Learning to read the tree of life

By Jean Flanagan
Posted: May 20, 2013

Evolution education is entering an exciting time: scientists are working on the Open Tree of Life – the first comprehensive tree charting the evolutionary relationships of all named species — and many U.S. classrooms are preparing for state adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), in which evolution and common ancestry are central. However, in order to capitalize on these developments, students will need to become competent in the surprisingly tricky skill of “tree thinking.”

Lone tree. Photo by Daveybot on Flickr (CC-BY-NC-SA).

Lone tree. Photo by Daveybot on Flickr (CC-BY-NC-SA).

Trees are one of the most powerful metaphors in art and science. For biologists, the “tree of life” stands for both the unity and diversity of life. But are students and non-scientists accurately interpreting its branches? As I’ve discussed here before, misconceptions about the mechanism of natural selection — often referred to as microevolution — are rampant. However, understanding macroevolution — the big picture of biological evolution, including the common ancestry of life and the relationships among groups of living things — may be even more difficult.

Troubles with trees

Science education researchers have been documenting students’ troubles with trees for many years. Textbooks, museum exhibits, and other learning resources are filled with a variety of tree-inspired diagrams that often represent different types of information from each other. Different diagrams may show different levels of taxa (for example, species, genera, or orders). Some may be oriented horizontally and others vertically. And they may or may not include shared traits, shared ancestors, or time. Some researchers have argued that diagrams that are not cladograms — which use a simple branching system to depict clades, or groups that share a common ancestor — are less useful and only serve to confuse. Yet even cladograms themselves are notoriously easy to misinterpret.

Image by Alexei Kouprianov (CC-BY-SA).

Two styles of cladogram depicting identical relationships. Branches can rotate around nodes without altering the meaning of the diagram. Image by Alexei Kouprianov (CC-BY-SA).

Common misinterpretations of cladograms result from reading from top to bottom (horizontally oriented cladograms) or from left to right (vertically oriented ones) and inferring either an increase in “complexity” (likely reinforced by highly problematic “march of progress” diagrams) or passage of time. Similarly, instead of following the nodes back to a most recent common ancestor, many students focus on the tips (the parts marked with taxa names) and infer that spatial closeness implies a closer evolutionary relationship.

When describing what is represented in cladograms, students focus on perceived “similarities” rather than ancestry. For the most part, the more recently two taxa shared a common ancestor, the more similarities they will have. But because of confounding factors like convergent evolution (when distantly related taxa evolve similar traits in response to similar environmental pressures) perceived similarity can be highly inaccurate, and is not what is represented in a cladogram. For a full summary of the pitfalls with an abundance of clarifying diagram examples, see evolutionary biologist T. Ryan Gregory’s review article (pdf).

The National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) recently held a meeting to address some of the challenges in evolution communication. In response to scientists outlining the misinterpretations of trees, paleontology writer Brian Switek tweeted:

If reading across the tips of a cladogram/phylogeny is misleading, we need new imagery for #evocomm to the public.

This suggestion dovetails well with the expectations for science practices set forward in the NRC’s A Framework for K-12 Science Education (from which the NGSS were developed):

By grade 12, students should be able to:
Represent and explain phenomena with multiple types of models—for example, represent molecules with 3-D models or with bond diagrams—and move flexibly between model types when different ones are most useful for different purposes.

Perhaps if students were given a totally different kind of visual model for common ancestry to use alongside the traditional tree metaphor, they could overcome some of the difficulties and learn something about the nature of scientific modeling in the process.

A change of perspective

I met Sonia Stephens a little over a year ago at the NARST (National Association for Research in Science Teaching) annual meeting and was immediately excited by her work. As part of her dissertation in science communication, she had responded to all the conceptual difficulties that trees seem to cause by creating a digital dynamic evolutionary map (DEM).

In her paper in Evolution: Education & Outreach, Sonia explains that the map is essentially a top-down cross-section of a phylogenetic tree. Multiple cross-sections, which animate in sequence, represent different points in time. Taxa appear as dots whose relative spatial distances are determined by phylogenetic relatedness. When reading a cladogram, the intuitive impulse to infer relatedness from spatial distance between branch tips inevitably leads to error. The DEM works with this intuition, rather than against it.

Visualization by Sonia Stephens (CC-BY-NC-SA).

The Dynamic Evolutionary Map showing the present day. Visualization by Sonia Stephens (CC-BY-NC-SA).

When I asked her about what people would need to understand in order to use the map, she said:

I assumed a basic knowledge of biology, having seen (though not necessarily knowing all the nuances of) phylogenetic trees, and familiarity with at least some terminology, e.g. evolution, genes, species, etc. In order to integrate the DEM into a classroom setting, you’d want to provide more context for these concepts.

The DEM is free to use (under creative commons license CC-BY-NC-SA) and Sonia is always interested to hear from possible collaborators.

Another digital innovation on evolutionary tree diagrams, the amazing OneZoom Tree of Life Explorer, will be visualizing the Open Tree of Life. As detailed in an article on the PLOS community pages, OneZoom’s tree breaks the static, paper-bound mold — and it includes three different fractal shape options, which may prevent some types of misinterpretation. However, unlike the DEM all versions retain the branching metaphor.

Rosindell & Harmon 2012

Users can toggle between three different tree shapes in the OneZoom Tree of Life Explorer. (Rosindell & Harmon 2012).

The flexibility of digital visualization has the potential to overcome many of the obstacles to “tree thinking.” I’m looking forward to seeing research evaluating the affordances of these new tools and the development of appropriate educational supports.

References

Gregory, T. R. (2008). Understanding evolutionary trees. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(2), 121-137.

Stephens, S. (2012). From Tree to Map: Using Cognitive Learning Theory to Suggest Alternative Ways to Visualize Macroevolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 5(4), 603-618.

Category: Public understanding of science, Science communication, Science education research | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Can a museum object be more like a dog?

By Cristina Russo
Posted: May 13, 2013

About a month ago I visited the Adam Lister art gallery. In one art exhibit, an artist had placed a gumball machine filled with what he called “tiny art”. The machine had a sign that encouraged people to play, by inputting one dollar and turning the knob. Puzzled, I scrambled for quarters to feed that gumball machine and find my prize. In return, I received a small plastic shelled ball – similar to the toy-filled shells in arcade gumball machines. Instead of a toy, the plastic ball held a piece of tiny art, created by one of the local artists in the community.  An art gallery has a different goal than a museum, but still, I thought we could re-use that idea. Can an exhibit encourage participation? From that moment on, I decided to learn more about the concept of a participatory exhibit or museum.

tinyart

A piece of tiny art is hidden inside its receptacle. Photo by the author.

Participatory museum

The participatory museum is a concept advocated by Nina Simon. At the Santa Cruz Museum of Art & History, she designs interactive exhibits that offer visitors a chance to create art. For example, the museum houses a table display with empty mason jars, paper, and pen, which invites visitors to share a memory. This idea is analogous to a “message in a bottle”. So far, visitors have already shared thousands of memories in jars, which go on display in a museum wall, side by side with the museum’s art collection. Some powerful, emotional memories have been stored (such as a mother’s note to her deceased son in Iraq). One take home message here is: art is no longer something you simply stare at.

I interviewed museum specialist Laura DiSciullo, who offered one such example of participation: “interaction may involve strangers interacting, or visitors interacting with past and future visitors by leaving a comment. There were times when I was the only visitor in an exhibit, but the experience was still interactive in that I could see what previous visitors had contributed, and leave my own contribution.”

In addition, she mentions exhibits that  “have elements geared toward intergenerational learning, esp. a family of visitors interacting. Not only are the adults helping the children learn (and perhaps vise versa), but it is also a social, bonding experience for the family.”

