New Perspectives in Science Education

Science outreach programs at universities have a commitment to increase student participation, in alignment with overarching goals addressing workforce shortages and enhancing representation in science, particularly among underrepresented demographics [1]. However, as Science Departments are negotiating access to classrooms, an obvious partner is perhaps being overlooked; teachers. Teachers are one of the lead influencers of student behaviour [2], and when it comes to behavioural change, social marketing’s Client Principle emphasizes the importance of gaining a deep understanding of the specific group you aim to impact [3]. Teachers are exceptionally well positioned to achieve this understanding, especially when compared to some outreach practices, that parachute science engagement sporadically into the classroom. Teachers possess proximity, permanence, and a strong grasp of pedagogical theory, and as such are a powerful presence to influence change. In our work as teacher educators of science teachers over the years, we have found value in educating student teachers about pedagogical theories that promote positive change, such as science capital theory [4] and its multiple dimensions. This article explores two dimensions. Firstly, the establishment of professional development pathways through teachers’ active engagement with both industry and university settings, to promote career pathways in science-related fields, and secondly, the article delves into the integration of hook pedagogy [5][6] and cognitive load theory, focusing on how these methods can effectively merge new knowledge with students’ existing cognitive frameworks.

Keywords: Science Outreach, Science Teachers, Science Capital Teaching Approach; Behavioural Change, Hook Theory, Cognitive Load Theory.

References

1. Padwick, A., Dele-Ajayi, O., Davenport, C., & Strachan, R. (2023). Evaluating a complex and sustained STEM engagement programme through the lens of science capital: insights from Northeast England. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00421-y
2. Inda-Caro, M., Maulana, R., Fernández-García, C. M., Peña-Calvo, J. V., Rodríguez-Menéndez, M. D. C., & Helms-Lorenz, M. (2019). Validating a model of effective teaching behaviour and student engagement: perspectives from Spanish students. Learning Environments Research, 22, 229-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-018-9275-z
3. Domegan, C., Devaney, M., McHugh, P., Hastings, G. & Piwowarczyk, J. (2015). Ocean Literacy Sea Change Guiding Principles Manual. EU Sea Change Project.
4. McCauley, V., Kealy, C., Hill O’Driscoll, E. & Flynn, P. (2023). “Yes, Biology is for me!”: Raising the Science Capital of Boys. Conference proceedings. New Perspectives in Science Education 2023. 12th edition: Florence, Italy: Filodiritto Editore. 16-17 March 2023. https://conference.pixel-online.net/library_scheda.php?id_abs=5911
5. McCauley, V., Davison, K. & Byrne, C. (2015). Collaborative lesson hook design in science teacher education: Advancing professional practice. Irish Educational Studies, 34(4), 307-323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2015.1114457
6. McCauley, V., & McHugh M. (2021). An Observational Narrative of Student Reaction to Video Hooks. Education Sciences, 11(6), 1-20.  https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060286