In a previous post, I described my plans for a short service-learning project to be run with third-year undergraduate students.
The session went mainly as planned, although, as with many first time sessions there could have been some improvements. The teaching room was far from ideal – being a large computing room, so students were spread out and it was difficult for them to get into groups to discuss things, as I had conceived. The first question of the session revolved around perceptions of science by the general public. Students were asked to come up with a list and discuss in pairs, and then their ideas were collated. The results were interesting, although I wonder how much the answers were skewed towards their perception of what they thought I wanted to hear, especially given the title of the session had been given as Science, ethics and the public.
Students responded as follows regarding the public view of science and scientists:
- Unethical
- People think you are smart and “geeky”
- People confuse science with “bad science”
- All scientists are Mad Scientists (ed: it was noted that the only one we know of who fits the stereotype is Martyn Poliakoff)
- Science is Heresy (ie religion vs science)
- “Nuclear is bad”
- Some people find science interesting (but not cool)
- Many people think science is useful
- Science is a window to a brighter world (but may be tinged with cynicism)
- Chemists always in a lab ‘playing’ with chemicals (ie not relevant)
-
Caused all the world’s problems or solved all the world’s problems (depending on who you talk to)
I was quite disappointed that many were quite negative. They also seemed to reflect the views the students had of themselves in part, ie a little embarrassed to be doing science (inferred through the eg ‘not cool’ addendum and the use of geeky as derogative). Our battle for science marketing still has a ways to go in the UK, it seems.
Students then proposed methods to engage people in science:
- Science video blogs
- More in-depth education (the example given was science TV for kids in the Czech republic)
- Better/more press releases
- Science Festivals
- Nobel Prizes (topical as they had been announced that week)
- More popular science TV – especially comedy like Big Bang Theory
- A broader science curriculum (which is in-line with the usual government proposals)
- Science Museums
- Improvements in Science Journalism (driven by blogs)
- Better simplification of complex topics
Interesting here I thought was the inclusion of video and blogs as media – these are clearly on student radar. Two of the students did engage me in a counter argument though: they perceived all these measures as only being of interest to those already interested in science. They identified the people that needed the most science input as those who classically don’t engage in science, and therefore would not be part of the target audience for the above activities. The problem here is that if they are parents, they might also avoid (deliberately or passively) engaging their children – and this is where an interest in science is critical. I agree with the students that this is certainly where we need to look at innovative ways to engage this segment of the population, not covered by the standard approaches. [note post-post: also highlighted today in the guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/oct/26/skeptics-pub-stephen-fry]
The rest of the session was devoted to coming up with ideas that the students could enact to engage the wider community. These were presented, collated and voted upon to generate a short-list. Finally three projects were selected by the students to carry out:
- Bottle rockets
- Cake
- Food Science Experiments Youtube channel
There were some good ideas that didn’t get the popular vote, or were impractical. One suggestion was to work with a multi-national fast food outlet to add science-factoids (perhaps about the food you are eating) to napkins or wrappers. I think this would be excellent in practice, but was a bit out of our league for a short project. Next time perhaps … Similarly, a science column in the local student paper was also an excellent idea, but there were too few takers. There were also a couple of sillier ideas, such as developing a chemistry-themed crime fighting organisation.
In retrospect, I’m reticent about having allowed too much freedom in this part; it would have been nicer for students to interact with a range of community partners, some of whom they might not have considered as beneficiaries of chemistry and their skills. The increased freedom was primarily down to the short notice, meaning no time to organise formal community partners. The lack of time to organise a block of funding (as this must be procured externally) also made this less than ideal. Next time, we will hopefully have a larger lead time (ie > 1 week + other teaching commitments) to enhance the outcomes.
On the upside, because the students have selected their own project, the level of contribution should be enhanced. The second session involved more detailed planning, with feasibility forms (much like grant-request forms) and peer review by the other teams. Most of the flaws were easily spotted, and revised forms completed. Next post … how did it all go (for Team Bottle Rocket!).
