SCIENCE LEARNING IN EVERYDAY LIFE Lynn D. Dierking and John H. Falk, Section Editors

Science Centers and Scientific Literacy: Promoting a Relationship with Science ´ LEONIE J. RENNIE, GINA F. WILLIAMS Science and Mathematics Education Center, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia 6845 Received 10 September 2000; revised 7 January 2002; accepted 18 January 2002 ABSTRACT: This research explores the perceptions, ideas, and understanding about science of the staff and adult visitors to an interactive science center. Data were collected from 63 staff and 102 visitors through interviews and a survey designed for the study. Visitors’ perceptions about science were more limited than those of the Center staff, especially in terms of the nature of science. For example, after their visit, visitors were more likely to think that scientists always agree with each other, that scientific explanations are definite, and that science has the answers to all problems. Staff were more skeptical than visitors about scientists’ ability to communicate their work clearly and that scientific knowledge would not be misused. Staff were more positive and confident about their own use of science than were visitors. The research suggests that visitors to the science center have a positive experience, most of them recognize a change in the way they think about science, and this change represents not just learning new knowledge, but a step toward a change in their relationship with science. This outcome is consistent with one of the major roles the staff saw for the Center: that visitors should become more aware of and interested in science, and leave feeling more comfortable with it. Although the staff were very enthusiastic about what they saw as a positive impact on visitors’ science-related experience, many also felt there was room for improvement, especially in terms of how the nature of science was portrayed, ° C 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the representation of controversial aspects of science. Sci Ed 86:706 – 726, 2002; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/sce.10030

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 2000. The interpretations provided in this paper are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the granting body or other participants in the study. Correspondence to: L´eonie J. Rennie; e-mail: [email protected] Contract grant sponsor: Australian Research Council. ° C

2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

SCIENCE CENTERS AND SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

707

INTRODUCTION Science centers and museums are considered to have the potential to fulfill a major role in the informal learning of science (e.g., Danilov, 1982; Lederman, 1998; Shamos, 1995; Wellington, 1990). Well established in developed countries, they have undisputed appeal to a wide range of audiences, but the outcomes of visits to them are not well understood (see, for example, Rennie, 1999; Stocklmayer & Gilbert, in press). Although research suggests generally positive outcomes from visits, especially affective outcomes (see, for example, the review by Rennie & McClafferty, 1996), science centers also have their detractors. Shortland (1987) and Wymer (1991) are two critics who have suggested that education loses out when entertainment becomes a major consideration. Perhaps more serious are criticisms that the exciting demonstrations obscure what science is really about: the asking and answering of questions about how the world works. Also, it is said that science is presented poorly, as easy and unproblematic, ethics and value-free. These criticisms were made a quarter of a century ago by Champagne (1975) and do not seem to have been refuted; in fact, they have been reiterated (Fara, 1994; Parkyn, 1993; Ravest, 1993). Yet, most science centers say something about enhancing visitors’ understanding of science, or at least increasing awareness of science, as part of their mission statement. Clearly, there is a need for research about these issues. Do people understand more about science from their visit to a science center? Or do they understand less? Do science centers communicate the kind of image of science that we, as science educators, might hope? Or do they, as critics like Champagne (1975) suggest, communicate a false image of science? Answers to questions like these are not straightforward. For example, often research on the learning outcomes from science center visits has been directed toward measuring what science knowledge people take away from their visit, usually with limited success. We believe that such research addresses the wrong issue, for two reasons. First, it is well established that people do not absorb scientific knowledge, unchanged, from any source (see, for example, Jenkins, 1994; Layton, 1991; Wynne, 1992). Instead, they restructure the knowledge they receive to suit their own needs, translating and reworking it into a meaning that makes sense to them in their own personal circumstances. This makes it difficult to measure outcomes of visits in terms of specific content knowledge. Second, as St. John and Perry (1993) point out, “science museums provide an array of resources that help people not only to learn science but also, more broadly, to develop long-term relationships with the content, phenomena, and issues of science” (p. 59). Thus, the more important issue, and the one addressed in this research, concerns the nature of this relationship with science. From St. John and Perry’s perspective, measuring what science people learn from science centers in terms of the bits of scientific knowledge they can remember is hardly helpful. Instead, researchers should try to measure whether their science-related experience has helped people to think differently about science. Measuring the impact of any kind of science-related experience requires careful definition of what is to be measured. St. John and Perry (1993) concluded from their work in science museums that “evaluation efforts should seek to determine the ways in which these experiences contribute to broader relationships with the ideas, processes, phenomena and issues of science” (p. 63). Thus, thinking differently about science concerns not only learning new things, but becoming more aware of and interested in science, developing a broad-based knowing and understanding about science and its relationships with society and ourselves. This comes close to the notion of scientific literacy, that is, one might say that when people develop a positive relationship with science in this way, they become more scientifically literate. But what does this mean in the context of visits to science centers?

