99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Implementing the Primary Science Capital Teaching Approach in a Scientist-Facilitated Intervention
Shannon Stubbs, Jennifer DeWitt, Muriel Grenon
University of Galway, Ireland
Presenting Author: Stubbs, Shannon
Topic and theoretical framework
Previous research across the Irish (SFI, 2021), European (Archer et al., 2020; El Takach & Yacoubian, 2020) and international (Dickson et al., 2021) context has illustrated that young people generally have positive views of and are interested in science while in school. Despite this, many, especially those from underrepresented backgrounds, struggle to envision themselves as scientists (Archer, 2020). Some restrictive and possibly exclusionary perceptions about science and scientists persist within Ireland, the UK and other European countries (Brumovska et al., 2022; Christidou et al., 2019; Shimwell et al., 2023). These perceptions can act as a barrier to positive engagement with science, within the educational ‘pipeline’ or outside of it. Science capital, based on Bourdieu’s social and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1990), is a construct that encapsulates all science-related knowledge, attitudes, experiences, and social contacts that a person may have (Archer et al., 2015). Since its conception, the theoretical lens of science capital has been applied to better understand science engagement in other countries such as Spain (Salvadó et al., 2021) and China (Du & Wong, 2019). The social justice-oriented pedagogy embedded in the Primary Science Capital Teaching Approach (PSCTA) focuses on changing the field of science education to become more equitable and personalised (Godec et al., 2017; Nag Chowdhuri et al., 2021). Currently there is little published research on how the PSCTA might be applied in a once-off, scientist-facilitated intervention and any potential impacts on young people’s perceptions of scientists.
Intervention description
The aim of the “Meet The Cell Explorer’s (CE) Scientist” intervention is to widen young people’s perceptions of what it means to be a scientist, challenge stereotypes associated with science and being a scientist, and therefore widen the reach of science to more students. The session also aims to contribute towards students’ social science capital by introducing them to a diverse range of local scientist role models, many with hobbies, interests, and backgrounds similar to themselves.
In the intervention, groups of 4-6 CE scientists visit 10-13 year old pupils in their school classrooms. During the hour-long session, scientists introduce themselves and engage in Q&A discussions in small groups of 3-6 young people per scientist, focusing on topics such as the scientist’s hobbies and interests, where they are from, their journey to becoming a scientist and their daily lives as scientists. Young people are given topic names to aid in focusing the discussion but are free to ask any questions they wish to the scientist in their small group, with an additional “ask anything” section at the end of the intervention. These topics aim to integrate the science capital dimensions of knowing someone in a science-related role, knowledge about the transferability of science, and science-related attitudes, values, and dispositions.
Cell Explorer's scientists comprise of volunteer undergraduate and postgraduate science students, and staff based at the university. The scientists receive specialized training to enhance their support for young people’s science capital and using the PSCTA. Through an online module and a 1.5 hour in-person training workshop, the scientists are trained in how to help young people identify their own funds of knowledge that may be useful as a scientist, to make links between the young people’s interests and science, and to address restrictive misconceptions about science and scientists.
Research objective
This study aims to explore the potential short-term effects of a once-off, scientist-facilitated intervention implementing the PSCTA on young people’s perceptions of science and scientists.
Research question
How, if at all, does a once-off, scientist-facilitated classroom intervention implementing elements of the PSCTA contribute towards supporting young people's science capital, specifically their perceptions of scientists?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedStudy context
This research project took place within the context of the primary level of the Irish formal education system, comprising the first 8 years of schooling. It focuses on the senior part of the system - 4th to 6th class, which typically spans ages 10-13 years old.
Intervention design
The "Meet the Cell EXPLORERS Scientist" intervention was developed through the application of Design-Based Research (DBR) principles. The intervention was refined through multiple cycles of design, implementation, and evaluation. Initial design stages involved developing and evaluating the delivery of the intervention in an online format, followed by an in person round of pilots, whereafter intervention content, materials and scientist training was re-evaluated. Iterative adjustments were made to improve the intervention and alignment of the scientist training seminars with science capital dimensions and the PSCTA. Data collection materials were revised through a similar iterative refinement cycle.
