Kingsley I – PCST Network

Author: Isabelle Kingsley – University of NSW, Australia

Co-authors:
Carol Oliver – University of New South Wales
Martin Van Kranendonk – University of New South Wales

Around the world, governments, institutions and organisations are increasingly focussing on supporting science communication initiatives to ensure the public is interested in science, scientifically literate and better able to understand its importance and relevance to society.

Yet, there is little evidence to support the assumed benefits of science communication.

First, there is a general lack of scientific rigour applied to the evaluation of science communication — “ … for a data-driven enterprise, science demands very few data from communicators of science, either to craft and frame appropriate messages and message content or to evaluate the impact of messages on scientific knowledge or behaviour” (Borchelt, 2001).

Secondly, some studies have found slight decreases in public scientific literacy after participation in science communication activities. For example, our pilot study measured scientific literacy pre and post activity and found that participants demonstrated a slight decrease in understanding of scientific practice (Kingsley et al., 2017). The results align with the findings from two other studies that identified slight decreases in participants’ scientific literacy after participating in citizen science projects (Brossard et al., 2005; Cronje et al., 2011).

We should not assume that any science communication is effective and beneficial for the public. There is a need for more rigorous research to measure the effectiveness of science communication in achieving objectives. These objectives can range from changing public knowledge and understanding, attitudes and perceptions of science, or simply attracting a large number to an event. There is also the need to identify the types of activities that are most effective at achieving these objectives, and the need to better understand our audience — from the educated choir to the uneducated curious. We need to grow our evidence base, which will provide important insights by which the field can enhance its efforts and more effectively direct future investment.

The author has not yet submitted a copy of the full paper.

Presentation type: Individual paper
Theme: Science
Area of interest: Investigating science communication practices

Author: Isabelle Kingsley – University of NSW, Australia

Co-authors:
Isabelle Kingsley – University of New South Wales
Carol Oliver – University of New South Wales
Martin Van Kranendonk – University of New South Wales

What evidence do we have that science communication improves scientific literacy? To date, the standard questionnaire has been the ‘go to’ instrument for measuring scientific literacy and impacts of science communication. However, researchers in the field are pointing to the need for more sensitive instruments (Cronje et al., 2011; Crall et al., 2013; Brossard et al., 2005).

We report on the development and testing of a new instrument—a digital game—designed to measure scientific literacy. Scientific literacy, as defined by Jon D. Miller (1983), involves knowledge of scientific constructs, understanding of the nature of science (NOS) and understanding of the societal impacts of science. This instrument focuses on the understanding of NOS dimension of Miller’s definition, which—we argue to some extent—is at the heart of scientific literacy.

This new tool is based on a Teachable Agent (TA), a learning technology, which uses the social metaphor of teaching a computer agent by creating a concept map that serves as the agent’s ‘brain’ (Schwartz and Arena, 2009). Concept maps are visual representations of knowledge used to measure changes in cognitive structure—that is, changes in or development of meanings of concepts (Novak and Gowin, 1984). Using concept maps and TAs, this instrument identifies the validity and complexity of ideas held by subjects about NOS and measures any changes in their cognitive structure, pre and post science communication activity, by comparing the choices they make in producing their concept maps to ‘teach’ their TA.

The instrument automatically scores concept maps via an algorithm, making it scalable and just as fast and easy to use as traditional questionnaires.

This study indicates that this instrument may be more sensitive and accurate than questionnaires at measuring the impacts of science communication on scientific literacy. Validation as well as further testing is required.

The author has not yet submitted a copy of the full paper.

Presentation type: Visual talk
Theme: Science
Area of interest: Investigating science communication practices

Questioning assumptions: The evidence gap in science communication

A new tool to evaluate impacts of science communication on scientific literacy

Contact

Connect

Join

Discuss

Partners