Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Motivating Engagement

  • Chapter
Book cover Science and Technology Education and Communication

Part of the book series: International Technology Education Studies ((ITES,volume 15))

  • 398 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter gives an overview of how and why science communication and science education aim to engage people in science. It discusses the differences and similarities in context and approach between communication and education. We first define what we understand by the term ‘engagement’. We then describe the actors involved, the goals of engagement and the strategies used in science communication and science education to enhance engagement. We conclude this chapter with a discussion of the merits of communication and those of education regarding engagement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ainley, M. (2006). Connecting with learning: Motivation, affect and cognition in interest processes. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 391–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, A. C., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 68–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. W., & Jensen, P. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11. doi:10.1177/0963662510394457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, G., & Kropp, C. (2011). Is science based consumer advice prepared to deal with uncertainties in second modernity? The role of scientific experts in risk communication in the case of food supplements. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 6(2), 203–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benneworth, P. (2009). The challenges for 21st century science: A review of the evidence base surrounding the value of public engagement by scientists. Working Paper, Science for All.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Jones, M., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(4), 474–500. doi:10.1177/0162243909345835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of outof-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373–1388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bubela, T., Hyde-Lay, R., Jandciu, E. W., Jones, S. A., Kolopack, P., Lane, S., & Hampel, J. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514–518. doi: 10.1038/nbt0609-514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M. (1998). Science in the media: Alternative routes in scientific communication. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M. (2004). Can genetics help us rethink communication? Public communication of science as a ‘double helix’. New Genetics and Society, 23(3), 269–283. doi:10.1080/ 1463677042000305048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulkeley, H. (2000). Common knowledge? Public understanding of climate change in Newcastle, Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science Technology Society, 4(81), 81–94. doi:10.1177/097172189900400106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers, J. (2008). Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), 155–185. doi:10.1177/0162243907307594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowie, B., Jones, A., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2010). Re-engaging students in science: Issues of assessment, funds of knowlede and sites for learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K. L., & Wickson, F. (2011). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounter s with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 826–845. doi:10.1177/0963662510363054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Alison, H. P. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M. W., Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context-based science education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagendijk, R., & Irwin, A. (2006). Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva, 44(2), 167–184. doi:10.1007/s11024-006-0012-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D. J. (2011). To tell the truth: on scientific counterpublics. Public Understanding of Science, 20(5), 627–641. doi:10.1177/0963662509359988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Home, R.W. (Ed.). (1989). Australian science in the making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoorn, J. F., & van der Molen, J. H. W. (2007). Wetenschapseducatie definitie en digitale implementatie. In J. Willems (Ed.), Basisboek wetenschapscommunicatie Amsterdam: Boom Lemma Uitgevers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höppner, C. (2009). Public engagement in climate change – Disjunctions, tensions and blind spots in the UK. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 8, 012010. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/8/1/012010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 299–320. doi:10.1177/0306312706053350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (2008). Risk, science and public communication: Third-order thinking about scientific culture. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication on science and technology (pp. 111–130).

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R., Barbagallo, F., & Haste, H. (2005). Strengths of public dialogue on science‐related issues. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8(3), 349–358. doi:10.1080/13698230500187227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244. doi:10.1023/A:1025557512320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, E., Jensen, F., & Henriksen, E. K. (2010). Recruitment initiatives and choice of STEM higher education: Review of theoretical perspectives and empirical findings regarding recruitment initiatives inside and outside school. IRIS Working document No. 5.1: 59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joly, P.-B., & Kaufmann, A. (2008). Lost in translation? The need for ‘upstream engagement’ with nanotechnology on trial. Science as Culture, 17(3), 225–247. doi:10.1080/ 09505430802280727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, D. M. (2006). Public understanding of science: A history of communicating scientific ideas (Vol. 26). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurath, M., & Gisler, P. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 559–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Introduction – Nanotechnology and the public. Science Communication, 27(2), 169–174. doi:10.1177/1075547005281532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masson, A., Klop, T. & Osseweijer, P. (2016). An analysis of the impact of student-scientist interaction in a technology design activity, using the expectancy-value model of achievement related choice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinn, M. K., & Roth, W.-M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster (n.d.). Definition of engagement. Retrieved on 3 January 2014 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engagement

