Committee on Communicating Chemistry in Informal Settings

Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology

Division on Earth and Life Studies

Board on Science Education

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, DC

www.nap.edu

This page intentionally left blank.

COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATING CHEMISTRY IN INFORMAL SETTINGS

Co-Chairs

MARK A. RATNER, NAS, Northwestern University

DAVID A. UCKO, Museums+more LLC

Members

LAWRENCE BELL, Museum of Science, Boston

DIANE BUNCE, The Catholic University of America

JULIA Y. CHAN, University of Texas at Dallas

LUIS ECHEGOYEN, University of Texas at El Paso

JOSEPH S. FRANCISCO, NAS, University of Nebraska–Lincoln

MARY M. KIRCHHOFF, American Chemical Society

BRUCE V. LEWENSTEIN, Cornell University

MICHAEL STIEFF, University of Illinois at Chicago

Academies Staff

KATHRYN J. HUGHES, Project Director, Senior Program Officer, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology (until December 2016)

KEEGAN SAWYER, Project Director, Program Officer, Board on Life Sciences

CAMLY TRAN, Associate Program Officer, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology

NATALIE NIELSEN, Board Director, Board on Technology and Assessment (until January 2014)

TERESA FRYBERGER, Board Director, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology

HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Board Director, Board on Science Education

BOARD ON CHEMICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY

Co-Chairs

DAVID BEM, PPG Industries

DAVID WALT, NAE, Tufts University

Members

HÉCTOR D. ABRUÑA, Cornell University

JOEL C. BARRISH, Bristol-Myers Squibb

MARK A. BARTEAU, NAE, University of Michigan

JOAN BRENNECKE, NAE, University of Notre Dame

MICHELLE V. BUCHANAN, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

DAVID W. CHRISTIANSON, University of Pennsylvania

JENNIFER SINCLAIR CURTIS, University of California, Davis

RICHARD EISENBERG, NAS, University of Rochester

SAMUEL H. GELLMAN, NAS, University of Wisconsin–Madison

SHARON C. GLOTZER, NAS, University of Michigan

MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories (retired)

FRANCES S. LIGLER, NAE, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University

SANDER G. MILLS, Merck Research Laboratories (retired)

JOSEPH B. POWELL, Shell

PETER J. ROSSKY, NAS, Rice University

TIMOTHY SWAGER, NAS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Academies Staff

TERESA FRYBERGER, Director

DOUGLAS FRIEDMAN, Senior Program Officer

CAMLY TRAN, Associate Program Officer

CLAIRE BALLWEG, Program Coordinator

BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATION

Chair

ADAM GAMORAN, William T. Grant Foundation

Members

GEORGE BOGGS, Palomar College (emeritus)

MELANIE COOPER, Michigan State University

RODOLFO DIRZO, NAS, Stanford University

JACQUELYNNE ECCLES, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

JOSEPH FRANCISCO, NAS, Department of Chemistry, University of Nebraska–Lincoln

MARGARET A. HONEY, New York Hall of Science

MATTHEW KREHBIEL, Achieve, Inc.

MICHAEL LACH, University of Chicago Urban Education Institute

LYNN LIBEN, Pennsylvania State University

CATHY MANDUCA, Carleton College

JOHN MATHER, NAS, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

BRIAN REISER, Northwestern University

MARSHALL “MIKE” SMITH, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

ROBERTA TANNER, Loveland High School (retired)

SUZANNE WILSON, University of Connecticut

YU XIE, NAS, Princeton University

Academies Staff

HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Director

KERRY BRENNER, Senior Program Officer

MARGARET HILTON, Senior Program Officer

KENNE DIBNER, Program Officer

AMY STEPHENS, Program Officer

MATTHEW LAMMERS, Program Coordinator

MIRIAM SCHEIBER, Program Assistant

This page intentionally left blank.

Preface

The committee’s report seeks to enhance the effectiveness of public communication by chemists at activities that foster engagement and learning outside the classroom setting. We build on two trends: One is the interest shown by many chemists in sharing their knowledge and experience with the public through activities such as National Chemistry Week, science festivals, museum exhibits or events, science cafés, and online media. The second is the growing research on science communication, informal learning, and chemistry education. Much of that research has been synthesized in previous National Research Council reports, including Learning Science in Informal Environments, Discipline-Based Education Research, and How People Learn, as well as two Sackler Colloquia on The Science of Science Communication and the Chemical Sciences Roundtable’s Chemistry in Primetime and Online. For the first time, the experiences of these professional communities and the research bases that support their work have been integrated for the development of practical tools.

Chemistry plays critical roles in our daily lives, community issues, national policy, and global events. That everyday relevance presents opportunities for interaction with members of the public who may not be familiar with chemistry or chemical concepts. Evidence-based communication and engagement activities offer the potential to address the situation. For students, informal learning experiences can stimulate greater interest in chemistry, complementing and enhancing the subject as presented within the limitations of the classroom. For adults, such experiences may help them become more sophisticated about chemistry and its ubiquitous role in the world around us.

For the chemistry community, we hope that this report will provide insights for thinking about communication and engagement. It offers guidance based on evidence-based practices for strengthening the effectiveness of activities, such as placing greater focus on the needs and interests of the participants, both in planning and implementation.

For informal learning professionals and science communicators, we hope the report will provide insight from key research findings in the chemical education literature that may be transferable to addressing members of the public and may suggest directions for future research. In addition, this report may encourage more chemists and chemistry-related profes-

sionals to partner with science centers and similar organizations to develop and implement engaging chemistry experiences for children and for adults. Such collaborative efforts could be significantly enhanced by support from chemistry-based professional organizations and corporations.