Research approach
This research employed a predominantly qualitative study methodology utilising a mixed methods approach for data collection. Quantitative data pertaining to the young people’s demographics and science capital was collected via a written pre- and post-intervention questionnaire. Qualitative data was collected via field observations during the intervention and semi-structured interviews before and after the intervention.
Participant demographics
Six classes in five schools across Galway, Ireland, recruited through convenience sampling, participated in the research. A total of 161 children between 9 and 13 years old completed the questionnaire between April and May 2023. The sample included 61 girls and 91 boys, and 9 children who preferred not to indicate their gender.
Questionnaire analysis
The science capital of 9-13 year old pupils from senior cycle of primary school (n=161) was assessed using a questionnaire developed from research on science capital in primary students (Nag Chowdhuri et al., 2021). Responses were used to calculate a science capital score for each participant. Open-ended responses, not used in the calculation of science capital, were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021). A post-questionnaire (n=126), investigating the children’s opinions on session quality and their perceptions of scientists, was administered by their teacher a day after the intervention.
Interview analysis
A total of 22 pupils were interviewed pre- and post-intervention and observed during the intervention. Interviews were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis on NVivo.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsConsistent with previous research in the UK (Archer et al., 2020), most children surveyed had medium science capital. Children across all levels of science capital held largely positive perceptions of scientists before the intervention, though stereotypical perceptions were evident. Most of the children interviewed asserted that anyone could become a scientist, though this is restricted by factors such as interest, effort and specific personality traits. For example, 14/22 children interviewed specified that scientists must be smart. An 11 year old girl with a low level of science capital, explained that to become a scientist the person must be “very smart… and you have to like usually be brave because if you do something wrong something bad can happen”.
After participating in the intervention, children recalled a positive experience with the scientists and reported gaining insights into their daily lives. Most (74%) felt they knew more about the lives of scientists than before and 81% considered the scientists to be like normal people. Some participants reported in interview that the intervention positively influenced their belief in their ability to become a scientist by broadening their understanding of what counts in science and science-related careers, now seeing clearer links between their existing interests and science. For some others, existing perceptions were shifted. An 11 year old boy with low science capital explained that he “kind of expected [the scientists] to be a bit nerdy and they wouldn’t really be that cool… or have an interest in most things. But what I think of scientists now is that…. they can be cool and interesting”.
This research offers practical insights for the development of similar non-formal, brief interventions, emphasizing the importance of training scientists in evidence-based pedagogies, while bringing scientists’ interests, personalities and backgrounds to the forefront.
ReferencesArcher, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948.
Archer, L., Moote, J., MacLeod, E., Francis, B., & DeWitt, J. (2020). ASPIRES 2: Young people’s science and career aspirations, age 10-19. UCL Institute of Education.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (second edition). In London, England: SAGE.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. SAGE.
Brumovska, T. J., Carroll, S., Javornicky, M., & Grenon, M. (2022). Brainy, Crazy, Supernatural, Clumsy and Normal: Five profiles of children’s stereotypical and non-stereotypical perceptions of scientists in the Draw-A-Scientist-Test. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3, 100180.
Christidou, V., Hatzinikita, V., & Kouvatas, A. (2019). Public visual images of Greek scientists and science: Tracing changes through time. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 9(1), 82–99.
Dickson, M., McMinn, M., Cairns, D., & Osei-Tutu, S. (2021). Children’s perceptions of scientists, and of themselves as scientists. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 9(1).
Du, X., & Wong, B. (2019). Science career aspiration and science capital in China and UK: a comparative study using PISA data. International Journal of Science Education, 41(15).