Social Objects

In her TED talk last November, Nina Simon states that “museum objects should be more like dogs”. Dog owners out there might understand what she means: you are outside walking your dog and are approached by friendly strangers who ask to pet him. Nina Simon sees museum artifacts as social objects. Like a dog, a museum object offers an excuse for strangers to have a conversation. Specifically, they are a “safe social object that mediates an encounter that otherwise wouldn’t have happened”. Dogs and social museum objects are opportunities for conversation; they mediate conversation between strangers.

incomedisparity

Teens discuss the stacks of money demonstrating income disparities among different races. Photo by Terry Gydesen at The Participatory Museum.

In her book, Nina Simon invites us to “imagine looking at an object not for its artistic or historical significance but for its ability to spark conversation”. This is how she defines the concept of social object. One social object example comes from a Santa Cruz museum exhibit that shows the income disparities between white and black populations in the exhibit Race: Are We So Different? A group of teenagers stares in shock at two piles of dollar bills, with wildly different heights. For Ms. Simon, the exhibit is mediating a serious conversation (income disparity) between a group of strangers (teenagers and other museum visitors), that might not have happened otherwise. Another powerful example of social objects is the wrecked car displayed at the Jeremy Deller: It is what it is: Conversations about Iraq exhibit, which prompts visitors and an invited expert (a veteran, journalist, or scholar) to debate.

wreckedcar

A wrecked car after an explosion in Baghdad. This social object sparks conversation at Jeremy Deller: It Is What It Is: Conversations About Iraq at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago. Photography © Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago by photographer, Analu Maria Lopez.

Bringing social objects to science museums

Science museums already offer opportunities for visitors to participate, mostly via interactive exhibits. But how do we bring debate, especially one that continues after a visitor leaves the museum?

Many science topics would benefit from serious discussion. Evolution, climate change, human origins, or vaccination (considering the current “antivax” climate) are a few that come to mind. How can science museums use social objects to help foster debate?

The Hall of Human Origins, at the National Museum of Natural History, emphasizes the evolutionary relationships between early humans and anatomically modern human. The hall welcomes visitors with a provocative message: “what does it mean to be human?”. It lines up reconstructions of early humans (such as Australopithecine and Neanderthals) that culminate with an impressive wall of skulls. Standing in front of that wall, one can join conversation that is invariably going on: some children are terrified, other are curious. I saw it for the first time when I was there with my sister, who is an MD. She unconsciously switched to doctor mode and starting point out to causes of death based on what she saw on skulls. “Here’s a brow fracture; this guy suffered a blow to the head”, or “that poor guy must have had a massive toothache.”

The hall also offers a lecture series called HOT – short for Human Origin Topics – that focus on controversial science and philosophical questions (e.g., evolution or religion). But perhaps the most popular object in the hall – and a great example of a social object – is the MEanderthal photo booth. Visitors line up to take their photo, which will be morphed into a Neanderthal version of themselves. Long lines form in this particular object, and people interact while waiting in line.  Laura DiSciullo told me that MEanderthal is “a fun conversation piece for friends and families, or perhaps strangers waiting in what can be a long line for this popular feature.”

drill

Giant drill at the Perot Museum of Science and Nature. Photo by Lara Solt at Dallas News.

Other science-based institutions offer social objetcs and exhibits. The National Zoo has a pizza playground, with the goal of teaching children where their food comes from (pepperoni does not sprout from the ground). The Perot Museum of Nature and Science displays a giant drill in their energy hall that – and if this seems controversial it’s because it is – that illustrates hydro fracking. DiSciullo also reminds me of “the world population counter [at the Hall of Human Origins] that continually increases, and the large display saying how much of our DNA we share with other species (including bananas).”

How can science museums become more social?

The process starts during exhibit design. DiSciullo explains that, during design, educators advocate for learning outcomes. One example, used by some museums, is the GLO, or Generic Learning Outcomes: “ [GLO] describe all the types of learning that can take place – learning facts is one possible goal for visitors, but not the only one.” In addition to learning, museum educators also encourage other outcomes, such as “helping visitors make connections between things they already know, or express themselves creatively, or make a positive behavior change based on what they’ve learned.” We’ve all seen programs like the one at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch, where visitors receive card to instruct them on sustainable and health decisions.

Nina Simon urges museums to answer the following questions: “how do you want visitors to learn from or interact with each other? Do you want to promote dialogue…? Do you want to promote group collaboration? Do you want visitors to respond to each other, to help each other, to create things together?” With those goals in mind, museums aim for a learning outcome of social interaction.  As museum consultant Darcie Fohrman reports to Simon, “In the museum field, we know that learning happens when there is discussion and conversation. We want people to ask strange questions and say, ‘I don’t get this.”

Category: Informal Science Education, Public understanding of science, Science education research, Science Museums | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

My Top 3 Geology Education Models

By Adam Blankenbicker
Posted: May 6, 2013

I love models. Specifically dynamic, non-digital models. I love building something and then seeing it work. And apparently, lots of other people enjoy them, too. There’s something about seeing something work in real life (if still a model) rather than on a screen that drives home a process and helps people really understand what’s at work. Whether it be science, technology or engineering, models are necessary for designing better products, and understanding processes we can’t always observe directly.

Geology, in particular, is a science that requires models to study hard-to-observe processes. Geology may happen too slowly, over millions of years, or too quickly.  The scale may be too big, or too small. Geologic processes can occur unexpectedly or they might just be too dangerous to get close to. Models help scientists study these processes, but they also help students and adults of all ages understand processes – and get them excited about learning, too.

Instead of writing specifically about the benefits of models in the context of science education, I wanted to share a few of my favorite geologic models that I have been able to develop over the years to get people excited about learning geology.

#3: Tectonic Forces

My current work at the National Museum of Natural History includes developing geology programming for a new education center that we will be opening this Fall, called Q?RIUS.  (Can’t pronounce it?  Just say “curious”.) When the website it up, I’ll be sure to let you know.

One experience in the works involves modeling how tectonic forces cause layers of rock to fold and fault through compression. Many universities do this in their geology courses, and post their videos online. In a museum setting, however, these models need to be developed so that even a 5th grader can operate it with minimal, or no supervision.

The model I have put together with the help of NMNH geologists and the exhibits department still needs some minor improvements, but most of the visitors who have tested the prototype have become really excited about tectonic forces. They have made strong connections between the model and the geologic structures they see in mountains and road cuts.

The model is a thin, rectangular cell, constructed of clear plexi-glass. The top is left open so that visitors can deposit layers of colored sand and flour. On one side are three rectangular bars that slide inwards, compressing the layers of flour and sand causing them to fold and fault.

NMNH Geologist Ben Andrews tests out a model to teach about tectonic forces. Photo by the author.

NMNH Geologist Ben Andrews tests out a model to teach about tectonic forces. Photo by the author.

My favorite visitor comment came from a girl in middle school who said it was fun and interesting to see something like this because diagrams and digital animations, like what they see in school, don’t feel real. Feedback like this affirms the importance of physical models as part of the learning experience.

#2: Landslides

The summer in which I was finishing my master’s thesis I signed up to teach a weeklong course in geological engineering to high school girls from around the country that came to visit Michigan Technological University. The program was called Women in Engineering, and fortunately I was granted the opportunity to lead this session despite not being a woman.

Each day for one week I would lead two two-hour-long sessions, repeating the same content, so by the end of the week the whole session went as well as it could have.  Sessions were filled with multiple experiences, but the wrap up at the end was modeling a landslide, or a failed dam. In this demo I had to do quite a bit of prep work, but it was worth so much more than the effort. I was able to access the concrete lab, where I shoveled buckets of sand into a large sieves to isolate 2 grains sizes of sand. Dirt was collected from outside the building, along with some pebbles.

The geological engineering lab had a number of metal containers, about 60cm long, 20cm wide and 20cm deep into which we made dams and hills. At one end students layered the sand with thin layers of dirt and saturated them as they built up their structure.  On the top they placed a thicker layer of dirt. To add some scale and context, we had them place Monopoly houses and hotels on the slope.

