Abstract
Many scientists engage in educational outreach as part of their wider academic roles. Such activities can fall under the umbrella of public engagement activities in which scientists are increasingly encouraged to partake, fulfilling societal and university missions to engage with young people and stimulate their interest in science.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Augoustinos, M., Crabb, S., & Sheppherd, R. (2009). Genetically modified food in the news: Media representations of the GM debate in the UK. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 98–114.
Bandiera, M., & Bruno, C. (2006) Active/cooperative learning in schools. Journal of Biological Education, 40(3), 130–134. doi:10.1080/00219266.2006.9656030
Davies, S. R. (2013). Constituting public engagement: Meanings and geneologies of PEST in two UK studies. Science Communication, Online first doi:10.1177/107554701347820
Dawson, V. M., & Schibeci, R. A. (2003a). West Australian school students’ understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 57–69. doi:10.1080/09500690210126720
Dawson, V. M., & Schibeci, R. A. (2003b). Western Australian high school students’ attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 7–11. doi:10.1080/00219266.2003.9655889
Dodds, S. (2013). Trust, accountability and participation: Conditions for and constraints on “new” democratic models. In K. O’Doherty & E. Einsiedel (Eds.), Public engagement and emerging technologies (pp. 69–79). Toronto, Canada: UBC Press.
Eurobarometer 73.1. (2010), Special report on biotechnology. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf (Accessed 25 June 2014).
Frewer, L., Lassen, J., Kettlitz, B., Scholderer, J., Beekman, V., & Berdal, K. G. (2004). Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42, 1181–1193.
Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is connecting: The social meaning of creativity, from DIY and knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Goldschmidt, M., & Bogner, F. X. (2013). Associations with plant genetic engineering: a perception analysis of students’ hopes and fears. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 115, 143–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.7896/j.1314
HEFCE. (2010). Trends in young participation in higher education: core results for England. Bristol, UK: HEFCE. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2010/201003/10_03.pdf (Accessed 25 February 2014).
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Measuring learning outcomes in museums, archives and libraries: The Learning Impact Research Project (LIRP). International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(2), 151–174. doi:10.1080/13527250410001692877
Laurson, S., Liston, C., Thiry, H., & Graf, J. (2007). What good is a scientist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and programme design features for a short-duration science outreach Intervention in K–12 classrooms. CBE Life Science Education, 6(1), 49–64. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-05-0165
Massarani, L., & Moreira, I. D. (2005). Attitudes toward genetics: A case study among Briazilian high school students. Public Understanding of Science, 14(2), 201–212. doi:10.1177/0963662505050992
OFA & HEFCE. (2013). National strategy for access and student success. Interim report to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Office for Fair Access. London, UK: BIS. URL: http://news.bis.gov.uk/Resource-Library/National-Strategy-for-Access-and-Student-Success-18e7.aspx (Accessed 24 February 2014].
O’Neill, T., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2005). Uncovering student ownership in science learning: The making of a student created mini-documentary. School Science and Mathematics, 105(6), 292–301. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18130.x
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship, teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & Pidgeon, N. (2005). Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science, 14(4), 331–352. doi:10.1177/0963662505056611
Saab, B. J. (2010). Engaging the clutch of the science communication continuum – Shifting science outreach into high gear. Hypothesis, 9(1), 12e.
Schibeci, R. A. (2000). Students, teachers and the impact of biotechnology in the community. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46, 27–33.
Stocklemayer, S. M., Rennie, L. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010) The roles of formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 1–44. doi:10.1080/03057260903562284
Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: classroom culture and students’ performances. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 615–644.
Weitkamp, E., & Arnold, D. (2013). Engaging teenagers with genetics and genomics through a schoolbased competition: A pilot evaluation. International Journal of Science in Society, 4(1), 63–68.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weitkamp, E., Arnold, D. (2016). A Cross Disciplinary Embodiment. In: van der Sanden, M.C.A., de Vries, M.J. (eds) Science and Technology Education and Communication. International Technology Education Studies, vol 15. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-738-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-738-2_5
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-738-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)