participating in this study thought they got professional help from mentors mainly on

(1) determining which subject concepts and ideas are feasible and appropriate to the knowledge

levels of visitors, (2) choosing and preparing activity materials, and (3) refining the hands-on

activities. With the help of mentors, Community Scientists learned what activity materials are

37
functional in a museum and what materials can be used to support transforming their particular

subject matters into tangible museum objects. This reflects Tran and King’s (2007) argument

about museum objects, “Using their knowledge of the objects, [museum] educators must select

from a range of interpretations to best suit their understanding of the visitors’ needs” (p. 140). It

suggests that in this process of developing hands-on activities, Community Scientists gain the

knowledge of museum objects; meanwhile, Community Scientists also learn curricular

knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge as the activity serves as a teaching tool, as well

as indirectly gaining some understanding about museum visitors and museum context from

mentors as their activities need to meet visitors’ needs.

Nevertheless, many Community Scientists expressed they still hoped the training

workshops could leave more time for discussing how to design feasible and effective hands-on

activities specific to their expertise and provide opportunities to watch Science World educators

or other fellow Community Scientists delivering their public programs to get ideas from concrete

examples. I think the reason that Community scientists want more specific pedagogical supports

may be Community Scientists’ research expertise is quite diverse, so that the required

pedagogical content knowledge is varied, as the development of pedagogical content knowledge

is subject to the subject matter content knowledge (Adler, 2012). Further, this need of specific

pedagogical supports can be met by observing and shadowing of Science World museum

educators or fellow Community Scientists, because “only through experiential processes will

docents [museum frontline educators] develop the cognitive flexibility necessary for applying

knowledge and skills in real museum and visitor situation” (Grenier & Sheckley, 2008, p. 84)

38
5.2 Communication strategies and skills used by Community Scientists to

engage the public in science

According to survey responses, during their first delivery of hands-on activities,

Community Scientists realized that visitors have freedom to choose what, how, and when to

engage with learning opportunities provided by them. They realized that the demographics of

visitors mainly are adult-child family group. They realized the agenda differed between family

members and that children at different age groups have different points of interest. While

observing visitors’ behaviors or talking face-to-face with visitors about the scientific knowledge

mediated by the hands-on activities, Community Scientist gained first hand understanding of

museum visitors and immediately applied these first hand understanding into refining their

activities by addressing these characteristics of museum visitors. Consequently, Community

Scientists also enriched their curricular knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge.

Interview data and survey responses show that in either activity design or activity delivery,

Community Scientist realized that they need to attract visitors to approach their presentation in

the first place. The concept of attracting power and holding power, generally used in relation to

exhibits could apply to the scientists’ activities. Attracting power refers to the ability of an

exhibit to draw the attention of a visitor while holding power refers to the ability of an exhibit to

keep the visitor attending, such as discussing the exhibit with their social group, or manipulating

an interactive (Dierking & Falk, 1994). The study’s findings indicate that Community Scientists

are aware that attracting power and holding power of their hands-on activities are important to

promote visitors’ engagement levels. I think this recognition is an essential part of museum

educators’ knowledge about museum objects, because “enabling visitor facilitation with objects

is… a key role for museum educators” (Tran & King, 2007, p. 140). Dierking and Falk (1994)

39
further pointed that attracting power was only important for adult-child family groups as adults

did not necessarily interact with all the exhibits they viewed. Because Community Scientists also

noticed the majority of Science World visitors are adult-child family groups, Dierking and Falk’s

point further supports Community Scientists’ recognition of the importance of attracting power

for their activities. Also, the positive interactions between Community Scientists and Science

World visitors, as well as the visitors’ increasing engagement level suggest that holding power of

Community Scientists’ hands-on activities is strong. So it is fair to say that through delivering

hands-on activities, Community Scientists further gain knowledge about museum objects, that is,

the nature of museum objects.

The current research also shows that two communication strategies—designing activities

with multiple participation structures and asking open-ended questions—are relatively widely

used in CSI program but not in Community Scientists’ previous public scientific activities. This

reflects the Community Scientists’ epistemological perspective in education shifting toward

constructivism because using these two communication strategies illustrates Community

Scientists either have considered or try to know more about visitors’ prior knowledge; in other

words, the science communication between Community Scientists and the general public is

shifting toward a dialogue model. Constructivism emphasizes the impact of learners’ prior

knowledge and sociocultural context on interpreting new knowledge (Erikson, 2000). Realizing

visitors’ different points of interest and different knowledge levels, Community Scientists

modified their hands-on activities to provide multiple entry points to engage visitors. This echoes

Bevan and Xanthoudaki’s (2008) argument that museum educators need “to design opportunities

in which learners, with varying levels and areas of expertise, can develop their conceptual

agency no matter where they begin” (p. 112). Multiple participant structures also provide a

40
platform for Community Scientists “to speak about objects to learners of different ages, abilities,

and interests at the same time or for only brief instances” (Tran & King, 2007, p. 142) which

Tran and King think is essential for museum educators. In addition, through asking more

open-ended questions Community Scientists can know more about visitors’ prior knowledge so

as to guide what they will teach and how, as the role of museum educators is to support visitors’

own meaning-making (Hein, 1998; Tran & King, 2007).