Although this report focuses specifically on chemistry, the communication strategies could be applied more generally and serve as a model for other disciplines. We hope that professionals in those disciplines will recognize the value of applying effective practices of informal learning and science communication, and of partnering with organizations experienced in engaging with the public.

On behalf of the committee, we would like to thank all those who took the time to share their knowledge and expertise through participation in the meetings, the landscape study, and other data-gathering methods. Special thanks go to the committee members themselves and the Academies program staff who made this report possible.

Mark Ratner and David Ucko, Co-Chairs

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

James Bell, Center for the Advancement of Informal Science Education

John Besley, Michigan State University

Donna Blackmond, Scripps University

Rick Borchelt, U.S. Department of Energy

Declan Fahy, Dublin City University

John Groves, Princeton University

Carlos Gutierrez, California State University, Los Angeles

Joseph Krajcik, Michigan State University

Tiffany Lohwater, American Association for the Advancement of Science

Stephen Palacios, Added Value Cheskin

Elsa Reichmanis, Georgia Institute of Technology

Nancy Songer, Drexel University

Lawrence Yeung, Rice University

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the report’s conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before the release. The review of this report was overseen

by May Berenbaum, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and R. Stephen Berry, University of Chicago. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

Contents

PREFACE

SUMMARY

The Importance of Communicating Chemistry Now

The Basis of This Report

A Framework for Communicating Chemistry

The Guide

Findings and Recommendations

References

PART A. THE EVIDENCE BASE FOR ENHANCED COMMUNICATION

1 INTRODUCTION

Study Approach

What Is Chemistry Communication?

Chemists Engaging in Communication

Challenges of Chemistry Communication

Toward Improving Chemistry Communication

Structure of the Report

References

2 WHY CHEMISTS ENGAGE IN COMMUNICATION

Chemists’ Goals for Communicating Science

Goal 1: Increase Public Appreciation of and Excitement for Chemistry as a Source of Knowledge About the World

Goal 2: Develop Scientifically Informed Consumers

Goal 3: Empower Informed Citizen Participation in Democratic Processes

Goal 4: Workforce Development

The Roles of Chemists in Communicating in Informal Settings

Chemists as Sources of Content

Chemists as Sources of Credibility

Chemists as Bridge Builders with Other Groups

What Chemists Gain from Their Communication Activities

Enhanced Learning About Informal Science Education and Science Communication

Enhanced Learning About Participants

Strengthening Research Grant Applications

Potential Barriers to Engaging in Communication

Chemistry’s Lack of Disciplinary Unity

Chemistry Is Messy

Engaging in Communication

References

3 THE CURRENT STATE OF CHEMISTRY COMMUNICATION

Prevalence of Chemistry Communication Activities

Chemistry Content

Duration and Venue

Duration

Venue

Participants

General Publics

Specific Demographic Groups

Opinion Leaders and Decision Makers

The Role of Media and Technology

References

4 EVIDENCE-BASED RESEARCH ON LEARNING AND COMMUNICATION

Insights from Research on Informal Science Learning

An Ecological Framework for Understanding Learning

Goals for Informal Learning

Environments for Informal Learning

Assessing Outcomes

Insights from Research on Communication

Goals for Communication

Public Engagement

Environments for Communication

Linking Informal Science Learning and Communication

A Communication Model for Informal Learning Settings

Public Perceptions of Science and Scientists

Web-Based Communication

Challenges for Chemistry

Insights from Chemistry Education

Principles for Chemistry Communication in Informal Environments

References

5 EVALUATION TO REFINE GOALS AND DEMONSTRATE EFFECTIVENESS

What Is Evaluation?

Why Evaluate?

Overarching Considerations

Developing an Evaluation Plan

Project Goals and Outcomes

Frameworks to Guide Outcome Development

Evaluation Questions, Indicators, and Measures

Methodology: Designing and Conducting the Evaluation

Balancing Evaluation Approaches

Evaluation Design

Evaluation Considerations for Informal Environments

Data Collection

Aligning Data Collection with Outcomes

Reporting and Using the Evaluation

Examples of Chemistry Communication Evaluation

The Periodic Table of Videos

The Amazing Nano Brothers Juggling Show

Summary

References

Additional Resources

6 COMMUNICATING CHEMISTRY: A DESIGN FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH AGENDA

A Framework for Communicating Chemistry

Element 1: Set Communication Goals and Outcomes Appropriate to the Target Participants

Element 2: Identify and Familiarize Yourself with Your Resources

Element 3: Design the Communication Activity and the Evaluation

Element 4: Communicate!

Element 5: Assess, Reflect, and Follow Up

Key Areas for Future Research

Research on Public Perceptions and Understanding of Chemistry

Digital Media for Chemistry Communication

Chemistry Education and Research Policy Questions

Recommendations

References

PART B. COMMUNICATING CHEMISTRY: A FRAMEWORK FOR SHARING SCIENCE

Why Communicate?

What Motivates Chemists?

What Do Chemists Gain?

The Framework for Effective Chemistry Communication

What Does It Mean to Evaluate? And Why Do It?

Using the Framework

Element 1: Set Communication Goals and Outcomes Appropriate to the Target Participants

Element 2: Identify and Familiarize Yourself with Your Resources

Element 3: Design the Communication Activity and How It Will Be Evaluated

Element 4: Communicate!

Element 5: Assess, Reflect, and Follow Up

Concluding Comments

References

APPENDIXES

A Data Collection Instruments

B Committee Member Biographies