708

RENNIE AND WILLIAMS

Considerable care must be taken to find a meaning for scientific literacy which is sufficiently broad-based for our purpose. Sometimes broad-based meanings reduce to narrow measurement. For example, even though Miller (1998) has argued that civic scientific literacy should be conceptualized as involving three dimensions—vocabulary of basic science constructs, understanding the nature of scientific inquiry, and some understanding of the impact of science and technology on individuals and society—he has found it easier to measure only the first two. By combining scores on two kinds of measures, he estimated the percentage of adults qualifying as civic scientifically literate in 12 countries to range from 1 to 12%. This kind of research has been criticized because it focuses on the scientific knowledge and understanding that the public does not have, rather than determining what the public does know and understand. Wynne (1992, p. 42) states that conventional public understanding of science research only recognizes the formal contents of scientific knowledge and the methods and processes of science, when in fact it is the third element, how science works in society, the forms of institutional embedding, patronage, organization, and control, which is the key to the public understanding of science. Including this third element is a major challenge for research. In his analysis of scientific literacy and informal learning, Lucas (1983) employed an analytical framework based on Shen’s tripartite perspective of practical, civic, and cultural scientific literacy (Shen, 1975). Practical scientific literacy is having the kind of scientific knowledge that can be used to solve practical problems. Civic scientific literacy enables citizens to be aware of science and science-related issues and to think about and make decisions in a democratic process. Cultural scientific literacy is knowing something about science as a major human achievement. Shen wrote in the context of an increasing interest on the part of scientists in the extent of the public’s acquaintance with science and technology. He said that “scientific literacy calls for a planned proliferation of good ‘ordinary-language science’” (p. 51), in the belief that the lay person can understand science and its methods of reasoning if given the chance. Lucas (1983) found little direct evidence that science centers and museums contributed to Shen’s perspectives of scientific literacy and he concluded his paper by asking whether this framework was fruitful for further research. His challenge seems not to have been taken up. Others have seen a potential role for science centers in providing opportunities for adults to learn more about science. Recently, the House of Lords (2000) in England endorsed a report on science and technology naming science museums and science centers as a principal influence on the relationship between science and society. Wellington (1998) reports that around £1 billion from the National Lottery is to be spent on interactive science centers, a graphic illustration of their perceived value. In the United States, Shamos (1995) also saw an important role for science centers. He argued the need to change the focus from people learning science content toward developing an appreciation and awareness of the nature of the scientific enterprise, that is, “the meaning of the role of the experiment and the meaning of scientific truth, facts, laws, theories, etc.” (p. 266). He asserted that “what we seek is a society that (a) is aware of how and why the scientific enterprise works and of its role in that activity, and (b) feels more comfortable than it presently does with science and technology” (p. 219). These points are similar both to St. John and Perry’s notion of people’s relationships with the ideas, processes, phenomena, and issues of science, and to the usual mission of science centers, that is, to increase people’s awareness and understanding of science (St. John & Perry, 1993). In terms of science centers, then, perhaps the questions we need to ask are: What do science centers communicate about the nature of science and the scientific enterprise? What relationship between science and society do they portray? How comfortable do they help visitors to feel about engaging with science? This research explores the perceptions, ideas, and understanding about science of the staff and adult visitors to an interactive science center located in Western Australia. The mission

SCIENCE CENTERS AND SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

709

of this Center was “to increase the interest and participation of Western Australians in science and modern technology.” Specifically, this study investigates (a) the understanding about science of Center staff and their perceptions of the image of science portrayed by the center; (b) the ideas about science held by a sample of visitors to the Center; (c) the impact of their visit on visitors’ ideas about science; and (d) the perceptions of staff and visitors about the nature of science portrayed by the exhibits. METHOD The research involved two populations linked to a single, interactive science center, namely, Center staff and adult visitors to the center. By collecting similar data from both staff and visitors, we hoped to clarify the typical ideas about science held by visitors by comparing them with the ideas held by staff who, on the whole, might be expected to be a more knowledgeable group. Data were collected by interview and survey in a three-stage process. Stage I: Interviews with Center Staff A purposive sample of 28 Center staff was selected for interview, including staff working in Administration, Education, Exhibit Design and Development, Visitor Services, and Explainers. No one invited for interview refused. The interviews were conducted individually during August through October, 1998, and lasted between 20 min and 1 h. They were part of a larger project of research at the Center and the questions relevant here concern those asking staff about their understanding of science, where their ideas about science came from, what kind of image of science they thought that the Center portrayed, how it did this, and how successful it was. Interviews were audiotaped with permission and later transcribed. Stage II: Development of the Survey It was planned to interview visitors in a way similar to staff; however, this approach was unsuccessful because visitors found it extremely difficult to articulate their ideas about science without considerable prompting by the interviewer. It was decided to use a survey followed by a short interview that could expand upon the information requested in the survey. Information to construct the survey came from two sources. First, a focus group of parents whose children belonged to the Center’s science club was arranged. This allowed detailed discussion of parents’ views about the nature of science, the scientific enterprise, and the image of science at the center. The focus group allowed exploration of a range of ideas held by these science-interested parents and insight into the vocabulary they used to express them. Second, a review of literature about scientific literacy and the public understanding of science provided guidance on the ideas to be covered in the survey. The views of Shen (1975) and Shamos (1995), and Smith and Scharmann’s description of the nature of science were helpful (Smith & Scharmann, 1999). The Science Center Survey was designed to measure visitors’ perceptions, ideas, and opinions about science. It employs a modified semantic differential format. Each item includes two oppositely worded sentences or phrases, that is, bipolar statements rather than the bipolar adjectives used in the traditional semantic differential. Respondents chose one of seven points between the end statements in the usual way, and a “don’t know” box was also included. There were six items under the heading Science and seven items under each of two headings, Scientific Research and the Community and Science and Me, which roughly parallel Shen’s notions of cultural, civic, and practical scientific literacy (Shen, 1975). A fourth section of eight items, headed Science at the Center, focused on how science was portrayed at the center, including its exhibits.