El Takach, S., & Yacoubian, H. A. (2020). Science Teachers’ and Their Students’ Perceptions of Science and Scientists. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 8(1), 65.
Godec, S., King, H., & Archer, L. (2017). THE SCIENCE CAPITAL TEACHING APPROACH: engaging students with science, promoting social justice. University College London.
Nag Chowdhuri, M., King, H., & Archer, L. (2021). The Primary Science Capital Teaching Approach: Teacher handbook.
Salvadó, Z., Garcia-Yeste, C., Gairal-Casado, R., & Novo, M. (2021). Scientific workshop program to improve science identity, science capital and educational aspirations of children at risk of social exclusion. Children and Youth Services Review, 129, 106189.
Science Foundation Ireland (2021). SFI Science in Ireland Barometer 2020 Research Report. https://www.sfi.ie/engagement/barometer/SFI-Science-in-Ireland-Barometer-2020-Research-Report.pdf
Shimwell, J., DeWitt, J., Davenport, C., Padwick, A., Sanderson, J., & Strachan, R. (2023). Scientist of the week: Evaluating effects of a teacher-led STEM intervention to reduce stereotypical views of scientists in young children. Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(2), 423–443.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Understanding the Factors Influencing Upper Secondary School Students STEM Career Aspirations
Elisa Vilhunen
University of Helsinki, Finland
Presenting Author: Vilhunen, Elisa
The aim of this study is to examine upper secondary school students’ perceptions about careers on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) related fields, and to understand factors influencing their career choices. Despite the global need for STEM professionals, there is a persistent decline in students' interest in STEM studies and careers, especially in Europe (OECD, 2016; Osborne & Dillon, 2008; Potvin & Hasni, 2014). Various factors, both intrinsic and extrinsic, contribute to this decline, including socio-economic status, learning opportunities, attitude towards science, and limited knowledge of STEM careers (e.g., Holmegaard et al., 2014). Recognizing the multifaceted nature of these challenges, efforts to address declining interest include specially designed instructional interventions with integrated career-based perspectives to enhance students' understanding of STEM careers and boost interest in science (Drymiotou et al., 2021; Gago et al., 2005; OECD, 2016). lisää drymioutou
Social cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 1999) provides a framework for understanding how cognitive, social, and environmental factors interact to shape career choices and development over time. The theory emphasizes, for example, the role of self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, interests and goals, environmental influences, performance and choice expectancies, and contextual supports and barriers in shaping an individual's career choices and actions. Furthermore, previous research has shown that for example other people’s recognition and STEM identity (Ladachart et al., 2023; Nugent et al., 2015; Simpson & Bouhafa, 2020), receiving career information (Kaleva et al., 2023), preconceptions about STEM careers (Holmegaard et al., 2014) and instructional activities in school (Drymiotou et al., 2021) can influence adolescents’ STEM related career choices.
Upper secondary school experiences can significantly influence students' career aspirations, impacting their motivation and choices of science subjects and subsequent academic and career paths (Simpkins et al., 2006). Understanding students’ conceptions about science and STEM related careers is important. It can help teachers and other professionals to develop and implement better learning opportunities that enhance students' beliefs and understanding of STEM related fields. In the present study, the factors influencing upper secondary school students’ STEM career choices are examined through semi-structured interviews. The research questions are:
RQ1: What factors do students described as being influential for their career choices?
RQ2: What kind of conceptions do students have about science and STEM related fields?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research took place in the context of Finnish upper-secondary education, providing general education for students aged 16 to 19. The majority of students complete their studies in a three-year timeframe, with the duration ranging from two to four years based on individual study plans. The participants (N = 10) were second- and third-year students in a single upper secondary school located in southern Finland. Five students identified themselves as female and five as male. Prior to the interviews, descriptive background data from a larger sample of students was collected using a set of closed- and open-ended questions on career aspirations as well as interest and motivation on science subjects. Ten students were chosen to participate the study based on their consent for subsequent inquiries and their indications of STEM related career aspirations.
