1 / 24

INTERACT Evaluation (Explore ways how scientists best interact directly with the public)

INTERACT Evaluation (Explore ways how scientists best interact directly with the public). Part 1 : Evaluation of the TESLA Exhibition Berlin, February 2002 (preliminary selection of results)

shawn
Download Presentation

INTERACT Evaluation (Explore ways how scientists best interact directly with the public)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. INTERACT Evaluation(Explore ways how scientists best interactdirectly with the public) Part 1: Evaluation of the TESLA Exhibition Berlin, February 2002 (preliminary selection of results) Part 2: Evaluation and Comparison of Masterclasses UK-FRGermany (Birmingham, London x 2, Bonn)  next time Isabell Krämer, student teacher, BonnMichael Kobel, Bonn

  2. TESLA – Light of the Future Journey to the origin of matter Insights into the most tiny dimensions of life Exhibition on the international TESLA project planned at the German research center DESY 16.01.-17.02. 2002 Automobil Forum, Unter den Linden, Berlinfurther information: http://www-zeuthen.desy.de/ tesla_ausstellung/

  3. TESLA – Light of the Future Exhibition venue Automobil Forum der Volkswagen AG Unter den Linden / Friedrichstrasse Berlin  central location • about 700 m2 exhibition area in the basement • conference rooms for meetings and events • coordination office for the exhibition organizers • publicity campaign by VW  excellent infrastructure

  4. TESLA – Light of the Future The Exhibition subjects: realization: • original parts, models, hands-on • posters • background information (desks) • „islands of knowledge“ (terminals) • animations, videos • guided tours • „physics for everybody“ • connection to life sciences • applications

  5. TESLA – Light of the Future Personnel Preparatory course and material for guides Guides: • at any time 4 guides present: • 2 students (20 total) • 2 scientists (40 total) • all students had > 7 shifts (1/2 day) • students: DESY (Zeuthen + Hamburg) • Scientists: from all over Germany Visitors: • More than 22.000 in 33 days - casual visitors (Berlin inhabitants, tourists) - visitors reached by advertising- invited guests (events) - more than 70 school classes (mostly: 11th-13th grade)

  6. TESLA – Light of the Future Events • press conference • opening ceremony • “NDR-Wissenschaftsforum“ Broadcast discussion • meeting of the science attachees with members of the international TESLA collaboration • 10 Years DESY Zeuthen • Berlin „Long Night of Museums“ • Scientists Day • 2 Student Days per week (lecture and guided tour)  different communities addressed  Very useful addition to the exhibition

  7. TESLA – Light of the Future INTERACT Questionnaire • Designed by Isabell Krämer (student teacher, Bonn) Professional advice by Inst. for Science Pedagogy (IPN) KielProf. Manfred Euler, Katrin Engeln (Ph.D. student) • Exhibition questionnaire has 4+1 parts • 3 questions: Reasons for coming • 6 questions: Judging the Exhibition • 6 questions: Judging the direct contact to Scientists • 13 questions: Personal Data and attitude towards science/physics • 8 questions: A student‘s page Topics addressed: • effect on interest in and attitude towards science/physics • direct interactions with scientists • applicability of the material (age, time, ...) • gender dependence (boys .vs. girls) • dependence on prior knowledge • Not primarily: distribution of knowledge

  8. General statistics(non-representative! Just from filled questionnaires) Edu-cation • 389 visitors interviewt • 31% female 69% male • 67% students 33% „public“ • Guided tours students: 98% public: 70% Ageprofile„public“

  9. Physics interest before the visit Public Students 73% regulary read/watch science reports (76% male, 70% female)

  10. Preferred way of Presentation and Pro‘s Preferred way of Presentation Positive Aspects

  11. Suggestions for improvements „public“ students

  12. Guides raising new interest .vs. prior physics interest Public Students Also huge correlation between raised interest and clarity of explanations

  13. Clarity of guide‘s explanations Public Students

  14. Clarity of guides .vs. physics interest In addition: 40% correlation between „having asked questions to guides“ and „regularly read/watch science reports“

  15. Role of Spin-off (FEL) in attitude towards Particle Physics public students

  16. Understanding of exponats in guided tours Public Students Having seen the exponats before, doesn‘t help:

  17. Understanding exponat descriptions Public Students

  18. Understanding descriptions .vs. Prior knowledge/interest .vs. physics interest .vs. Particle physics knowledge

  19. Increase of interest in physics Public Students No correlation (-7±6)% with a priori interest !!Significant correlation (26±6)% with guide‘s raising interest ! ( Students: 28%, Public 20%)

  20. Judgement of particle physics after the visit Public Students

  21. Correlations of particle physics judgement .vs. prior physics interest .vs. increase in physics inter. (strong) (weak)

  22. Caveats • Beware of artificial correlations! • Correlation: raising physics interest .vs. Participation in tour:all: weak (9±5)%public: strong (21±8)% • Correlation: judgement of part. physics .vs. Participation in tour:all: negative(!) (-7±5)%public: none (1±9)% • Reason: ALL students participated in tours, and students are on average less enthusiastic

  23. Summary(1) • Evaluation seems useful • Beware of caveats • Preferred ways of presentation • Hands-on • 3-dimensional objects • Videos • Guides • Less preferred ways • PCs • Booklets / Prospects • Poster

  24. Summary(2) • Interesting differences observed • Male .vs. Female • Female public profited more from guideswant more images, less text, or easier understandable text • Physics interest increase equal to male,but less interested in particle physics in particular • Students .vs. Public • Students less enthuastic about physics and paticle physics(„forced to come to the exhibition“) • Less weight on spin-offs (even less by girls!) • significantly more increase in physics interest than public • Profited more from guided tours (in interest and understanding) • Prior interest • Highly correlated to understanding descriptions or guides • Not(!) correlated to amount of raising interest • Guided Tours • Clarity of explanations important • Helps much in raising interest, but no(!) influence on HEP judgement

More Related