710

RENNIE AND WILLIAMS

The aim of the Survey was to measure the kinds of cognitive and affective ideas relating to science that could reasonably be expected to be relevant to a visit to the Center in a way that was specific enough to measure the kind of impact the visit might make. Using a generic measure of people’s perceptions, ideas, and opinions about science meant that the meaning of the items did not depend on the specific nature of the exhibits in the Center, so it did not matter that people had experienced different exhibits during their visit. Nevertheless, there is a fine distinction between “generic” and “general” (and possibly abstract) in referring to item content. For example, an item in the Science and Me section of the Survey reads, “I feel/don’t feel confident talking about scientific topics with friends.” Instead of the general term “scientific topics,” we could have named a specific topic, the choice of which would need to refer to the Center’s exhibits, otherwise there would be no reason to expect any change. One exhibit compared the consumption of electrical energy by several household appliances, so one possible wording for the item could have been, “I feel/don’t feel confident talking about electricity consumption in the home.” While this specific focus may have made it easier for visitors to respond, there were two disadvantages. First, the item would be relevant only if the visitor experienced that particular exhibit, which could not be assumed. Second, there was a risk that such items would cue the visitor to specific exhibits, which would threaten the validity of the study. Consequently, we believed that generic items were the better choice because they neither risked cueing the visitor nor depended on the route through the Center taken by the visitor. During its development, the Survey was revised several times after reviews by academic scientists (a biologist, a chemist, and two physicists), a group of 16 science teachers and science educators at Curtin University of Technology, and staff from the Center. Successive versions were also field-tested with a total of 42 randomly chosen visitors to the Center, who were asked individually to talk aloud as they worked through the Survey. This identified ambiguities and problems with wording and allowed discussion with visitors in the choice of wording. The final wording of the items is given in Figures 1 – 4 which report the responses to the four sections of the Survey. The items are presented here with the more positive or scientific view on the right; however, on the Survey, items were worded in the direction which field-testing indicated was easier to understand. Data were analyzed separately for each item, providing a “profile” of responses to the instrument. Stage III: Implementation of the Survey and Interviews with Visitors The instrument was used to survey the views of both Center Staff and visitors. Each staff member was given a copy to complete at leisure and return via a collection box left in a staff area. The Survey was returned by 53 people including 12 volunteer explainers who were rostered during the data collection period in 1999. This represents about two-thirds of paid staff and a fourth of volunteer explainers. Data collection from visitors occurred over 8 days during the last school holiday period in 1999. Adult visitors were approached by one of the researchers as they entered the Center, the purpose of the research was explained to them as investigating people’s ideas about science and, if they expressed interest, they were given an explanation of what participation would involve. If they chose to participate, visitors were seated comfortably at a table and asked to complete the first three parts of the Survey as a pretest. The final version of the Survey included instructions and a practice item (about advertisements on television) that were explained to visitors before they began. Visitors were observed unobtrusively while they completed the Survey in case they experienced difficulty. None appeared to do so. When the pretest was completed, a numbered sticker was placed on it and another on the

SCIENCE CENTERS AND SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

711

visitor’s shoulder. This allowed visitors to be identified on the way out and their posttest to be matched with their pretest. At the end of their visit, participants completed all four sections of the Survey and some demographic questions. This usually took between 8 and 15 min. Unless they were clearly in a hurry, or had family or friends waiting anxiously, visitors were asked if they could spare a few more minutes for a short interview. If they agreed, visitors were asked several questions about their ideas and understanding of science, and how it was portrayed at the Center. They were also asked whether they thought that their ideas were changed by the visit, or if they believed that the Center generally helped visitors to understand more about science and technology and, if so, how it did this. Interviews were tape recorded with permission. All visitors who completed the posttest were offered a free child’s pass to the Center to thank them for their participation. Attempts were made to choose the visitor sample in a random way. Data were collected on different days of the week, with the start time varying from immediately after opening to about noon. Once the researchers were set up, the first available visitor was approached. Available visitors were defined as adults who did not have sole responsibility for young children. Most people came in groups, and so the adults in the group were asked if one of them would like to participate. Sometimes more than one wished to participate and, if so, they were included. Once the participant had completed the pretest and moved away, the next available visitor was approached. This process continued until 15 visitors were involved, or participants began to leave the Center and posttesting was underway. A total of 102 visitors completed the pretest and posttest, of whom 75 were also interviewed. Nine other visitors completed the pretest but did not return for the posttest. An additional 26 visitors were approached but did not wish to participate, usually stating lack of time or interest, or inadequate mastery of English.

RESULTS Description of Samples Tables 1 and 2 report the compositions of the samples of Center Staff and visitors from whom data were collected. As shown in Table 1, a total of 63 staff (26 males and 37 females) participated in data collection of some sort. More females than males completed the survey, and fewer females than males had data collected only by interview. The age profile is representative of the Center staff. The spread of numbers across the different occupational areas of the Center is fairly proportional, but most explainers are volunteers and although there is a large number of them, they work at the center on a rostered basis. In addition, three-quarters of staff gave their science education background, and about 21% had no science education beyond school, 17% had some vocational education, and the remainder (62%) had university level education in science. This high percentage includes some of the explainers, many of whom are university students, retired science teachers, engineers, or workers in other science-related fields. More female than male visitors were involved in the research, reflecting the Center’s statistics that show that, typically, more females attend. The common age groups were 36 – 45 years and over 56 years, which is consistent for visitors with children or grandchildren. Visitors were asked about their science education background. More than half of the visitors responding to this question (55%) had no education in science beyond school, with equal numbers having some vocational or university education in science. Three quarters of visitors provided their occupation. Clerical/sales/service (18%), trade/ transport (17%), and teaching (15%) were the occupations most frequently mentioned.