High school girls made models of landslides in Women in Engineering. Photo by the author

High school girls made models of landslides in Women in Engineering. Photo by the author

At the back of the dam or slope was space to allow us to pour water, which would begin seeping through the structure, over-saturating it. Now gravity would take over, and over the next five minutes we would slowly watch the top layer of dirt become wet and begin to slowly sag and slump. I would ask the girls to look for signs of impending disaster, but I’m pretty sure they were only waiting for their Monopoly house to fall over with the landslide.

#1: Volcanic Clouds

My first experience teaching was as a Peace Corps volunteer in Guatemala.  I was in the environmental education program, and was also able to conduct my research for my master’s degree on Santiaguito, the local volcano. At first, my focus was on the volcano and working with the country’s geological and meteorological institution, INSIVUMEH. But I soon became excited about getting others excited about learning science.

Both of the schools I worked at were very small (one teacher) and were located on plantations that butted up right to the flanks of the volcano. I thought this provided an opportunity to teach something about a very personal subject. About every hour or so the volcano would have a small eruption, producing a small cloud of ash that would float away, so I asked my students why the ash cloud floated away and didn’t just fall to the ground.

Answer: buoyancy. To explain why, the classes made large cubes out of tissue paper which were lightly glued together. Each face was about 1.5m X 1.5m. At one corner of each cube we left an opening into which we injected hot air with a hair dryer. Despite the logistical difficulties of creating three large cubes in a tiny classroom, we were able to complete the project, and early one morning before it warmed up we went out onto the soccer field and began blowing hot air into the cubes.

Well, the first two cubes didn’t take flight, so I was understandably getting nervous.  Fortunately the third and final cube was a success.  Even before it lifted off, those holding it down could feel it beginning to pull upwards as we were filling it with hot air.  After the countdown and release it began to lift slowly into the air and the younger kids began to trying to jump up and catch it.

Hot air-filled cubes stay afloat for the same reason as volcanic clouds: buoyancy. Photo by the author.

Hot air-filled cubes stay afloat for the same reason as volcanic clouds: buoyancy.  Volcano Santa Maria looms in the background, with the active Caliente Dome of Santiaguito behind the palm tree, just to the right.  Photo by the author.

Oh, and right after it took off, the volcano erupted.

Let’s Model!

Kids, adults, students of all ages, and lifelong learners can all benefit from using models.  One thing to keep in mind when teaching with models, however, is that they are not perfect analogies, but certain aspects of them are relevant to understanding a physical process; a case in point is the volcano and the buoyancy of the hot air balloons.  Nonetheless, just as important as helping us understanding science, models are very successful in getting people excited to learn science, whatever it might be.

Category: Informal Science Education, Science Museums, Science teaching | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Battlestar Pedagogica: Using Science Fiction to teach Science!

By Atif Kukaswadia
Posted: April 29, 2013
Science fiction is educational - SO SAY WE ALL! Picture courtesy BattlestarWiki

Science fiction is educational – SO SAY WE ALL! | Picture courtesy Battlestar Galactica Wiki

I’m a huge fan of science fiction and fantasy. There are few feelings quite as impressive as when an author crafts a world that draws you in (See: Arrakis, Middle Earth, Westeros, LV-246, Hogwarts etc). Perhaps what I find most fascinating though, is how quickly science fiction can turn into real life. For example, the tricorder from Star Trek was a fictional device that could scan different aspects of the environment depending on the requirement, ranging from geological, such as mineral content of rocks, to metereological, such as air pressure and temperature, to biological, such as heart rate and blood pressure. While this sounded like a great dream in the 1960s (when The Original Series aired), we’re now, within a single generation (pun *totally* intended), able to turn this into reality. The new Samsung Galaxy S4, for example, is slated to be released with a suite of health apps (dubbed S Health), including apps to measure heart rate, blood pressure as well as track caloric expenditure. Even things as simple as being able to communicate without needing a bulky cellphone have now become a reality.

As teachers and educators, we suffer from a very real limitation when it comes to teaching. Either due to time, lack of equipment or other constraints we cannot teach some issues the way we would like. But even in the most well-equipped lab, sometimes we can’t teach a concept because the technology doesn’t exist. In those situations, we can use outlandish examples to discuss a concept, and then work backwards from there to discuss the limitations we currently face, a concept called a Thought Experiment. By imagining a scenario, we can push the boundaries of our understanding, discussing the issue from a “what about if X happened,” or “Would Y still occur if A and B happened.” There are many types of thought experiments, and it means different things to different disciplines. I’m going to be using it to refer the use of a metaphor to explain a concept, which corresponds to the “prefactual” type of thought experiment, ie. what outcome would we expect if we had conditions A, B and C.

Zombies: Not just for entertainment anymore | Picture courtesy AMC, available online here

Zombies: Not just for entertainment anymore | Picture courtesy AMC

With some ingenuity and creativity, we can incorporate this into our (science) teaching. Aetiology is the nom de plume of Tara Smith, an associate professor at the University of Iowa, and a member of the Zombie Research Society. If you aren’t already reading her blog, I highly recommend it. She wrote a great blog post last year about using zombies to teach virus outbreaks. Building on the face of such commercial successes as The Walking Dead, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter and the upcoming movie World War Z, originally a novel by the very talented Max Brooks (who also wrote the Zombie Survival Guide), this is something that youth, as well as adults, can easily relate to. While viruses are difficult to understand and visualize, everyone can understand zombies, and how they transmit “zombie-ism.” When you’re the last survivors of the human race, there are some very pertinent questions you must ask:

“How would you protect yourself if infection was spread through the air versus only spread by biting?”

“How well would isolation of infected people work if the incubation period is very long versus very short?”

“Why might you want to thoroughly wash your zombie-killing arrows before using them to kill squirrels, which you will then eat?” (via Aetiology)

In infectious disease terms, these are referring to the 1) vector of transmission (how does the virus travel), 2) length of incubation (how long does it take before you start passing on the disease and 3) cross-contamination (disease moving from one object to another). But this is much more interesting than talking about “why should you wash your hands before eating dinner,” especially when talking to kids. But these can be expanded even further – what if zombies can’t pass on “zombie-ism”? What if zombies only live for 3 days? What if zombies are affected by extreme hot or cold temperatures? There are endless possibilities for how this experiment could be modified, adapted and how boundaries could be pushed. It’s something the CDC used for Zombie Preparedness Guide - using zombies they managed to engage people and use social marketing to their benefit, something I discussed over on the PLOS Public Health Perspectives blog. I’m a fan of this sort of work, and have also talked about using World of Warcraft to model disease outbreaks.

But this isn’t just limited to Star Trek and fictional monsters. Comic books are also a great resource when it comes to teaching and learning, especially when it comes to physics. An interview with Jim Kakalios, author of “The Uncanny Physics of Superhero Comic Books” talks about how much force Superman would need to “fly,” or whether Gwen Stacey would have died when the Green Goblin threw her off the George Washington Bridge. One example was taken from the movie Batman Begins. In that movie, there’s a scene where Batman glides around Gotham City using his cape. Some physicists took issue with this scene, and tried to determine what would have happened in real life in the aptly titled paper: Trajectory of a Falling Batman. The authors concluded that, based on the information provided, Batman would be gliding at a speed of 80kph (~ 50mph). Landing at this speed would cause grievous injuries, and thus, they conclude:

Clearly gliding using a batcape is not a safe way to travel, unless a method to rapidly slow down is used such as a parachute. (Marshall et al., 2011)

Data is a sentient being, with thoughts and, following his meeting with Lore, emotions. So should he be treated as a human, with all the rights and responsibilities of such? And if not, what does it mean to be "human"? | Picture courtesy Wikimedia Commons

Data is a sentient being, with thoughts and, following his meeting with Lore, emotions. So should he be treated as a person? | Picture courtesy Wikimedia Commons

Of course this isn’t just limited to STEM (although I’ll limit it given the scope of this piece). Science Fiction is also a great backdrop of the discussion of other important issues. You can also use Star Trek to discuss philosophy, such as whether or not Data, a fully functional, sentient android is a “person,” and whether he should be afforded the rights and responsibilities as such. PopBioEthics has an excellent discussion of science fiction philosophy titled “Why Mass Effect is the most important science fiction universe of our generation.” It’s a long read, discussing racism, speciesism and sexism in the context of a science fiction universe where humans aren’t the dominant life form, and totally worth the time investment. Courses in this area are offered for credit at some universities – the course PHIL 180 at Georgetown aims to cover these issues and more as part of its syllabus. This is an ongoing theme in science fiction – those who have watched Blade Runner or read any of Isaac Asimov or Phillip K. Dick’s work (Do Android’s Dream of Electric Sheep, I, Robot) are intimately familiar with this the issue of sentience and what is a life.