The data collection took place in school year 2022-2023. During the school year, the author of this paper worked in the school as a science teacher and a guidance counselor. The author was also responsible for the data collection and analyses. Semi-structured interviews were employed for data collection, with the aim of ensuring consistency while also allowing for spontaneous discussions. The interview questions were categorized into three sections: (1) career aspirations in general, (2) factors that have influenced the career decision, and (3) conceptions about desired education or profession. The interview data was first transcribed and then analyzed through inductive content analysis to classify the responses into categories. The purpose of such analysis is to achieve a concise yet comprehensive representation of a phenomenon, resulting in the identification of categories or concepts that describe the phenomenon (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). The process begun with the preparation stage, during which the specific portions of data relevant to the scope of this study were identified. Next, the data was allotted into units of analysis, each accompanied by a note or preliminary code. These units of analysis represented meaningful segments that ranged in length from parts of sentences to lengthy paragraphs. Following iterative examinations of the data, final codes were assigned to the units of analysis. Finally, these codes were grouped under higher-order categories, which were further organized under the main categories.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOut of the 10 participants, 4 pursued a career in engineering and technology, 3 in medicine, 2 in environmental sciences and 1 in aviation. According to the qualitative content analysis of the semi-structured interviews, students described several factors that had influenced their career choices. These factors were categorized under 5 main themes, following the terminology of social cognitive career theory: self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, interests and values, environmental influences, and contextual barriers. Self-efficacy beliefs included student descriptions of their skills and abilities, outcome expectations included sub-themes on employment and prestige of the profession, interests and values included detailed descriptions on personal interests and important values, environmental influences included sub-themes of family- and school-related factors, and contextual barriers included factors related to the admission to the desired education. Furthermore, students described both negative and positive conceptions about science and STEM related fields, and also, changes in their conceptions that had affected their career aspiration.
The findings of this study have important implications to both upper secondary school science instruction and career counselling. Students’ need more information and realistic conceptions about the STEM related careers. These challenges can be addressed through informed instructional and counselling interventions.
ReferencesDrymiotou, I., Constantinou, C. P., & Avraamidou, L. (2021). Enhancing students’ interest in science and understandings of STEM careers: the role of career-based scenarios. International Journal of Science Education, 43(5), 717–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1880664
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Gago, J. M., Ziman, J., Caro, P., Constantinou, C. P., Davies, G. R., Parchmann, I., Rannikmae, M., & Sjoberg, S. (2005). Europe needs more scientists: Increasing human resources for science and technology in Europe.
Holmegaard, H. T., Madsen, L. M., & Ulriksen, L. (2014). To Choose or Not to Choose Science: Constructions of desirable identities among young people considering a STEM higher education programme. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 186–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749362
Kaleva, S., Celik, I., Nogueiras, G., Pursiainen, J., & Muukkonen, H. (2023). Examining the predictors of STEM career interest among upper secondary students in Finland. Educational Research and Evaluation, 28(1–3), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2022.2161579
Ladachart, L., Sriboonruang, O., & Ladachart, L. (2023). Whose recognition is meaningful in developing a STEM identity? A preliminary exploration with Thai secondary school students. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10151-4
Lent, R. W., Hackett, G., & Brown, S. D. (1999). A Social Cognitive View of School‐to‐Work Transition. The Career Development Quarterly, 47(4), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1999.tb00739.x
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Welch, G., Grandgenett, N., Wu, C., & Nelson, C. (2015). A Model of Factors Contributing to STEM Learning and Career Orientation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1067–1088. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1017863
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections (Vol. 13). The Nuffield Foundation.
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.881626
Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70
Simpson, A., & Bouhafa, Y. (2020). Youths’ and Adults’ Identity in STEM: a Systematic Literature Review. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3(2), 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00034-y
|