Museum context refers to the physical and sociocultural environment of museums, as well

as the rapport between visitors and museum staff, and therefore has several dimensions including

physical context, social context, community context and temporal context (Tran and King, 2007).

Being present in the physical building of Science World, Community Scientists sensed the

museum’s physical context directly. Tran and King (2007) further argue that, “in interacting with

visitors, museum educators need to acknowledge the many ways in which museum context may

impact on individuals” (p. 139). Community scientists modified their activities with the multiple

participant structures, tried to attract visitors in the first place and then built rapport with them by

using different verbal communication skills and observing visitors’ reactions, indicating that

Community Scientists are aware of the impact of museum social context and temporal context on

visitors’ learning experiences. Science World’s community context is also realized by some

Community Scientists. This is implied in concrete communication skills. For example Marine

biologist Daisy said when giving examples to visitors she would not give an example of fish that

cannot be found in British Columbia because visitors may not be familiar with the fish.

5.3 How Community Scientists improve their pedagogical knowledge

Although training workshops and one-on-one mentorship provided pedagogical supports to

Community Scientists, the current study shows that a lot of them learned or improved their

41
pedagogical knowledge and skills through observing similar activities or exhibits, and observing

visitors and doing self-evaluation while delivering activities which are experience-based learning

processes. This supports the arguments that pedagogical content knowledge can be acquired

through research and practice (Shulman, 1986) and it is generally believed that teachers develop

pedagogical knowledge through teaching experience (Adler, 2012). Similarly, it is not rare in the

literature on preparation and development of museum frontline educators that interviewed

museum frontline educators said they learned to teach by observing or shadowing of fellow

museum educators and through the actual experience of teaching (Beven & Xanthoudaki, 2008;

Castle, 2006).

A recurrent theme occurred in findings about pedagogical knowledge development is that

many of the Community Scientists who participated in this study hoped to have opportunities to

watch how Science World educators or fellow Community Scientists deliver their public

programs and reflect, share and review each other’s experiences of activity delivering, both

before and after they design hands-on activities, and even after one or two activity deliveries.

They want to observe how their hands-on activities were conceived, who the audience was, what

pedagogical skills were effective for Science World visitors. This requirement corroborates

Shulman’s (1987) explanation of pedagogical reasoning that “involves a cycle through the

activities of comprehension, transformation, instruction, evaluation, reflection, and new

comprehensions, although not necessarily in that order” (cited in Castle, 2006, p. 129). This

cycle also echoes works on experiential education (Castle, 2006). Castle further states that,

“observations of and interactions with fellow museum teachers that encouraged reflection and

new comprehensions were productive overall” (p. 130). Beven and Xanthoudaki (2008) even

proposed a central strategy to facilitating such reflection which “is to have educators review

42
examples of learning interactions as represented in video clips, written descriptions, or as

enacted in real time” (p. 115). However, except for the one-on-one mentorship in developing the

hands-on activity, the CSI program training workshops did not provide Community Scientists

with structured and collective opportunities to observe, shadow, or model other fellow

Community Scientists or Science World educators who were facilitating programs in the work

setting, and to reflect on, share and discuss teaching experience with both fellow Community

Scientists and Science World educators.

In contrast, the Portal to the Public project funded by the National Science Foundation

(NSF) of the United States (Selvakumar & Storksdieck, 2013), a program similar to the CSI

program, has more structured support for scientists to engage the public in their current research.

After several years of development, it provides a guiding framework to bring scientist and public

audiences together in informal learning environment. In the professional development for

scientist in the Portal to the Public programs, when scientists design materials-rich activities that

represent each scientist’s work, they observe and experience existing educational activities in

science museums as models of effectively engaging museum visitors. They are also provided

opportunities to “‘test drive’ their activity mechanics and facilitation” (p. 74) before presenting

the activity to visitors, and to reflect their interaction with visitors and think about how they can

improve their communication strategies at the conclusion of the public programs they delivered,

together with their museum education coach. The Science Communication for Brain Scientists

program collaborated by Washington University and the St. Louis Science Center in the United

States also offered hands-on training, modeling and personalized coaching in workshops (Webb

at al., 2012). The professional development experiences for scientists/graduate students in these

two projects/programs again demonstrated that modeling/shadowing/observing fellow museum

43
educators is an important part of experiential education for training scientists/graduate students

to engage public audiences.

In addition, Grenier and Sheckley (2008) assert “preparation of these individuals through

thoughtful experience-based learning processes is critical to the retention of docents and the

long-term success of educational programs in museums” (p. 80). I think more emphasis on

experience-based skill development may be an incentive for some Community Scientists who

could not fulfill their commitment of delivering hands-on activity or public program four times

per year and to retain experienced Community Scientists.

5.4 Recommendations for the CSI program

The purpose of CSI program is to providing regular opportunities for Science World

visitors to explore current science and technology with local passionate professionals (Science

World, n.d.a). One of the research findings shows that once visitors started to participate in

Community Scientists’ hands-on activities, the interaction between Community Scientists and

visitors went well and the overall level of visitor engagement steadily deepened. This means that

in general CSI program engaged Science World visitors in the science related to Community

Scientists’ expertise. While interacting with visitors, Community Scientists also got personal

enjoyment and rewards, and improved their communication skills and strategies.

Overall the average score of the overall effectiveness of the training workshop series given

by all the survey participants is 4 out of 5. That means Community Scientists thought that CSI

program training including developing the hands-on activities indeed helped them become better

equipped to engage visitors, although there is room for improvement. Reflecting on the findings,

my recommendations for the CSI program are:

1. In the training workshops, leave more time to discuss what subject matter concepts

44
 relevant to Community Scientists’ expertise can be presented in hands-on activities.

2. Provide more structured mentorship.

3. Put emphasis on the experience-based skill development. Specifically, provide

Community Scientists with at least two opportunities per training to observe how

Science World educators and fellow Community Scientists deliver their public

programs and take time to share thoughts with each other. One observation can be

scheduled in the workshops; the other can be conducted after they deliver their first

activity. In addition, individual observation opportunities could be provided as

required.

5.5 Conclusions

Through the CSI program training workshops, as well as developing and delivering the

hands-on activities, Community Scientists increased their understanding of informal learning,

museum objects and curriculum materials, museum context, the choice and motivation of

Science World visitors, and practiced skills of communicating science to the public. During the

Community Scientists’ activities Science World visitors interacted with them to various extents.

Importantly, the mind-set of the Community Scientists during these interactions was not to blame

visitors who could not understand their research, but rather to observe visitors’ behaviors to

judge their engagement levels and actively modify their approach to the knowledge levels of

visitors in order to engage them in current sciences. In this sense, Community Scientists were

promoting the public engagement with science and established a dialogue model (Bubela et al.,

2009) of relationships with visitors. The CSI program training workshops including the

development of their hands-on activity indeed empowered the Community Scientists to

successfully interact with visitors instead of inculcating visitors with what the scientists thought

45
visitors should know. This also indicates that the knowledge framework of the professional

development of museum educators (Tran & King, 2007) can be a reasonable theoretical

framework to train scientists how to effectively communicate with the general public.

Nevertheless, according to Community Scientists’ survey responses, their experiences of

developing the hands-on activities and directly interacting with visitors gave them more in-depth

understanding of the nature of informal science education than the training workshops did.

Moreover, many Community Scientists hoped to have the opportunity to observe/model/reflect

on Science World educators’ or fellow Community Scientists’ educational practices and share

each other’s experiences. Therefore, more experiential learning approaches are needed in the

professional development of Community Scientists as museum educators.

The current study did not evaluate visitors’ learning outcomes in the CSI activities.

Visitors’ responses about CSI activities may provide valuable information for Community

Scientists to improve their pedagogical skills and strategies. This could be a direction for further

research.

In the end, these pedagogical skills and strategies to engage the pubic audiences will be

gradually internalized by Community Scientists through reiterative practices. This was illustrated

by one of the Community Scientists Mary who gave a highly acclaimed public talk which

exemplified the elements of a dialogue model of communicating science to the public; if all

scientists could communicate like this it would engage more people in science.

46
References

Adler, J. D. (2012). From campus to classroom: A study of elementary teacher candidates’

pedagogical content knowledge (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://

circule.ubc.ca.

Barriault, C., & Pearson, D. (2010). Assessing exhibits for learning in science centers: A practical

tool. Visitor Studies, 13(1), 90-106. doi:10.1080/10645571003618824

Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L.,…The Cognition

and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from

research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,

7(3/4), 271-311.