So what do you think readers? Have any of you used methods like this to teach students?

 

Special thanks to Brian R. for the title of this post, and all my Facebook friends who suggested equally awesome titles. Thanks guys!

Category: Public understanding of science, Science communication, Science teaching | Tagged , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Hobbies: idle pastimes or keys to science engagement?

By Jean Flanagan
Posted: April 22, 2013

Collecting and polishing rocks and minerals, hunting for shells and fossils, gardening, birding, keeping freshwater and marine aquariums – this was how I spent my childhood: hopping from one hobby to the next, all centered around the natural (or semi-natural) world. My interest in science and nature started before I can remember – it just always seemed to be there. I’m sure my parents had something to do with it, my dad being an aerospace engineer, and my mom a student of botany and horticulture and a sort of unofficial lifelong naturalist. But while they supported my hobbies (often with a great deal of time, effort, and patience), these activities were all primarily driven by my own interests and inclinations. They weren’t things I was pushed to do. Over the years I cycled through paleontologist, veterinarian, science teacher, ecologist and marine biologist as my career goal of choice, but it was always a given in my mind that I would go to college, study biology, and end up in some sort of science-related career. The career I was set on pursuing in any given year usually matched whichever hobby I was currently most engaged with.

A few representatives from my childhood rock and mineral collection. Photo by Jean Flanagan

A few representatives from my childhood rock and mineral collection. Photo by Jean Flanagan.

My own story is just one anecdote, and unstructured science activities that occur in individual homes are difficult for education researchers to study. However a few retrospective studies have pointed to the importance of hobbies for interest and persistence in science. In 1993 Gilbert Nazier reported on the results from an open-response survey of 96 science and engineering professors (in the fields of biology, chemistry, physics, geology, and civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering). The survey simply asked: “What factors in your life led you to choose science/technology as the career you would enter? (Give a brief description and indicate the approximate time of this factor.)” Responses were categorized into nine major categories: science/math hobbies, family influence, natural curiosity, reading, field trips, competitions, career awareness, and science/math ability. The top category was science/math hobbies, with a quarter of the professors including this factor in their response. Furthermore, 70% of those who included hobbies as an influence reported partaking in them prior to age 12. More recently, Adam Maltese and Robert Tai published results from interviews with 116 scientists and science graduate students (in physics and chemistry) about their first engagement with science. The authors found that 45% of the interviewees described their interest as intrinsic or self-directed, (as opposed to stemming from school or family influence) with many mentioning tinkering and hobbies, and 65% of the interviewees reported that their interest in science began before middle school.

Of course other factors strongly influence persistence in science education and careers, including gender and socioeconomic status. And interest alone is not understanding – it isn’t enough to succeed in science classes or careers. However, it could act as a powerful motivator that could help students push past obstacles in education that would turn others away. While I certainly picked up some science facts, concepts, and practices through my hobbies, they couldn’t have taken the place of my school science classes. However, I did bring added enthusiasm for science to the classroom. I was proud to contribute outside knowledge to the class, and eager to apply what I learned in class to my hobbies. My passion, fueled by hobbies, helped me make the most of school science classes when other students may have disengaged due to sub-optimal curriculum, teaching, or assessments.

The possibility that hobbies can influence future involvement in science raises the issue of privilege. Individual, home-based hobbies require money, time, and parental engagement. I was fortunate to have a family that was able and eager to fund and support my science pastimes – many other bright young students are not so lucky. These students must rely on what schools and science centers can provide, and depending on their location, sometimes only school. While schools and science centers can provide similar types of engagement for students, these activities are usually much more structured and less self-directed than personal hobbies. They also tend to have limited time frames, whereas personal hobbies can be pursued at will across many years.

In “Look, Don’t Touch,” an essay published last year in Orion Magazine, environmental educator David Sobel bemoaned the state of informal environmental education “programs.” For young elementary-age children, he argued, most programs aren’t actually informal enough – they typically come with long lists of rules. Supporting his case, he summarized a review of surveys of adults in environmental careers:

…environmentalists talk about free play and exploration in nature, and family members who focused their attention on plants or animal behavior. They don’t talk much about formal education and informal nature education. Only in late childhood and adolescence do summer camp, teachers, and environmental clubs start to show up as being contributors to the individual’s environmental values and behaviors. It seems that allowing children to be “untutored savages” early on can lead to environmental knowledge in due time.

Schools or school-museum partnerships could facilitate more loosely structured hobby time in after-school or other non-class-time programs. Unlike class time, or even structured field trips, there wouldn’t have to be instruction, or any explicit focus on learning – the overarching goal would be nothing more than enjoyment. Learning would occur naturally as hobby-related questions arise, or in the classroom when connections to hobbies become apparent. But perhaps more importantly, students without the resources to pursue hobbies at home would have the chance to gain the benefits of associating science with fun, self-selecting science activities they most identify with, and accumulating some practical expertise that could spawn feelings of competence in science.

Category: Equity in science education, Informal Science Education, Science education research | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Science fairs: rewarding talent or privilege?

By Jean Flanagan
Posted: April 15, 2013

 

This week we’re welcoming Erin Salter to Sci-Ed as a guest poster. Erin Salter is a biomedical engineer turned science writer. She left the academic environment where she used to grind bones and investigate osteonecrosis to follow her passion for outreach and communication. Erin currently works as part of the content team for Owen Software, where she sits at the desk next to Sci-Ed contributor Cristina Russo. In her spare time, she volunteers at the National Aquarium, writes the science blog Hypertonic, and swing dances. Find her on twitter @McSalter.

A typical science fair scene. Photo by Flickr user RichardBowen | CC BY 2.0

A typical science fair scene. Photo by Flickr user RichardBowen | CC BY 2.0

The room is crowded with row after row of trifold poster boards and judges squinting and taking notes. Among the posters illustrating the effects of soil character on worm health, or the effectiveness of hand sanitizer, I see a project on amino acid substitution due to missense mutations. I’m judging the middle school division, but this project is at the level of a high school or even college student. When it comes time to decide the winners, I battle the other judges who favor complex project topics over soundness of experimental design. The owner of the missense mutation project had access to resources and connections not shared by the students testing soil and hand-sanitizer. There are clearly two project tiers within the competition, and they aren’t separated by scientific understanding, but by access to the professional scientific world. If the mutation project wins over soil character, does it mean we are punishing students who don’t have pre-existing science connections?

A two tiered system: dividing students by access

This spring, science fairs like this one will take place across the country, culminating in the Intel International Science Fair, where students will compete for $3 million in prestigious cash prizes and scholarships. The fair I am volunteering at is a local event, far humbler in status, but still a chance for students to showcase their research skills. As the division I’m judging is middle school biology, I expected to see a lot of “kitchen cabinet” science: kids exploring the world around them through tools they can find at school or at home (e.g. comparing mold growth on different types of bread or testing methods to prevent cutting onions from making you cry).

What I didn’t expect was such a vast divide among the projects. On the one side are students equipped with minimal supplies and the basic science knowledge of 5th through 8th graders (10 to 14 years old). Their projects are simpler: factors that affect food spoilage or seed germination, household chemicals that can be used as insect repellant. On the other end, you have the students who have access to professional laboratory equipment — spectrophotometers, sterile culture hoods — and mentors who are professional scientists. Their projects are more ambitious and, from a sheer subject matter standpoint, far more impressive. These were middle schoolers dealing with RNA, bacteriophage, computer modeling, and proper statistics (something that is sometimes hard to find even in published scientific papers). It’s true that students show an impressive amount of knowledge of complicated subject matters and methods, but they also have the advantage of access to equipment and help the other students don’t.

Are we rewarding privilege as well as sound science?

The nominal purpose of science fairs is to promote student-led inquiry and give kids hands-on experience with the scientific method. Much of our science education centers on the “product” of science – established laws, facts, and theories. When we do classroom experiments, the outcome is almost always a given; these experiments are illustrations, not investigations. Student-led projects (like those done for the science fair) are one way to incorporate open-ended inquiry into education. In fact, the National Science Education Standards recommend that students be given opportunity to understand and practice the scientific process (hypothesis, testing, and conclusions). The newly released Next Generation Science Standards go further to recommend the integration scientific concepts and practices in the classroom, as scientific inquiry requires the coordination of scientific ideas with experimental skills. Science fair projects allow students to ask their own questions, design their own research methods, and analyze their own data, thus giving them the experience of the full arc of scientific inquiry. And, perhaps most importantly, science fairs are supposed to demystify science and take it from a just-so story to an accessible (and fun) activity.

Unintentionally weeding out students without access

However, the rewards system of the science fair is flawed. There is no equity of access to lab facilities and equipment or access to scientific mentors, meaning some students are disadvantaged from the start. Projects done in the lab or with the help of a scientist mentor are inherently more impressive. While a kid who investigates pollution in a local watershed and a kid who looks at the effects of a chemotherapeutic drug on different cancer cells may be equals in the rigor of their scientific method, the kid with the lab-based project simply stands out more. So, unfortunately, the students who win these science fairs will often be the ones with the best access.

A 2009 study of the Canada-Wide Science Fair found that found that fair participants were elite not just in their understanding of science, but in their finances and social network. The study looked at participants and winners from the 2002-2008 Fairs, and found that the students were more likely to come from advantaged middle to upper class families and had access to equipment in universities or laboratories through their social connections. Their posters were professionally printed or designed. They had parents or family friends who were scientists or engineers. While this isn’t to say that the parents did their children’s projects — the authors noted that the students displayed a high level of understanding of their project topic and procedures – students with a personal connection to a scientist who can help them with their project are at a significant advantage. In fact, most of the students used entirely non-school based resources, an option that is not available to many of their less well connected peers. Previous studies (Czerniak, 1996 and Gifford & Wiygul, 1992) also found that access to professional science facilities and mentorship were good predictors for science fair success.

It seems classic science fair competitions inadvertently weed out students who come from less advantaged backgrounds, and the kids who end up with the most positive outcomes are the ones who already have a strong connection to STEM at home. Furthermore, the competition aspect of the fairs may leave the non-winning students with the feeling that they’re not good enough for science. This can be especially discouraging for younger students just becoming interested in science. Having winners that primarily come from privileged backgrounds underlines the elitist idea that science is the lofty pursuit of few instead of a source of wonder that all can enjoy.

Can we fix the broken science fair system?

So how can we promote and reward student-led inquiry without creating a system that devalues the contributions of less privileged students? One quick solution would be to create two categories of competition: one for experiments done in a professional research lab setting and one for experiments done at home or schools. Awards would have to be given out equally to both categories. However, establishing an official two-tiered system would simply codify the unofficial two-tiered system already in place.

Another option is the “standards-based” science fair, where students compete against a set of standards rather than each other. Like the classic science fair, students are awarded points for meeting criteria like clear communication and quantitative data to support their hypothesis. Unlike the classic science fair, though, the winners are not the students with the highest scores. Instead, all students who reach a score benchmark are rewarded. The scoring guide and benchmarks should be rigorous and well established to avoid an “everyone wins” type of situation – you want to reward students for genuine effort and understanding rather than participation.

An added advantage of changing the system: diminishing the fear of “failure”

Taking project topic and sophistication out of the equation also allows students more room to explore, have fun with their projects, and (most importantly) – fail. Failure is simply part of the scientific process, as many of us who have torn our hair out over experimental non-results are aware. “Failure” of scientific experiments is valuable, however. It tells us that we need to change our approach and try something new. Screw-ups can lead us in directions we might never have explored, and in some cases, can lead to useful discoveries (post-it notes or penicillin are oft-quoted examples). However, negative results are practically unpublishable in scientific journals. Similarly, winning science fair projects are often those with positive results (the predicted outcome is correct or students build a working model of their design). The pressure to publish positive results is part of the reason for a sharp rise in paper retractions. Judging science fair projects on the rigor the scientific investigation rather than the flashiness of the topic or affirmation of the students’ original hypothesis may help instill the value of process over product early on in science education.

The sight that stuck in my mind as I left my science fair experience was not the beautiful posters of the “top-tier” projects or the confident smiles of the accomplished presenters. It was the transformation of a 6th grade girl with a “kitchen cabinet”-science project flanked by the posters of lab-science peers. It was the resignation that filled her mien as day went on, the way she went from smiling and joking with her friends to slumping in her chair, defeated. Traditional science fairs may reward excellence in science, but they also reward privilege. Students like that little girl are left behind, sorted out and discouraged early on by their lack of access. And that is, in a word, unfair.

Sources:

Bencze, J. L., & Bowen, G. M. (2009). A national science fair: Exhibiting support for the knowledge economy. International Journal of Science Education, 31(18), 2459-2483.

Gifford, V. D., & Wiygul, S. M. (1992) The Effect of the Use of Outside Facilities and Resources on Success in Secondary School Science Fairs. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 116-119.

Czerniak, C.M. (1996). Predictors of Success in a District Science Fair Competition: An Exploratory Study. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 21-27.

Rillero, P. (2011). A Standards-Based Science Fair. Science and Children, 48(8), 32-36.

Further Reading on science fairs:

The science fair a new look at an old tradition

Rethinking the Science Fair

 

Category: Equity in science education, Science education research | Tagged , , , , , | 15 Comments

Space Education

By Cristina Russo
Posted: April 8, 2013

“Life Support Team! We only have 3 minutes of oxygen remaining on the Space Station!”, shouts Commander Libby. Wearing a blue flight suit with middle schoolers clinging to her arm, Libby Norcross is a space enthusiast and teacher at the Challenger Center. She takes groups through the space simulators at the center, while (why not) coming up with some emergencies like the one above.

Libby Norcross, educator at the Challenger Center. Photo credit.

Libby Norcross, educator at the Challenger Center. Photo credit.

 Learning from immersive scenarios

The Challenger Center is a learning institution geared towards STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) and offers immersive experiences to children. According to the center, they are an “…educational space simulator and STEM resource center that positively impacts students, businesses, and our community by fostering real-world skills—teamwork, communication, problem solving—in a totally immersive learning environment.”

An immersive scenario is the next step towards interactive, hands-on museum exhibits. In my earlier posts for this blog I explored how some museums or science centers can grab a child’s attention by using brilliant ad campaigns (such as the whale heart car or other immersive giant hearts), many of which can be interactive. Immersive experiences have a much higher holding power (in other words, they are “attention-grabbing”).

IMG_8663

An immersive exhibit where the visitor can crawl inside a giant heart. At Franklin Institute. Photo by the Author.