712

RENNIE AND WILLIAMS

TABLE 1 Description of Staff Sample Characteristics

Interview Only (n = 10)

Interview and Survey (n = 18)

Survey Only (n = 35)

Total (n = 63)

6 4

8 10

12 23

26 37

2 4 2 2 –

3 7 5 2 1

16 9 4 2 4

21 20 11 6 5

3 – 3 4 –

3 4 2 7 2

7 3 3 12 10

13 7 8 21 12

Sex Male Female Age Up to 25 years 26 – 35 years 36 – 45 years 46 – 55 years Over 56 years Occupation Administration Education Exhibition Visitor services Explainers

Students (16%) and health-related professionals (12%) were also well represented. Three respondents were physical scientists and four were managers or worked in professions other than those mentioned. Although visitors were asked to give their past occupations if not currently in the work force, 13% responded that they were not working, retired, or occupied with home duties. Visitors were asked their reason for visiting the science center, who they came with, and whether they had been before. All visitors came with someone else to the science center, the majority (64%) as part of a family group. Visiting with a friend or partner/spouse were each indicated by 17% of visitors. The most common reasons given for visiting the science center were to bring children (55%) or grandchildren (20%). Visiting for their own entertainment was mentioned by 31% of visitors and their own education, by 11%. To bring a friend was TABLE 2 Description of Visitor Sample Characteristic Sex Male Female Age Up to 25 years 26 – 35 years 36 – 45 years 46 – 55 years Over 56 years Education in Science School only Technical and further education University No answer

Interview and Survey (n = 75)

Survey Only (n = 27)

Total (n = 102)

34 41

10 17

44 58

10 12 28 8 17

9 7 5 3 3

19 19 33 11 20

35 18 18 4

18 6 2 1

53 24 20 5

SCIENCE CENTERS AND SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

713

stated by 6% of visitors. Almost a third of visitors (31%) had never previously visited the science center, and a similar percent (30%) had only been once or twice before. Nearly 22% had visited the science center three–five times, and 14% over five times. The other few were regular visitors to the science center. The length of the visit for those visitors participating in the Survey ranged from 45 to 305 min, with an average visiting time of 156 min and a standard deviation of 67 min. Center Staff Interviews Of the 28 staff interviewed, 25 were asked to tell the interviewer about their ideas of science. Six staff members (24%), who were mainly visitor service staff, saw science as “a part of everything,” “everyday life,” or related science to a range of topics including “chemistry and physics.” Four other staff (16%) talked about science as knowledge, with a volunteer explainer specifying knowledge about “natural phenomena” and an exhibit designer stating “why things work.” The majority of staff (60%), however, related science to a process of study; a way of knowing, questioning, or trying to explain. Most staff who answered along these lines specified what was being studied or explained, with eight (32%) commenting that science was finding out about everything in general and five (20%) referring to how or why things work or happen. An education staff member commented that although science helps us to understand, “it doesn’t have all the answers.” The processes involved in doing science, such as experimenting and investigating, were also mentioned by three staff. Only two staff members (8% of the total respondents), one in education and the other in visitor services, discussed the nature of science in some detail. They reflected on the need to test theories continually so as to seek better explanations, and how this results in an ever changing body of knowledge. As a part of this theme, the education staff member focused on the fallibility of scientific knowledge, saying [Science is] to help us understand the world around us, the way the world operates, the way we perceive the world and understand the world. It’s always wrong as well . . . You look at the history of science theory, it’s a body of knowledge that is ever changing, it really is always wrong, just that we haven’t found out what’s wrong about it yet . . . we’re putting forward theories but eventually . . . we know they’re going to be wrong . . . they are fallible.

All of the staff responded to a question asking them what image of science they thought the Center was trying to portray. Each staff member gave several responses, indicating that they thought the Center had several aims in terms of how it presented science to visitors. Nearly half (43%) of the staff thought that part of the Center’s role was simply to display science and applications of science, with the aim of making people more aware of modern developments, the history of science, and its role in modern day life. Concerns were expressed by several staff (14%), however, that the Center did not include enough new and topical developments. One staff member in visitor services and one in education felt that the Center should include more information about the impact and implications of science to demonstrate its social and cultural aspects. Two thirds of staff (64%) thought that part of the Center’s role was to influence the image of science that visitors held before their visit. They hoped that visitors would leave the Center with “more positive feelings about science,” believing that science could be fun, exciting, interesting, and easy to understand. They hoped that visitors who were inclined to be wary or fearful of science would become more comfortable with it. They also thought that the Center should communicate the relevance of science, influencing visitors’ beliefs about the important place of science in everyday life and how it can benefit humans. Over half (54%) of the staff mentioned that the Center should provide visitors with the opportunity to learn more scientific knowledge, particularly through the interactive exhibits.

714

RENNIE AND WILLIAMS

Simple explanations should be given, especially for things that people may have wondered about, or to correct misconceptions that people may have. A volunteer explainer focused on the need to “provide an environment that is supportive of exploring.” Some staff thought it was important to recognize that people will gain different understandings from the exhibits (21%) and that learning may not occur immediately, but that visitors’ experiences may be drawn on in the future (11%). For example, a volunteer explainer said They may not learn a great deal but at least it puts them on the pathway so that later on in life they can say “we went to the Center and I remember how we did this.”

Two staff involved in exhibit design and one in management thought that the Center could improve visitors’ learning of scientific knowledge by presenting scientific principles in more original displays, by including more extensive explanations or more explanations of how everyday things work. An education staff member thought that the Center should communicate the “real” nature of science and that currently it wasn’t achieving this. He discussed that the Center did not portray the fallibility of science, the reality that scientific explanations are not definite, and that scientists are not always right. He also commented that the center should emphasize that science is “about intriguing,” asking questions, rather than about learning facts. Half of the staff interviewed were asked whether they thought that the Center was successful in achieving its mission. Although some staff had previously mentioned areas where the Center could improve, all but one thought it was successful to some degree. The various “indicators” of success mentioned by staff included the belief that the Center was a “household name,” raised public awareness, successfully displayed science, and they each had their own anecdotal evidence of visitors’ positive experiences. One volunteer explainer did not think the Center was entirely successful. He believed that a large part of the Center’s mission was to present modern, up-to-date science and, in his opinion, it was not achieving this. The interviews with the staff were conducted over several weeks, and during that time they all impressed with their enthusiasm. Although some had varying ideas on some issues, they were unanimous in their support of the Center and their strength of team spirit and singularity of purpose was noticeable. Center Staff and Visitors’ Responses to the Survey The responses to the survey items provided information about the perceptions, ideas, and opinions about science of Center staff and visitors. Visitors completed the first three sections, Science, Scientific Research and the Community, and Science and Me, both as a pretest and a posttest, and any difference between pretest and posttest responses provides information about the impact of their visit. The fourth section of the Survey, Science at the Center, was completed only as a posttest. Figures 1 through 3 report the percentage responses to each item given by staff and visitors on the pretest and posttest sections of the Survey. The ideas about science held by staff and visitors arriving at the Center were compared using a nonparametric (Mann–Whitney U) test for independent pairs. These tests extablished the statistical significance of the difference between the responses of the staff and the visitors’ posttest responses. In Figures 1–4, the items with statistically significant differences between the responses of staff and visitors’ posttest are marked with †. Table 3 provides a summary of the statistically significant differences between staff and visitors’ posttest responses. The changes between visitors’ responses to items on the pretest and the posttest were examined using a nonparametric (Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank) test. In Figures 1 through 3, the items with statistically significant differences in the patterns of

SCIENCE CENTERS AND SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

715

TABLE 3 Summary of Statistically Significant Differences Between Staff and Visitor Posttest Responses Item 2 3 5 6 10 11 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 26 27 28

Staff Were MORE Likely than Visitors to Respond Ordinary people can understand science Scientists often disagree with each other Scientific explanations have an element of uncertainty Science doesn’t always have the answers to problems It is very likely that scientific knowledge will be misused Scientists are not concerned with the impact of their findings on the community Scientists do not communicate their research clearly to ordinary people I feel able to find information about science topics that interest me I feel confident talking about scientific topics with friends I use science to help solve practical problems around the house I can use science to explain how or why things happen When making decisions about my health I take account of scientific information Science helps me to understand everyday issues None of the exhibits I saw made me think There is not enough explanation of the science at the exhibits for me The exhibits don’t show controversial issues in science

responses are marked with *. Table 4 provides a summary of those items where there were statistically significant differences. Responses to Items About Science. The items in the Science section of the survey

sought respondents’ views about the nature of science and the scientific enterprise. The first two items refer to the accessibility of science to the ordinary person. As shown in Figure 1, respondents strongly agreed that everyone needs knowledge about science (Item 1) and that ordinary people can understand it (Item 2). The staff held this view more strongly that the visitors. Item 3 dealt with agreement among scientists. Staff were strongly of the view that scientists often disagreed with each other. Visitors held that view more strongly on the pretest than the posttest, and their tendency toward a middle position on the posttest is responsible for statistically significant differences between their posttest views and those of staff, and between the pretest and posttest responses.

TABLE 4 Summary of Statistically Significant Differences Between Visitors’ Pretest and Posttest Responses Item

After Their Visit, Visitors Were MORE Likely to Respond

3 5 6 10 11 13 16 17

Scientists always agree with each other Scientific explanations are definite Science has the answers to all problems It is not likely that scientific knowledge will be misused Scientists are concerned with the impact of their findings on the community Scientists do communicate their research clearly to ordinary people I feel confident talking about scientific topics with friends I use science to help solve practical problems around the house

716

RENNIE AND WILLIAMS

Figure 1. Responses (%) of staff and visitors to items about Science.

The last three items were concerned with the fallibility of scientific knowledge. Although most respondents agreed that scientific theories were tested continuously, their views about the uncertainty of knowledge (Item 5) and whether science has the answers to all problems (Item 6) were spread more widely. For these two items, staff held views that were more scientific than those of the visitors on the posttest, and visitors’ posttest responses were statistically significantly less scientific than their pretest views. Overall, after their visit,

SCIENCE CENTERS AND SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

717

visitors were more likely to think that scientists always agreed with each other, that scientific explanations are definite, and that science has the answers to all problems. Responses to Items About Scientific Research and the Community. The first two items in the second section of the Survey referred to the benefits of scientific research. Figure 2 reports that more than 80% of respondents from both groups responded on the positive side of the scale, agreeing that everyone benefits from scientific research

Figure 2. Responses (%) of staff and visitors to items about Scientific Research and the Community.

718

RENNIE AND WILLIAMS

(Item 7) and that it does more good than harm (Item 8). A similar pattern of responses for Item 9 showed that most staff and visitors agreed that decisions in scientific research involved ethics. Notably, this Item had the largest number of “don’t know” responses, about 10%. Item 10 dealt with trust in the use of scientific knowledge, with quite strong agreement that it is likely to be misused. Staff held this view statistically significantly more strongly than did visitors and, interestingly, visitors’ posttest scores were statistically significantly more trusting than their pretest views. That is, after their visit, visitors were less inclined to think that scientific knowledge is likely to be misused. Items 11 through 13 examined communication between scientists and the public. Although staff and visitors generally felt that scientists were concerned about the impact of their findings on the community (Item 11) and wanted the public to know about their findings (Item 12), they also felt that scientists did not communicate their research clearly (Item 13). There were statistically significant differences on Items 11 and 13. Center staff held the least positive views, particularly on Item 13. In contrast, after their visit, visitors held more positive views, feeling that scientists were concerned about the impact of their findings and communicated their research clearly. Response to Items About Science and Me. Apart from Item 14, the items on the third section of the Survey attempted to measure the idea of practical scientific literacy, that is, whether people are able to use science in everyday practical situations. Item 14 simply asked whether people found science interesting and, not surprisingly, for people who work at a science center and those who choose to visit, responses were very positive overall. Figure 3 shows that, on all other items, staff responded in a way that was statistically significantly more positive than that if the visitors, although visitors’ views were also positive. There were two statistically significant changes in visitors’ views. After their visit, visitors felt they were more confident talking about science with friends (Item 16), and more likely to think that they used science to help solve practical household problems (Item 17).

