Science outreach online: 8 key learnings
Author: Joana Moscoso
For seven years we’ve been developing, implementing, and perfecting a science education and outreach programme for ethnic minority and migrant children that reached over 5,000 pupils and was based on an in-person interaction between scientists and children. I am referring to the Native Schools programme, which targets mainly children aged 6 to 12 years and takes scientists out of the lab and into schools to deliver an impactful outreach experience. The workshops follow a well-defined format that combines and adapts two pedagogical methods: carousel teaching and content and language integrated learning (CLIL).
Then, in 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, it also made an impact on us. However, we used the time during the initial “freeze” of all in-person operations, to brainstorm and create alternatives, and ultimately, we adjusted our operational capacity to develop and pilot an online “live” version of the in-person Native Schools programme. Rather than drafting something completely from scratch to offer something online, we wanted to stay true to our core principles: to promote science learning, to foster the development of language skills, and to promote the interaction with role models. To translate the in-person programme to the online medium seemed like a no-brainer at the beginning, but as we started to delve into it, we realised that it was an iceberg-like mission. To the outside world, it was just a change to the online format; internally, it was a big effort of adjusting internal processes, creating new workflows, and preparing new content.
These are the 8 key learnings that we’ve made from this process of translating a science education and outreach programme from the in-person practice to the online practice.
1) Preparation of the scientists is different. We realised it was very different to prepare an exciting and effective science outreach experience for children that is delivered online and not in person. Both models work best if interaction and hands-on activities are actively planned for and integrated. However the online version has, on the one hand, more limitations to the hands-on activities one can do and, on the other hand, it calls for more planned interaction through games and questions that activate prior knowledge. Due to its 2D- and remote nature, it also requires more simplicity and visuals than in-person workshops. While in an in-person scenario interaction fun can happen at any time and emerge from the most unexpected thing, the same is not true for the online experience. If interaction and fun are not planned for, it will be difficult to get them.
2) Planning time for an informal chat between the scientists is important. In in-person workshops, very often the experience for the scientists began 30 minutes before the start of the workshop and ended one or two hours after the end of the workshop (usually in a pub or in the teachers’ room). When we planned the first online workshop, we completely ignored this fact so everyone showed up on time and left right after the workshop. It felt odd, like something was missing. We realised that the sense of achievement experienced by the scientists and organisers of our workshops were actually coming from the unstructured, casual part of the workshop. Hence, we started to plan for a 15-min long opportunity for casual conversations before and after the workshops, so that scientists had the opportunity to interact with each other, meet like-minded people, benefit from the sense of collective purpose and learn from each other on what works and what doesn’t.
3) Having a technical support person during the workshops or a backup person to host the workshop can be important. Having an extra pair of hands or someone who can fill our shoes in case something goes wrong will be helpful and can lessen the stress. We found it particularly relevant in situations where we had to manually assign students to breakout rooms, welcome a latecomer, or keep audiences engaged during silences caused by internet glitches. If this is not possible, improvisation is our best friend.
4) Reaching out directly to parents and having parents’ feedback from the workshop is a plus. It’s great to have the opportunity to also engage with the parents and it’s a very enriching experience to read their feedback, for the good or bad. We love when we get to read things like “My son wanted to know when the next session will take place, please do share the details, it has inspired him.”
5) Engaging more with the teacher regarding the content of the workshop before the workshop takes place can also be an advantage. Sharing the scientific topics that will be covered during the workshop with the teacher prior to the workshop can be really crucial as it allows the teacher to prepare the students for the workshop by going over related vocabulary. Unknown words and new vocabulary can be a barrier to effective learning so reducing the possibility for this to happen can have a very positive impact on children. It can be the difference that makes a student pick the word “amazing” to describe the workshop in one word, instead of “difficult”. If desired, the workshop can also evolve to a sort of Q&A experience. In this case, the teacher can collect a list of questions from the students regarding the scientific topics of the scientists and, if those questions are shared in advance with the scientists, then the scientists can prepare their outreach activity based on providing the answers to the questions made by the students. This can be particularly interesting and engaging especially for older students.
6) Balancing carefully the duration, timekeeping, and amount of information covered in a workshop. We found that having four scientists and 15-minute long rotations, padded with a 10-minute introduction and a 10-minute finale is best to achieve diversity of topics and meaningful interactions in one workshop. Yet, some parents and teachers may find that an 80-min workshop online is too long or too much screen time for a child aged 6 to 12 years old. Reducing the experience to 50-minutes and two scientists is then a viable option that also resulted in positive feedback. To manage the rotation of the scientists in the breakout rooms, issuing 2–3 minute notices and 30-second notices before rotating the scientists to another breakout room has been considered vital for a good experience.
7) Organising a mock/practice workshop before the real workshop can boost motivation and self-confidence. For both the organiser of the workshop and the participating scientists, organising a practice workshop where the conditions of the real workshop are simulated was very important to get everyone used to the online video-conference platform, to test the quality and performance of the internet connection during the workshop, and to provide and receive feedback on the outreach activities planned by the scientists.
8) Asking students to have some materials with them at the workshop is risky. We realised this was trickier than anticipated, even considering that we would only ask for very basic materials like pen, paper, or a hair comb. While it’s impossible to make sure that all the information sent has been carefully considered, and material was also not forgotten, it is also difficult to ensure that, in the end, the scientists use all the requested material during their activity. Not using materials previously requested can generate feelings of frustration in students and parents, or fear of having missed out on something. Something that of course is better to avoid. In cases where the audience does not have mobility restrictions, an alternative to using materials is to plan for interactions where students have to move so that they experience the activities with both their minds and their bodies. Things as simple as touching your forehand with your hand if you think a statement is true can boost effectiveness.
About the author: Joana believes in science and innovation for the benefit of humankind. This is what led her to become a scientist and a social entrepreneur. Joana is the co-founder and director of Native Scientist, an award-winning European-wide non-profit organisation that connects ethnic minority and migrant children and scientists to promote science education. She is also the co-founder and an advisor at Chaperone, an online marketplace of personalised career development for scientists. She has experience in working in the public sector (academia), private sector (deep tech company), and third sector. She founded Native Scientist while doing her PhD and her entrepreneurial work has been distinguished multiple times, including accolades such as MIT Innovator Under 35 and Top 100 Women in Social Enterprise. Joana loves spending time with her family and friends, especially around a dinner table. She dreams of having her own restaurant one day.
About Native Scientist: Native Scientist is an award-winning European-wide non-profit organisation that promotes cultural diversity in science, education and society. Native Scientist provides science and language workshops, science communication training, and bespoke projects for various institutions, including schools, universities and embassies. The work developed connects pupils with scientists to foster science and language literacy through role modelling and science and language integrated learning. Founded in 2013, their work reaches over 1,200 pupils a year and they count with a network of over 1,000 international scientists.