Like the NASA education pyramid below, where “inspire” and “engage” precede “educate”, the Challenger Center’s goal is “to inspire and engage students, then support that experience with solid education.” Norcross, the Challenger Center commander, tells me via email: “Encouraging students in science and engineering begins with engaging them through hands-on activities and completely immersive environments.  Then they’re hooked and they want to learn more – and we’re able to bridge the gap by providing content support, explanations, and additional resources that link with what they’ve seen, done, heard, and felt.  Experiencing science is one of the most powerful ways to teach.”

education_pyramid

Education pyramid. Image credit: Nasa.gov

Besides the holding power that the interactive or immersive exhibit has, its greatest benefit is the affective connection and memory it creates. I continue to reiterate: facts alone are not enough for someone to leave that museum, planetarium, or science center having learned new things. Instead, what does is the emotional response – the feeling of awe or excitement – that will create a memory. (Stay tuned for our guest post by Roberta Manna on planetarium initiatives for underserved communities in Brazil.)

I asked Norcross what she actually observes in the Challenger Center. How do the immersive scenarios affect children? She tells me she sees “kids grow in confidence as they realize they can achieve in new situations.  I see students become excited about math and science topics.” In fact, they are so touched that they send her letters in gratitude.

Apollo launching pad. Photo by the author.

Apollo launching pad. Photo by the author.

It is not just children who can have memorable experiences. What happens when adults are immersed?

Like the Challenger Center, NASA also has outreach projects for the community. I recently started participating in one such event (specifically, the NASAsocial) where members of the community are given a press pass to tour NASA facilities and insider access to buildings and events. In one such event is where I first met Libby, among a group of NASA guests (an audience that included educators, students, and engineers – some who actually were part of the Apollo project or worked in other NASA programs).

I already described the experience in my blog (and posted more photos here), but like the children in the Challenger Center, I was able to spend days completely immersed in space technology – except this technology was the real deal. The invitation included tours to vehicle assembly areas, visits to launch pads, and treks through exhibit construction sites. It culminated on watching NASA and partner SpaceX launch the rocket that successfully docked to the International Space Station. It was rocket science in its purest form.

Crowd gasps with the technology in NASA's Vehicle Assembly Building. Photo by the author.

Crowd gasps with the technology in NASA’s Vehicle Assembly Building. Photo by the author.

Libby Norcross agrees with my enthusiasm herself. Being on both sides (as the Challenger Center immerser, and the NASA attendee and “immersee”), she believes “NASA is truly a leader in …making their work and missions accessible to the public.  By allowing enthusiasts to go behind the scenes… [reiterates] the point we make at Challenger Center that experience is one of the most powerful motivators to continued education and success!”

But sequestration may affect NASA’s educational and outreach programs. Libby wonders if this will cause NASA to seek more commercial partners (analogous to its partnership with launch companies like SpaceX): “NASA’s belt-tightening on education and outreach will mean an increase in partnerships with other informal education institutions such as Challenger Center.” We can help spread the word about a petition to repeal sequester cuts that affect NASA and an organization that facilitates contacting congressmen and requesting funds for NASA.

How to increase outreach and access to STEM 

How about displaying Ice Age animal models (like a moa or woolly mammoth) in a shopping mall? Many children grow up without the incentive to explore STEM. Reasons for that can be cultural (families encourage other interests) or social (families can not afford access to museums or planetariums). Offering alternatives to the formality of museums and observatories is a step in the right direction. (Next week’s post by guest poster Erin Salter will discuss restricted access to STEM and culture of privilege).

Another way to connect with that segment is with science ambassadors, or like my teammate Atif put it, science celebrities. Celebrities may even be one solution to the science deficit model: when knowing all the facts does not guarantee believing in science (e.g. in cases like evolution, climate change, or vaccines), a popular figure that identifies with that segment may help the audience trust the science.

Astronaut Don Pettit talks to us about space coffee at a NASAsocial. Photo by the author.

Astronaut Don Pettit talks to us about space coffee at a NASAsocial. Photo by the author.

An astronaut is the quintessential celebrity. Astronauts have instant credibility and appeal (a humorous commercial is taking advantage of that universal fact). The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis capitalized on the star effect and hired astronaut David Wolf as its scientist-in-residence. Astronaut Wolf looks back at his own experience and how he plans to encourage young visitors: “This will be an incredible opportunity to help them think in different ways that are applicable to all problem-solving. When I look back, many of the skills I needed to be good as an astronaut were learned as a young person. I can’t wait to help these young people realize what they do now will affect them for the rest of their lives.”

Talking to astronauts on the space station via video link. Commander Hadfield waves to the crowd while floating in microgravity. Photo by the author.

Talking to astronauts on the space station via video link. Commander Hadfield waves to the crowd while floating in microgravity. Photo by the author.

I’m not a young visitor, but it was pretty exciting to met astronaut Don Pettit and Commander Hadfield (live from the space station) at those NASAsocials Libby Norcross and I attended. Space, astronauts, and immersive experiences can all come together to children and adults excited about science and learning.

Commander Hadfield in a story by Zen Pencils.

Commander Hadfield in a gorgeous, inspirational story by Zen Pencils.

Commander Libby still gets letters from children who participated on her Challenger missions. It truly seems like they had an unforgettable experience. And that’s because of the nature of her job:  “What it really means is that I get to guide students in a totally immersive environment and inspire, empower, and educate them.”

Readers: do you have immersive experiences you’d like to share? Use the comments below or twitter (@russo_cristina)

Category: Informal Science Education, Public understanding of science, Science communication | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

STEM and Liberal Arts: Frienemies of the State

By Adam Blankenbicker
Posted: April 1, 2013

When I was getting ready for college, I knew I was going to pursue a degree in some area of science; I never even considered a liberal arts degree.  To be honest, I did my best to not take any liberal arts courses I didn’t need to.  Even studying abroad in Australia satisfied my “foreign culture” credit so I didn’t need to study another language.  I did take Spanish in Grad school knowing I was going to be working and living in Latin America for 2 years.  Otherwise, these classes were at odds with my science and I didn’t want to waste my time on something I wasn’t going to use.  I had no idea how they could be used in the future or how they can fit so well together.

Even though the interdependence between the liberal arts and sciences has recently become a focus in those areas, there seems to be a political battle going on which is supporting STEM education over the liberal arts.  As much as we admire the arts (music, painting, reading, design, journalism) STEM education has been getting a lot of attention.  Much of this disparity in support can be seen in government funding.

What’s up with funding the liberal arts?

North Carolina Governor Patrick McCrory made a statement on the radio back in January saying “I think some of the educational elite have taken over our education where we are offering courses that have no chance of getting people jobs…” referring to liberal arts courses, such as gender studies. “…if you want to take gender studies, go to a private school and take it. But I don’t want to subsidize that if it’s not going to get someone a job.”  (audio: minutes 5:25 – 6:25).  There’s a lot more in this interview, but this was still said.  How likely is it that liberal arts areas, such as gender studies, played a key role in advancing women in the STEM fields?

These comments obviously caused quite a stir among liberal arts teachers and professors throughout the state, maybe even more so because of the then-potential sequestration.  Opinions abound throughout the internet on blogs and news outlets about how important the arts are in education, and I’ll get to that in a few moments.  But what about the numbers?  How much money goes towards STEM education?

When planning the 2013 federal budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) put together a summary of STEM education called “Preparing the 21st Century Workforce”, which includes a 3-year history of federal STEM education funding.  FY2013 calls for $2.951 billion in spending across multiple departments including Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, and NASA towards STEM education.  The others are included in the list below, and the patterns in this table are interesting in themselves.  Specifically how each department decides to use that money for education varies.  Among their methods probably includes lesson plans for teachers, internships, outreach events and online content.  I am sure there is much more, too.