Baum, R. M. (2012). Science communication. Chemical & Engineering News, 90(22), 5.

Bevan, B., & Xanthoudaki, M. (2008). Professional development for museum educators:

Unpinning the underpinnings. Journal of Museum Education, 33 (1), 107 – 120.

Besley, J. C., & Tanner, A. H. (2011). What science communication scholars think about training

scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33(2), 239-263.

doi:10.1177/1075547010386972

Bubela, T., Hyde-Lay, R., Jandciu, E. W., Jones, S. A., Kolopack, P., Lane, S., . . . Gaulfield, T.

(2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514-518.

doi:10.1038/nbt0609-514

Bucchi, M. (2013). Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8),

904-915. doi:10.1177/0963662513498202

Castle, M. C. (2006). Blending pedagogy and content: A new curriculum for museum teachers.

47
 The Journal of Museum Education, 31(2), 123-132.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Davies S., McCallie E., Simonsson E., Lehr J. L. & Duensing S. (2009). Discussing dialogue:

perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public

Understanding of Science, 18(3), 338 – 353.

Dierking, L., & Falk, J. H. (1994). Family behaviour and learning in informal science settings: A

review of the research. Science Education, 78(1), 57-72.

Dierking, L., Falk, J., Rennie, L., Anderson, D., & Ellenbogen, K. (2003). Policy statement of the

“Informal Science Education” Ad Hoc Committee. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 40(2), 108-111.

Dougherty K., Oliver C., & Fergusson J. (2014). Pathways to space: a mission to foster the next

generation of scientists and engineers. Acta Astronautica, Advance online publication.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.01.026

Dunwoody, S. (2010). Science communication. In S. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science and

technology communication. (pp. 696-698). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.4135/9781412959216.

Durant, J. (2010). Public understanding of science. In S. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science

and technology communication. (pp. 617-620). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,

Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959216.n213

Erickson, G. (2000). Research programmes and the student science learning literature. In R.

Millar, J. Leach & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contributions of

research (pp.271-292). Buckingham: Open University Press.

48
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experience and the

making of meaning. New York: Alta Mira Press.

Fink, A. (Ed.). (2003). The Survey Handbook. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,

Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.4135/9781412986328

Fischhoff, B., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). The science of science communication. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 (Suppl 3), 14031.

Grenier, R. S., & Sheckley, B. (2008). Out on the floor: Experiential learning and the

implications for the preparation of docents. The Journal of Museum Education, 33(1),

79-93. doi:10.1179/jme.2008.33.1.79

Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the museum. New York: Routledge.

Hubard, O. (2011). Illustrating interpretive inquiry: A reflection for art museum education.

Curator, 54(2), 165 – 179.

International Council of Museums. (2007). International Council of Museum statutes. Retrieved

from http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Statuts/statutes_eng.pdf

Lunenberg, M., Korthagen, F., & Swennen, A. (2007). The teacher educator as a role model.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 586-601. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.001

Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American

Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 905-928. doi:10.3102/00028312040004905

Neill, A. C. (2010). Providing a tailored educational interaction with cultural treasures: A study

of museum docents. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 16(2), 67-82.

Royal Society. (2006). Science communication excellence in science: Survey of factors affecting

science communication by scientists and engineers. London, England: Royal Society.

Science World. (n.d.a). Are you a scientist seeking to share your research and work with

49
 your community? Retrieved from http://www.scienceworld.ca/sites/default/files/commu

nity%20scientist%20opportunity%20-%20general.pdf

Science World. (n.d.b). CSI program workshops handouts. Vancouver, BC

Selvakumar, M., & Storksdieck, M. (2013). Portal to the public: Museum educators collaborating

with scientists to engage museum visitors with current science. Curator: The Museum

Journal, 56(1), 69.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 57(1), 1.

Tran, L. (2007). Teaching science in museums: The pedagogy and goals of museum educators.

Science Education, 91, 278-297.

Tran, L. U., & King, H. (2007). The professionalization of museum educators: The case of

science museums. Museum Management and Curatorship, 22(2), 131-149. doi:

10.1080/09647770701470328

Wadman, M., deProphetis Driscoll, W., & Kurzawa, E. (2009). Creating communicative

scientists: A collaboration between a science center, college, and science industry. The

Journal of Museum Education, 34(1), 41-53. doi:10.1179/jme.2009.34.1.41

Webb, A. B., Fetsch, C. R., Israel, E., Roman, C. M., Encarnación, C. H., Zacks, J. M., . . .

Herzog, E. D. (2012). Training scientists in a science center improves science

communication to the public. Advances in Physiology Education, 36(1), 72.

50
Appendix A

Community Scientists Survey Questionnaires

Part I: Background Information

1. What is your highest level of education completed?

□. Bachelor degree
□. Some Masters
□. Masters degree
□. Some PhD
□. PhD Degree

2. What is your professional area (e.g., astronomy, physics, astrophysics, biophysics,

psychology, genetics, biochemistry, chemistry, neuroscience, etc)?

3. What kind of institution do you belong to?

□.University
□.Government agency
□.Industry
□.Private research organization
□.Other, _____________________________________

51
4. Please rank the following statements related to communicating science to the public.
1=Not important
1-2-3-4-5
Statements
5=Very important
1 2 3 4 5
The public’s trust in scientists is important to you.
You are responsible for communicating your research and its
implications with the public.
It is important to increase awareness of the value of your research
to society.
It is important for the public to understand your research.
It is more important to increase the public’s awareness of the
value of your research than to improve their understanding of
your research.
5. Prior to your participation in the CSI program have you had any experience delivering
similar public scientific activities or events, or giving public lectures related to your research
topics:
Yes No
If yes, what communication skills or strategies did you use? (check all that apply)
□. Data visualization
□. Using known vocabulary
□. Using thoughtful sequencing
□. Framing the “big picture”
□. Using simple analogies
□. Comparing and contrasting to familiar objects
□. Asking open-ended questions
□. Considering the appropriate level of detail
□. Allowing significant time for discussion and dialogue
□. Designing activities with multiple participation structures
□. Other, _____________________________________

Part II: About the Community Scientist Initiative

6. Why do you take part in this program? (check all that apply)
□. Skills development

52
 □. Career enhancement
□. Enhancing your research quality and its impact
□. New research perspectives
□. Higher personal profile
□. Influence and networking opportunities
□. Enjoyment and personal reward
□. Additional funding
□. Increasing awareness of the value of research to society
□. Inspiring the next generation of researchers
□. Other, _____________________________________

7. How long have you been involved in the public programs at Science World as a facilitator/
presenter/speaker? How many times have you presented a program?

8. How would you rate the overall effectiveness of the training workshop series? (Please choose
one)
Poor Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
9. Reflecting on the training workshop provided by Science World staff, please indicate which
of the following concepts you now understand. (check all that apply)
□.You realized the characteristics of informal learning.
□.You realized learning builds on prior knowledge and is socioculturally and environmentally
contextualized.
□. You realized you have an expert blind spot.
□. You learned to observe visitors behaviors.
□. Other, _____________________________________

10. Which of the following concepts or strategies about learning and teaching do you use when
delivering your CSI activity to the public? (check all that apply)
□. Making concept maps
□. Data visualization

53
□. Scaffolding
□. Using known vocabulary
□. Using simple analogies
□. Comparing and contrasting to familiar objects
□. Asking open-ended questions
□. Framing the “big picture”
□. Considering the appropriate level of detail
□. Using thoughtful sequencing
□. Allowing significant time for discussion and dialogue
□. Designing activities with multiple participation structures
□. Other,_____________________________________

11. How did working with your science education mentor help you with developing your
hands-on activity?

12. What else should the training workshop address to help better scientists deliver public
scientific activities?

Part III: About the delivery of the activities

13. What is your general impression about the audience in the activities you delivered?
1=Few participants
1-2-3-4-5
statement 5= Most participants
1 2 3 4 5
They stay for a few seconds and leave.
They actively participate in your activity and ask you
questions.
They cannot understand you and leave without asking
questions further.
They can understand what you are doing after your
explanation.
They express positive emotional responses or share their
experiences related to your activity.

54
14. What were the barriers that you noticed in engaging audiences in delivering activities?

15. What did you do to address these barriers?

16. How do you improve your skills in delivering activities (including the refinement of your
hands-on activity)?

Part IV: Implication of the Community Scientist Initiative

17. Do you consciously use communication strategies or skills learned from CSI when you share
your studies in your research community or in other science communication activities?
Yes No
If yes, how do you use these strategies?

18. Does your experience in CSI benefit you?

Yes No
If yes, how does this experience benefit you? (for example, inspiring your research, helping
you in funding applications, etc.).

We are interested in follow up interviews (15~30 minutes in duration) with community scientists
who have participated in CSI program for more than one year. If you are willing to be contacted
by Co-Investigator Wei Hu, for the purposes of further exploring your perceptions of the impact
of the CSI program, please leave your contact information:
Name:
Email:
Phone (optional):

55