Responses to Items About Science at the Center. The last section of the Survey was used as a posttest only and asked for opinions about the nature of science presented by the exhibits and the quality of the explanations. The results are reported in Figure 4. It is noticeable that visitors’ opinions were more positive than those of staff on every Item except Item 21 (Science at the Center is easy to understand), but the differences were statistically significant only for the last three items. Visitors were more likely than staff to report that the exhibits made them think (Item 26), that explanations were adequate (Item 27), and that the exhibits showed controversial issues in science (Item 28). This last Item was the one least supported by visitors, and staff were rather strongly of the opinion that controversial issues were not shown. There was general agreement from staff and visitors that the exhibits showed everyday applications of science (Item 22), that the Center is a useful source of information about science (Item 23), and that something new could be learned from the exhibits (Item 24). Staff responses to the survey were examined in terms of their position at the Center. No statistical tests were carried out because of small numbers. The only clear trend was that the education staff generally responded most positively, or held the most scientific views, especially for the items about Science and Me concerned with practical scientific literacy. Visitor responses were also examined in terms of their number of visits to the Center (one, two or three, more than three) and whether or not they have some involvement with science in their employment or a hobby. For the items of the first three sections of the Survey, the largest pretest – posttest difference usually occurred in the group (of 19 visitors) who were on their first visit and were not involved with science. Their difference was the largest on 12 of

SCIENCE CENTERS AND SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

719

Figure 3. Responses (%) of staff and visitors to items about Science and Me.

the 20 items, and second largest on another 7 items. This implies that the impact of the visit is greatest during the first visit, for those people less familiar with science in everyday life. Visitor Interviews Because some of the visitors agreeing to an interview indicated that their time was short, or they were interrupted by family members, not all were asked all of the planned questions.

720

RENNIE AND WILLIAMS

Figure 4. Responses (%) of staff and visitors to items about Science at the Center.

Of the 75 visitors interviewed, 62 were asked what, in their opinion, they thought science was about. Responses were very varied and only three people (4%) answered that they did not know. Rather vague ideas were held by 21% of visitors who responded that it was something about “the world,” it was “very educational,” or it was about the science disciplines, such as chemistry and physics. Six people (10%) confused science with technological applications, describing science as beneficial, progressive, and giving examples of electrical products

SCIENCE CENTERS AND SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

721

such as “washing machines, microwaves, anything that makes life easier.” Four others (6%) expressed positive attitudes, thinking science was interesting, or fascinating, but did not add more. The majority of visitors (58%) were able to give a reasonably detailed description. Many visitors (23%) talked about science as knowledge, including ways of explaining “how the world works.” One said “an understanding of the natural laws in the world.” The other 35% had an aspect to their answer which implied something about the processes of science. For example, one said science involved “investigating things, testing things, experimenting with things,” another spoke about the “study of things that happen and exist around us, the natural things and the things we learn to do with science.” We noticed that people’s background or occupation was related to their views of science. Those people with more extensive backgrounds were more likely to say more about science. All but 2 of the 75 interviewees were asked whether they thought that their visit to the Center had changed their ideas about science. Nine people (12%) said no without giving a reason. Another 18 (25%) also said no, explaining that they already knew the science, had been before, or that they were too busy with children to explore for themselves. Eleven interviewees (15%) said no, but went on to describe, often with examples, how their ideas had been consolidated or challenged in some way, or how they had been reminded of the need to investigate to challenge and modify theories. The other 35 people (48%) thought that their ideas had changed. One gave no reason, four (5%) thought that they had become more interested in science, and three more thought that the “mystique” was taken away from science, making it simple and accessible. Seventeen people (23%) thought they had learnt some new things, or seen a science focus in everyday things that they hadn’t previously seen. Another 10 (14%) talked about a new perspective, the need to stop and think about change. For example, one person said It reminds me to think about it. In a way it’s like tying your shoes, we can all tie our shoes as grown-ups but how many of us stop and give it a thought? Trying to describe it to somebody else is very difficult. The Center’s really good for me for that.

All but one of the visitors interviewed answered a question asking them if they thought the science center helped visitors to understand more about science and technology and, if so, how they thought it did this. Without exception, visitors said that the Center did help visitors to understand, with 10% adding that they thought it did an excellent job. All but one visitor specified how they thought the Center did this. Responses were varied and multiple, with an average of more than two reasons given per visitor. One third of visitors thought that the Center helped people to understand by making science and technology fun, interesting, and entertaining, and/or commented that the Center stimulates people’s curiosity and motivates them to ask questions and learn. Other common reasons were the opportunity to connect theory to practice (mentioned by 27% of visitors), and seeing science in context with everyday applications by another 8%. For example, one visitor said People think that science is something not relevant to them, if they can see it in everyday application they realize that . . . maybe it is relevant to their everyday life.

Fourteen visitors (19%) pointed out that the Center provided the opportunity for them to learn through personal investigation. Nearly 18% of respondents made positive comments that related generally to the educational value of the exhibits and another 24% to the simple explanations at the exhibits. Some visitors (30%) thought that science at the Center was very accessible and suitable for children, but some of these visitors, and some others (a total

722

RENNIE AND WILLIAMS

of 15%) thought it catered for all levels of background knowledge. Nine visitors (12%) suggested that some people may not learn because they only play with exhibits or don’t have the time or patience to read the text at exhibits. Overall, the interviews with visitors revealed that nearly 60% of people were able to convey in a sentence or two a reasonable understanding of science. Of course, from a short interview, we can only infer people’s understanding by what they have said, not what they don’t say, and a longer, probing interview would no doubt reveal more. DISCUSSION Interviews and a specially developed instrument were used to examine Center staff’s and visitor’s perceptions, ideas, and opinions about the nature of science and how it is presented at the science center where the research was carried out. Many similarities, but some differences also, were found between the views of staff and visitors. Staff Ideas About Science and How it is Portrayed at the Center The Center staff had broad views about science. Most of them, particularly the education staff, saw science as a process, a way of knowing rather than a body of knowledge. The staff believed there were several aims or roles for the Center. One important role was the Center as an avenue for science learning, but staff stressed the notion of visitors developing positive feelings about science, leading to a much broader relationship with science than simply learning things, ideas that are quite consistent with those espoused by St. John and Perry (1993). Another role, but less well achieved according to the staff who mentioned it, was to present exhibits which displayed the “real nature” of science, including controversial aspects and the fallibility of knowledge. Staff were positive about the success of the Center and felt that visiting did make a difference to the ways people thought about science. They also recognized that the impact of the visit might not be immediate, but could happen later on. Visitors’ Ideas About Science and How it is Portrayed at the Center The interviews revealed that visitors held very wide-ranging ideas about science. Perhaps this is not surprising, as there were wide ranges of ages, occupations, and backgrounds in science given by the visitors. Nevertheless, most visitors were able to offer at least a broad idea about science, and a third were able to talk about science in terms of asking and answering questions about the world. Visitors’ responses to the Survey were also widespread, in the sense that every response category was chosen by at least one person, but there were clear trends. Visitors were very positive about ordinary people needing to know about science, and the benefits of scientific research. There was general agreement that research decisions involve ethics and that scientists are concerned about the impact of their research on the community. However, visitors were less confident in scientists’ ability to communicate their research clearly. They also were inclined to think that scientific knowledge would be misused. Although visitors generally agreed that scientists keep testing their theories to improve them, and often disagreed among themselves, many visitors believed that science was able to provide definite explanations and has the answer to most problems. In terms of the items which looked at visitors’ everyday use of science, their responses were also positive, except for the items asking about their confidence in talking with scientific topics with friends, where the responses were well spread. The Survey provided common points of comparison between the science-related ideas of staff and visitors. A summary of the statistically significant differences is in Table 3.

SCIENCE CENTERS AND SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

723

As a whole group, and perhaps not surprisingly, visitors’ perceptions about science were more limited than those of the Center staff, a finding confirmed by the interviews. This was revealed especially in the items that asked about the nature of science, for example, in terms of uncertainty of knowledge. Staff were also much more skeptical than visitors about scientists’ ability to communicate their work clearly and that scientific knowledge would not be misused. In terms of practical scientific literacy (Items 15 – 20), staff were more positive and confident about their own use of science than were visitors, as shown in the summary in Table 3. Impact of the Visit The impact of the visit on visitors’ ideas about science was measured in terms of their own perceptions and the differences in the pretest and posttest responses to the Survey. In interview, nearly two thirds of the visitors (46 of the 73) who were asked whether their ideas had changed as a result of their visit gave examples of how they had been able to think differently or more deeply about science, even though some of these 46 people initially said their ideas had not changed. Most of those who said their ideas had not changed explained that they were frequent visitors, already were knowledgeable about science, or that they were too busy looking after children to explore for themselves. The Survey results for visitors’ perceptions and ideas about science were interesting. Generally there was a trend toward more positive perceptions about science, however, sometimes this more positive perception represented a less scientific view. Table 4 summarizes those items with statistically significant differences between visitors’ pretest and posttest responses. Of the six items about Science, three registered a statistically significant change in view. Visitors became more likely to think that scientists always agree with each other, that scientific explanations are definite, and that science has the answers to all problems. In terms of visitors’ views about Scientific Research and the Community, three items recorded statistically significant changes. Although responses were well spread, after their visit people were more trusting that scientific knowledge would not be misused, that scientists are concerned about the impact of their findings, and that they communicate their results clearly. The third section of the Survey, Science and Me, revealed only two statistically significant changes. Visitors felt more confident to talk about science with friends and that they were able to solve practical problems around the house. Taken overall, these changes might be considered encouraging, but they suggest that the Center portrays a positive, but uncritical, view of science as definite, unproblematic, and all-knowing, sharply reminiscent of Champagne’s criticism that science is portrayed badly (Champagne, 1975). Visitors generally agreed that decisions involved ethics, rather than being ethics-free, as Champagne suggested, and they still held diverse but generally positive views that scientific research is beneficial. Nature of Science Portrayed by the Exhibits The fourth section of the Survey, Science at the Center, assessed staff’s and visitors’ views about science and the exhibits at the Center. Apart from positive responses that science at the Center is easy to understand, visitors’ views were more positive than those of staff on every item. This could be considered a good thing, in that staff are not too complacent. There was strong agreement that the Center showed everyday applications of science, that the Center is a useful source of information, and that visitors learned something new from the exhibits. Also positive were the responses that the exhibits made visitors think. Generally the visitors thought that there was enough explanation at the exhibits for them, although the staff were

724

RENNIE AND WILLIAMS

somewhat doubtful. The largest difference between staff and visitors was the strong feeling among staff that controversial issues were not shown, whereas visitors were more positive about this aspect. CONCLUDING COMMENTS In summary, the findings of this research are very encouraging. Clearly, a visit to the Center makes a measurable impact on most of the visitors. Given the short time of the visit, that adults usually were in charge of children, and that they all bring unique combinations of background knowledge and experiences and consequently have quite different visit experiences, it is surprising that any effect was measured. Further, it is important to note that impact may become more apparent some time after the visit when subsequent experiences and/or discussion with family and friends highlight the relevance of aspects of the visit experience. In earlier research at this particular Center, for example, Johnston (1999) documented an extensive range of related subsequent activities and experiences visitors described as impacting on their thinking about science. We tried to measure the generic effect of the visit rather than specific science learning by taking a slant toward scientific literacy. We don’t claim to have measured scientific literacy, merely people’s perceptions, ideas, and opinions about science. For example, we don’t know whether people really do apply science as readily in their everyday life as they might indicate in our Survey. Nevertheless, the weight of evidence from our research is that visitors have a positive experience, most of them recognize a change in the way they think about science, and as St. John and Perry (1993) point out, this change represents not just learning new knowledge, but a step toward a change in their relationship with science. This outcome is consistent with one of the major roles the staff saw for the Center: that visitors should become more aware of and interested in science, and leave feeling more comfortable with it. Although staff were very enthusiastic about what they saw as a positive impact on visitors’ science-related experience, many also felt there was room for improvement, especially in terms of how the nature of science was portrayed. A note of caution is sounded by the increased tendency of visitors to think uncritically about science following their visit. To a considerable extent, this finding supports Champagne’s early criticism of the science center he visited (Champagne, 1975). Certainly many staff were concerned that the Center presented little about the “real nature” of science or controversy in science. But displaying controversy and information about the nature of science is not easy. Baldock (1995) points out that science museums say very little about the nature of science processes, focusing instead on the products of science. Science centers are more likely to focus on the concepts of science, in single or small clusters of exhibits, but it is difficult to portray the nature of science. Displaying controversy is also difficult. Macdonald and Silverstone (1992) point out some of the problems in displaying controversial issues. Identifying an issue and planning and making an exhibit are time-consuming processes and they occur while attitudes are changing, and so it is difficult for the exhibit to remain current and interesting. Sometimes controversy comes uninvited. In his review of Science in American Life, an exhibition of America’s changing attitudes to science, Friedman (1995) tried to explain why the exhibition drew such harsh criticism as being “anti-science.” He believed it to be a mismatch of views and expectations. People are accustomed to seeing exhibitions about the “wonders of nature, the excitement of technology, and the cleverness of scientists and engineers in figuring all this out” (p. 311), he noted. In Friedman’s view, a substantial effort was made in the exhibition to portray scientists as caring human beings, but, in order to highlight the changes in attitudes over time, some of the cautionary tales had to be portrayed, leading to criticism that science was attacked at every turn.

SCIENCE CENTERS AND SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

725

In the Center at which this research was conducted, and very likely in many similar interactive science centers, working on ways to present some of the more controversial issues and dilemmas in science remains a challenge for the staff. In the meantime, visitors are very positive about their experiences and the value of their visit, especially for their children. We thank the participants and the staff of Scitech Discovery Center for their willing collaboration in the research. The interpretations provided in this paper are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the granting body or other participants in the study.

REFERENCES Baldock, J. (1995). Science is . . . at the Birmingham Museum of Science and Technology. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 285 – 298. Champagne, D. W. (1975). The Ontario Science Center in Toronto: Some impressions and some questions. Educational Technology, 15(8), 36 – 39. Danilov, V. J. (1982). Science and technology centers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fara, P. (1994). Understanding science museums. Museums Journal, 94(12), 25. Friedman, A. J. (1995). Exhibits and expectations. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 305 – 313. House of Lords (2000). Science and technology—Third report (Science and Technology Committee Publications). London: House of Lords Journal and Information Office. Jenkins, E. (1994). Public understanding of science and science education for action. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 601 – 611. Johnston, D. J. (1999). Assessing the visiting public’s perceptions of the outcomes of their visit to interactive science and technology centers. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia. Layton, D. (1991). Science education and praxis: The relationship of school science to practical action. Studies in Science Education, 19, 43 – 79. Lederman, L. (Chair) (1998). The ICSU Programme on Capacity Building in Science. Studies in Science Education, 31, 73 – 91. Lucas, A. M. (1983). Scientific literacy and informal learning. Studies in Science Education, 10, 1 – 36. Macdonald, S., & Silverstone, R. (1992). Science on display: The representation of scientific controversy in museum exhibitions. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 69 – 87. Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203 – 223. Parkyn, M. (1993). Scientific imaging. Museums Journal, 93(10), 29 – 34. Ravest, J. (1993). Where is the science in science centres? ECSITE Newsletter, Summer, 10 – 11. Rennie, L. J. (1999). Learning science in informal contexts: Perspectives from research. In S. Stocklmayer & T. Hardy (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on learning science in informal contexts (pp. 1 – 7). Canberra: Questacon. Rennie, L. J., & McClafferty, T. P. (1996). Science centers and science learning. Studies in Science Education, 27, 53 – 98. Shamos, B. M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Shen, B. S. P. (1975). Science literacy and the public understanding of science. In S. B. Day (Ed.), Communication of scientific information (pp. 44 – 52). Basel: Karger. Shortland, M. (1987). No business like show business. Nature, 328, 213 – 214. Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83, 493 – 509. St. John, M., & Perry, D. (1993). A framework for evaluation and research: Science, infrastructure and relationships. In S. Bicknell & G. Farmelo (Eds.), Museums visitor studies in the 90s (pp. 59 – 66). London: Science Museum.

726

RENNIE AND WILLIAMS

Stocklmayer, S. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (in press). New experiences and old knowledge: Towards a model for the personal awareness of science and technology. International Journal of Science Education. Wellington, J. (1990). Formal and informal learning in science: The role of interactive science centres. Physics Education, 25, 247 – 252. Wellington, J. (1998). Interactive science centres and science education. Croner’s Heads of Science Bulletin (Issue 16). Kingston upon Thames, Surrey: Croner Publications Ltd. Wymer, P. (1991). Never mind the science, feel the experience. New Scientist, 5 October, 49. Wynne, B. (1992). Public understanding of science research: New horizons or hall of mirrors? Public Understanding of Science, 1, 37 – 43.