Table from "Preparing the 21st Century Workforce"

Table from “Preparing the 21st Century Workforce”

Unfortunately there is no document that summarizes a federal plan for supporting arts education.  If you find one, let me know and I can insert that in here later.  The White House website does, in fact, have a page dedicated to Champions of Change in Arts Education, along with the many other CoC categories.  However, The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that The National Endowment for the Arts received only about $155 Million for FY2011, and a decrease to $135 Million for 2012.  The caveat here is that this is for the arts, not art education.

With these numbers, what kind of signal is being given on the national scale, if not just North Carolina?

 

STEM & STEAM

I don’t think there is any doubt that we need people trained in arts and humanities to improve our lives.  Artists and designers add flavor to our society by adding color and edges to things that would otherwise be bland.  Writers and journalists bring the world news to us and allow us to escape from our lives for a few moments and visit a new world.

But how does a liberal arts education fit in with STEM?  A great summary of this synergy is found in The Chronicle: Higher Education, in a commentary by Boston College professors Mary Crane and Thomas Chiles.
“Science matters at a liberal-arts university because the problems facing our global community will not be solved by scientists alone.”  “…while an issue as complex as global climate change needs scientists to identify its root causes, it also needs faculty members in the humanities and social sciences to evaluate its impact on human populations and societies, and journalists to communicate this information to the wider public.”
If you believe that research is done only for the sake of discovery and not sharing knowledge, then maybe the liberal arts do not matter.  But knowledge and discovery should be shared; science is not the answer to the world’s problems, but it does provide us with information to make informed value-based decisions.
Mercedes Benz's advertisement beautifully combines STEM and the arts.

Mercedes Benz’s advertisements beautifully combines STEM and the arts.

Working in museum education I have discovered another important role the arts play in STEM education; with all the types of people in the world, and all their various interests, art is another way for the non-scientific public to access science.  STEM-to-STEAM provides some other examples of where art allows students to enter science through non-traditional methods, including Sesame Street and Reading is Fundamental.

The liberal arts has two main roles in STEM education and producing a more scientifically literate public; one as a way for people to access the sciences, and two as a way to communicate the sciences.

Fellow PLOS blogger Johanna Kieniewicz has some great arts and science posts on the subject, as well, in her blog At the Interface: Where art and science meet, specifically Why scientists should care about art.  Some people are inherently interested in the numbers, experiments and results; some connect to science by having a personal interaction with a scientist.  Others see the art in science, or how science is art.

Category: Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Science Heroes: Why Science Needs A Celebrity Spokesperson

By Atif Kukaswadia
Posted: March 25, 2013

We exist in a strange society these days. Jenny McCarthy is viewed as an authority on vaccines and people listen to the opinions of Ben Affleck and Sean Penn when it comes to politics. Yet people who study and have dedicated their lives to these causes remain out of the limelight and hidden from the public. While everyone knows about celebrities who campaign on issues, how many people can name a researcher who study them? One  problem facing scientists is the lack of communication between science and the public: we’re perceived as living in the ivory tower of academia and are totally out of touch, or worse, we’re in the pocket of Big Pharma/Food/The Umbrella Corporation/Evil Faceless Corporate Interest.

But in reality, scientists are just regular people with an interest in one specific part of our world, and we want nothing more than for everyone else to find out work as fascinating as we do. It’s something that Jorge Cham of PhD Comics discusses in his TEDxUCLA talk, where he highlights how he was hired to create a video (that you may have seen) about the Higgs Boson.

There’s a definite gap between scientists and the public, and three questions immediately come to mind: 1) Why do scientists not engage, 2) How can scientists engage and 3) How do we find a celebrity to endorse “science”?

Why do scientists not engage with the public?

There are a number of reasons why scientists do not engage with the media, but they can be broadly grouped into three areas: 1) How it affects your reputation, 2) The time commitment and 3) Worries about the message being distorted.

There is a perception in the science community of “selling out” if you publicize your own work, and that you’re somehow “tainting” the name of science; although there is evidence for a (growing) number of people who view outreach as enhancing their reputation and consider it a way to differentiate themselves from the pack. A study of 648 epidemiologists and 706 stem cell researchers from the US, Japan, Germany, the UK and France who had published during 2002–04 in peer-reviewed journals revealed some interesting insights as to why scientists avoided the media (unfortunately, the article itself is behind a paywall). From the article:

Although “possible critical reactions from peers” were considered important concerns for 42% of the respondents, a similar proportion (39%) found “enhanced personal reputation among peers” to be an important outcome of media contacts.

The 42% isn’t entirely surprising. Many scientists are wary of what has been dubbed “The Sagan Effect.” The basic gist is that if you have time to communicate, you’re not spending all your time on research, and that’s what “real scientists do.” Sagan’s biographers suggest that he was denied membership to the National Academy of Science on the basis of his popularization of science. Thankfully, this perception is changing, albeit slowly.

The “Sagan Effect” remains a strong deterrent for many scientists who want to engage with the public | Image Courtesy NASA and Wikimedia Commons

But continuing on this point, communicating with the media is a significant time commitment - an article in Science Magazine interviewed Molly Crockett, a final year PhD student, who had a study picked up the media. She said “The week the research went out [was] pretty much devoted 9 to 5 to dealing with the press.” For professors and others who sit on multiple committees and have other commitments  this alone might be enough to put them off publicizing their work, given that this may not even be considered as part of their annual evaluation and the fact that we live in a “publish or perish” society. Again, this varies by organization. Some ask for your academic publications and presentations as well as any media appearances you may have made and do consider that.

Finally, there is a worry about the message being distorted:

Nine in 10 respondents identified the “risk of incorrect quotation” in stories as an important disincentive, and 8 in 10 felt that the “unpredictability of journalists” was also a problem.

I can’t honestly say that I buy this one. All the reporters that I’ve dealt with have been very professional and very respectful, and have asked for clarification when they didn’t understand the science. Indeed, almost all requested a copy of the publication beforehand to read it themselves to come fully prepared. But this doesn’t do much to assuage doubts, and researchers will continue to be skeptical.

How can scientists engage?

The current model of information transfer is rather archaic, and was designed for a system where the media acted as the gatekeepers to the public. Jacquelyn Gill of Contemplative Mammoth sums it up well:

For most scientists, I think the scientist-media model looks something like: 1) Publish ground-breaking paper in top journal. 2) Wait for university press office to write press release and maybe contact you. 3) Wait for phone calls and e-mails asking for interviews. 4) Answer questions. 5) Sit and wait for articles to be published while experiencing a mixture of nervous excitement and dread.

It worked well back in the days when we couldn’t engage with people directly. Reporters reported, researchers researched, and eventually you came together to communicate your research to the public. But now, with the advent of social media and the wonderful world of the internet, you can connect with people directly. Blogs, Twitter, even sharing studies on Facebook and LinkedIn groups are all ways to connect with others. If you want to communicate in a professional capacity, many organizations have guidelines (example: the Social Issues Research Centre). There is also a list of resources at the end of this article.

How do we find a celebrity to endorse “science”?

I started this post by talking about Science Celebrities. We have a few notable “famous” scientists – Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are both phenomenal science communicators. Both do a great job raising the profile of science, and showing that science can be fun and highlight why it is so important. There’s also the Rock Stars of Science Campaign which shows scientists as rock stars to try and make science “cool,” and features Joe Perry as their celebrity rocker (Link available here – WARNING: Link autoplays music when you click it. Ugh.)

But you don’t have to do something big to be a celebrity. And you don’t even have to be a PI to inspire others.

Because the best science celebrity is you.

Okay okay I know that sounds corny, but bear with me here.

I’ve alluded to how the balance of power has shifted. How we are now more able to connect with the public than we have ever been in the past, and how we now have the tools and abilities to be able to engage with people directly using a multitude of methods, ranging from using social media to going into classrooms to give talks and presentations.

Many scientists have embraced blogging as a platform. I’m not even going to try and list them all, but some big sources of science bloggers include our own PLOS Blogs network, Scientopia, Scientific American, the Nature blogs network, ScienceBlogs, Research Blogging and Science Seeker. Many of the authors are active on Twitter and Facebook as well, which all help to engage people electronically. You don’t even have to be “serious.” Sites like PhD Comics, XKCD and Science Is Awesome all engage people using humour.