  • Miller, S., Fahy, D., & Team, T. E. (2009). Can science communication workshops train scientists for reflexive public Engagement? The ESConet experience. Science Communication, 31(1), 116–126. doi:10.1177/1075547009339048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, A., Raman, S., & Gibbs, B. (2012). Which publics? When? Sciencewise-ERC, Institute for Science & Society, University of Nottingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. OECD: 56.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2008). Encouraging student interest in science and technology studies. OECD: 134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Tytler, R. W. (2009). Attitudes toward school science: An update. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osseweijer, P. (2006a). A short history of talking biotech: Fifteen years of iterative action research in institutionalizing scientists’ engagement in public communication (PhD Thesis). Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osseweijer, P. (2006b). A new model for science communication that takes ethical considerations into account – The three-E model: Entertainment, emotion and education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(4), 591–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osseweijer, P., & Klop, T. (2011). Imagine: A communication project putting life sciences in the spotlight. In D. J. Bennett & R. C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication. Telling it like it is (pp. 384–399). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, S. E., & Schibeci, R. A. (2012). What conceptions of science communication are espoused by science research funding bodies? Public Understanding of Science, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, S. D, & Orsini, M. (2002). Mapping the links: Citizen involvement in policy processes. Canadian Policy Research Networks, Discussion Paper No. F21, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29, 242–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouliot, C. (2009). Using the deficit model, public debate model and co-production of knowledge models to interpret points of view of students concerning citizens’ participation in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(1), 49–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers-Hayden, T., & Pidgeon, N. (2008). Developments in nanotechnology public engagement in the UK: ‘upstream’ towards sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(8), 1010–1013. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.04.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2005). A typology of public engagement methods. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, F. J. (1993). Hands-on: A means to an end. 2061 Today, 3(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shauman, K. (2006). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes (lecture). Davis, The California Girls Collaborative Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science. Scientific literacy: issues and perspectives, 1, 1–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trench, B. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models (pp. 119-135). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trench, B., & Junker, K. (2001). How scientists view their public communication. Paper presented in Trends in Science Communication Today, 6th International Conference on PCST, Geneva Switzerland, January 2001. Retrieved on 4 January, 2014 from http://visits.web.cern.ch/visits/pcst2001/proc/Trench-Junker.doc

  • Tytler, R., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Clark, J. C. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition. Canberra, Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations: 194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waarlo, A. J. (2007). Educatie en communicatie. Uitwisselbaar, complementair of synergetisch? In J. Willems (Ed.), Basisboek wetenschapscommunicatie. Amsterdam: Boom Lemma Uitgevers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. N. (2010). A twenty-first century citizens’ POLIS: Introducing a democratic experiment in electronic citizen participation in science and technology decision-making. Public Understanding of Science, 19(5), 528–544. doi:10.1177/0963662509104726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2005). Reflexing complexity: Post-genomic knowledge and reductionist returns in public science. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5), 67–94. doi:10.1177/0263276405057192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9(3), 211–220. doi:10.1159/000092659

    Google Scholar 

  • Zorn, T. E., Roper, J., Weaver, C. K., & Rigby, C. (2012). Influence in science dialogue: Individual attitude changes as a result of dialogue between laypersons and scientists. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 848–864. doi:10.1177/0963662510386292

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biotechnology and Society, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

    Anne-Lotte Masson

  2. Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Jenni Metcalfe

  3. Biotechnology and Society, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

    Patricia Osseweijer

Authors
  1. Anne-Lotte Masson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jenni Metcalfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patricia Osseweijer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

    Maarten C. A. van der Sanden

  2. Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

    Marc J. de Vries

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Masson, AL., Metcalfe, J., Osseweijer, P. (2016). Motivating Engagement. 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_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-738-2_4

  • Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-738-2

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation