Student-scientist interactions: student value perceptions in science communication meetings

ABSTRACT

The dissemination and acceptance of misinformation/disinformation and the denial of scientific claims and facts have become increasingly common practices in the post-truth era. The recent global pandemic has reaffirmed the importance of science communication (Sci-Comm) in a dialogical model that supports public engagement with science. Sci-Comm may promote scientific literacy by sharing knowledge and attitudes about science and is considered an important strategy for public engagement, but it requires evaluation based on participants’ motivations. This mixed-methods study examined middle school students’ subjective task values regarding Sci-Comm meetings with scientists. Seventh-grade students (N = 80) attended five meetings aligned with science curriculum topics. Based on the expectancy-value theory, students completed surveys assessing the meetings’ utility, attainment, and intrinsic value. Results showed that value ratings increased significantly across meetings, varying by topic. Qualitative themes highlighted meeting scientists, asking questions, and the interactive structure as valuable aspects. This research provides important insights into the current body of knowledge regarding the influential role of Sci-Comm within the expectancy-value theory framework. Additionally, it may guide educators and researchers in designing effective Sci-Comm sessions to increase student motivation and engagement in science, thereby enhancing the existing literature in science education and Sci-Comm.

KEYWORDS:

• Science communication
• expectancy-value theory
• middle school students

Acknowledgment

Thanks to colleagues in the Scienc-e-Communication project research group at the Bogazici University who contributed to the implementation of the Sci-Comm. meetings. Thanks to scientists attending the meetings. We would also like to acknowledge the study by Woods-Townsend et al. (2016), as it has been influential in our Sci-Comm projects as well as in this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Ethics statement

This study was approved by Bogazici University Institutional Review Board and met the ethics/human subject requirements (Ethics approval number: E-84391427-050.01.04-24018).

Additional information

Funding

This study is part of a project that was funded by Bogazici University Research Fund Grant Number 18661.