Blogging not your thing? There are a several programs aimed at bringing science to life for youth. Two of the big STEM ones are Let’s Talk Science and Actua, which pair undergraduate and graduate students with teachers to present in classrooms. If you’re in Canada, CIHR has the Synapse program that will send you regular emails about upcoming mentorship opportunities in your area. Many of my colleagues are heavily involved in WISE (Women in Science and Engineering), which is only one of many organizations that are set up to encourage young girls to consider STEM careers.

The fact is that there is a communication gap between scientists and the public. When obtaining funding has become more and more difficult (only 18.4% of R01 grants get funded), it becomes imperative for us as scientists to continue to campaign and ensure the public realizes the importance of scientific research. Engaging the public using social media, giving talks and lectures at a level that your audience can understand and making science accessible to all will make you a Science Celebrity to those watching.

 

Category: Public understanding of science, Science communication | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

Communicating about evolution: the danger of shortcuts

By Jean Flanagan
Posted: March 18, 2013

When we talk about evolution and education, our first thoughts usually race to evangelical churches, school boards, and states like Kansas and Tennessee. While cultural battles over “belief” in evolution and its place in public schools are certainly important, a lesser-known issue is that acceptance and understanding are not the same thing, and  many people who enthusiastically “believe” in evolution don’t actually understand the basics of how it works. This may not be a problem if our only concern is that the public votes to keep non-science out of the public science classroom. But an understanding of evolution impacts more than just one hot-button issue at a time. It is necessary to understand issues surrounding antibiotic and pesticide resistance, overfishing, potential effects of climate change, the relevance of animal models in medical research, and it is the conceptual framework through which all other biological fields can be best understood.

A wide variety of evolution misconceptions have been documented in the science education research literature at all levels from elementary students through college students, museum visitors, and the general public.  The recently open-access [1] journal Evolution: Education and Outreach is an excellent resource for those looking for insights into communicating with non-experts about evolution. Evolutionary biologist T. Ryan Gregory contributed a review article (pdf) in 2009 that nicely summarizes the most prevalent misconceptions about natural selection. Others have documented learning difficulties associated with macroevolution, the relatedness of species, and interpreting tree diagrams. U.C. Berkeley’s Understanding Evolution website has a good starting list of common misconceptions related to all aspects of evolution.

Experts who do understand evolution by natural selection often use shortcuts and metaphors that are mostly harmless among those in the know. However, these same shortcuts can reinforce and even cause many misconceptions among students and members of the public without strong evolution backgrounds. Increased awareness of the science education research on evolution among teachers, informal educators, exhibit designers, documentary filmmakers, and journalists could go a long way toward preventing further entrenchment of these misconceptions.

I’ll attempt to outline some of the major misconceptions and learning difficulties related to the mechanism of natural selection and discuss some common ways of talking about evolutionary processes that can reinforce these misconceptions.

Darwin's Finches

Darwin’s finches or Galapagos finches. Charles Darwin, 1845. U.S. public domain.

Fitness and “survival of the fittest”

To evolutionary biologists, fitness has a very specific meaning: the number of offspring left by individuals of a species having a certain genetic makeup compared to other individuals with different genetic makeups. A recent “daily explainer” on i09, “Why ‘survival of the fittest’ is wrong,” tackled some of the issues wrapped up in this word. The colloquial usage of “fit” as “big, strong and healthy” [2] makes the phrase misleading. And evolution isn’t really about survival at all. It’s entirely about reproduction. Often living longer can mean more chances to mate, but survival only contributes to evolutionary fitness inasmuch as it enables an increase in successful reproduction events. An organism that lives to the upper limit of its lifespan — but never successfully reproduces — contributes exactly nothing to the next generation.

Populations and generations

The mechanism of natural selection is based in population thinking. To an expert, a population is a group of organisms of the same species that interbreed and that live in the same geographic area. Importantly, it is not an equivalent term to species. However, most non-experts do not think in terms of populations. They think in terms of individuals, species, or ecosystems. This translates to mistaken assumptions about what evolution acts on. Many people think that evolution happens to one individual during its lifetime, or that entire species (including all the individuals) gradually change into new species. Again, shortcuts such as “over time, the finches gained bigger beaks” can reinforce the idea that all members of the species grew bigger beaks. A better statement would have been “over many generations, finches with large beaks had more offspring than finches with smaller beaks, until nearly the whole population had large beaks.”

Adaptation

Adaptation is nearly ubiquitous as a “vocab” word for elementary-age students, before they understand anything about genetics. Students are expected to learn that an adaptation is something along the lines of “a trait of an organism that helps it survive in its environment.” This often devolves into “just-so story” explanations about how beavers have big teeth because they chew on trees all the time, or giraffes have long necks because they are always reaching high into the trees for food. It doesn’t help that journalists, teachers, and lecturers often use colorful metaphorical shortcuts to talk about adaptation. While their intention may be to create a lively article or talk, an expert’s metaphor is often a non-expert’s reality.

In his review article, Gregory highlights some of the problematic language used to describe adaptation:

Thus, adaptations in any taxon may be described as “innovations,” “inventions,” or “solutions” (sometimes “ingenious” ones, no less). Even the evolution of antibiotic resistance is characterized as a process whereby bacteria “learn” to “outsmart” antibiotics with frustrating regularity.

Human tendency to anthropomorphize everything from animals to inanimate objects and natural processes is well known, and tough to combat. (See Heider and Simmel’s 1944 experiment in which people assign intentions, emotions and even genders to moving geometric shapes.) In the context of evolution anthropomorphic descriptions can lead to the misconception that individual organisms try to modify themselves to better fit the environment, and then pass down those acquired traits to their offspring. A shaky understanding of genetics also underpins this idea, but sloppy communications can reinforce it.

A focus on adaptation from the early grades forward can also lead to the idea that each organism is perfectly adapted for its particular environment and niche, and that every feature of an organism has an adaptive purpose. Evolutionary biologists know this simply isn’t the case. Most traits that we call adaptations are simply “good enough.” They were a little more useful in a given circumstance than other traits — they weren’t designed from the ground up for the current situation. Learning about adaptation — and developing misconceptions about it — before grasping the genetic, generational mechanism of natural selection can put students at a disadvantage when they get to middle and high school biology classes.

Unity and diversity: a two-step process

As Gregory emphasized in his review article, evolution by natural selection is a two-step process: (1) new variation arises by random mutation and recombination, and (2) individuals with certain variants have more offspring than other individuals with different variants. Focusing on either mutation alone or selection alone can lead to the following misconceptions, respectively: that evolution is completely random, and that evolution results in perfectly optimized organisms. When communicating about evolution with non-experts, it is important never to refer to one without referencing the importance of the other.

Evolution is tricky. For those of us who understand it, its power to make everything else in biology crystal clear is deceptive. Most of us had naive ideas about evolution as children or students. As we progressed in our studies of science these were replaced with more accurate mental models. But we are the exceptions — most people don’t go on to major in science or think about it for a living. Yet as citizens they are often called upon to make decisions that require an understanding of evolution. And as humans, an understanding of evolution can contribute to a deeper appreciation of nature. Shortcuts are catchy — droning on about populations and generations can get tedious and wordy. It takes talent to communicate about evolution both accurately and compellingly, but experts and science writers and educators have a responsibility to get it right.

[1] Evolution: Education and Outreach used to be open-access, then it was toll-access, and now everything from January 2013 onward is open-access, but you’ll still have trouble getting the older issues.
[2] Amusingly, the British meaning of “attractive” for “fit” is actually a little more accurate in cases of sexual selection — though we’d still have to change it to “Reproduction of the Fittest.”

Category: Public understanding of science, Science communication, Science education research | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments