Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Chemistry Science Investigation: Dognapping Workshop, An Outreach Program Designed To Introduce Students to Science through a Hands-On Mystery Timothy J. Boyle,* Jeremiah M. Sears, Bernadette A. Hernandez-Sanchez, Maddison R. Casillas, and Thao H. Nguyen Sandia National Laboratories, Advanced Materials Laboratory, 1001 University Boulevard Southeast, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106, United States S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: The Chemistry Science Investigation: Dognapping Workshop was designed to (i) target and inspire fourth grade students to view themselves as Junior Scientists before their career decisions are solidified; (ii) enable hands-on experience in fundamental scientific concepts; (iii) increase public interaction with science, technology, engineering, and mathematical personnel by providing face-to-face opportunities; (iv) give teachers a pathway forward for scientific resources; (v) meet the New Mexico K−5 Science Benchmark Performance Standards; (vi) most importantly, ensure everyone has fun! For this workshop, the students are told they will be going to see a Chemistry Magic Show, but the performance is stopped when the Chemistry Dog is reportedly stolen. The students first clear their names using a series of interactive stations and then apply a number of science experiments to solve the mystery. This report describes the workshop in detail, which is suitable for large (∼100 students per day) audiences but has flexibility to be modified for much smaller groups. An identical survey was given three times (before, immediately after, and 2 months after the workshop) to determine the impact on the students’ perception of science and scientists as well as determine the effectiveness in relaying scientific concepts through retention time. Survey responses indicate that scientific information pertaining to the workshop is retained for up to 2 months. KEYWORDS: Elementary/Middle School Science, General Public, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning
■
would be useful before career choices solidify.8,9,11,15,17−27 Several studies indicate that third and fourth grade students have already internalized what they are not good at doing and selectively define their career paths based on what they believe they are good at doing.1,8,9,15,28 This report discusses one outreach program at Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) designed to achieve positive student and STEM researcher (staff, post-docs, undergraduate interns, high school students) interactions through a simple, hands-on workshop where solving a missing dog mystery using science is the overall goal. It is of note that other outreach programs have effectively used this type of science mystery-solving approach.29−34 For this program, we were adamant that these students and their supporters visit an actual scientific setting to discern that a science laboratory is not as foreign as they might have envisionedit is a fun place! Our efforts have focused on developing a Chemistry Science Investigation: Dognapping Workshop (termed CSI: Dognapping) building on the crimescene investigation concept used in many television programs and outreach efforts.12,29−33 Students are invited to attend a
INTRODUCTION All children are born scientists.1,2 They experiment by interacting with the physical world to develop the necessary skills to thrive; however, somewhere along the way for today’s students, interest in science becomes stifled and is eventually lost at alarmingly younger ages.3−16 This has led to a critical void in the pipeline of people exploring scientific careers.3−16 Restimulating interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers for today’s youth is a critical global challenge.3−16 Reports such as the Chiles Commission Report,3 Before It is Too Late,4 and Rising above the Gathering Storm,5 detail the detrimental impact to the future economy, technology, and overall health of the world that will occur if this downward trend continues. Students’ career choices are reportedly influenced by parental, professional (i.e., teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc.), and media interactions,4,8,9,11,12,14−25 which typically have limited interactions with STEM personnel. Therefore, it is not unexpected that the pipeline of STEM students is drying up.3−16 Circumventing the foreboding future predicted by these reports requires a commitment to increase the interaction between STEM professionals and students at an early age. In order to attract more students to STEM fields, early and positive interaction with professionals working in these fields © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Received: March 5, 2017 Revised: July 31, 2017
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00114 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Figure 1. Some of the previous Chemistry Dogs, including: (i) Beaux Bo, (ii) Simba, (iii) Mr. Py, (iv) Lucy, and (v) Sister.
Chemistry Magic Show35 presented by some of Sandia’s STEM personnel, which is interrupted when the Chemistry Dog (Figure 1) cannot be located and is assumed to be dognapped. Inspection of the crime scene reveals a predetermined number of unexpected items (or clues). These clues become the basis for the different stations where the students clear their names and undertake fundamental science experiments to reveal the culprit’s identity. This program promotes scientific self-confidence and encourages teamwork to solve the dognapping crime, which is in contrast to standard science fairs that identify individual achievements. The CSI: Dognapping program’s environment also allows the volunteers to mentor the students and teach them about science rather than judge them. This program also increases the interaction of STEM personnel with elementary students, their teachers, and parents. In order to assess our pedagogical methods, testing before and after the program were undertaken using an identical survey (Figure 2). While this program has been performed for over 10 years, the results discussed in this report are for the 2016 program.
■
oversubscribed, unselected schools are given preference for the following year. A flowchart of the various aspects of this program (∼3 h in length) is shown in Figure 3. Specific information concerning the details of the program can be found in the supporting information. Supplement A contains the Observation & Safety Outline for School Visit Prior to CSI: Dognapping Workshop. Supplement B contains the Outline of CSI: Dognapping Workshop. Supplement C contains the Experimental Plans for Various CSI: Dognapping Stations. Supplement D contains Hyperlinks to Related Articles, and Supplement E contains the Survey Data Results. Readers are also encouraged to contact the authors directly. School Safety Visit
About 2 weeks prior to the Chemistry Magic Show, we conduct a safety visit at each school. This visit accomplishes several goals: (i) collect survey 1 and provide badges for the visit, (ii) introduce Sandia National Laboratories to the students, (iii) identify Sandia STEM professionals (5−6 of the volunteers), (iv) introduce available STEM careers at Sandia, (v) promote the upcoming visit, and (vi) introduce safety by explaining how to protect the five senses in a laboratory setting. Additionally, this visit allows us to identify students that are uncomfortable with dogs so that we can limit their interaction with the Chemistry Dog during the program; however, it has been noted over the tenure of this program that the self-identified tentative students often gravitate to the Chemistry Dog during the lunch section of the program’s conclusion. This safety visit is designed to last 1/2 to 3/4 h and is a group discussion that incorporates several props to demonstrate how to protect their five senses. One prop used is an empty 5 gallon water bottle (Figure 3) that has been artfully redecorated with detachable parts. This prop was modeled after Hasbro/Playskool’s Mr. Potato Head and affectionately called Mr. Bottle Head (shown in Figure 3; yes, there is a Mrs. Bottle Head, see Supporting Information: Supplement A). The Bottle
EXPERIMENTAL SECTION
The CSI: Dognapping Workshop
The general premise of the program is to invite students to Sandia with the idea that they will attend a Chemistry Magic Show,35 aided by the Chemistry Dog (see Figure 1). The Chemistry Dogs used in our program are insured, certified therapy dogs (or similar accreditation), so that we know the dogs are comfortable in large crowds (∼100 excited students and adults). It is important to note that the Chemistry Dogs are not permitted in any laboratory and are kept away from all chemical experiments. They only interact with the students in the lobby before the program and again at the conclusion of the program. Schools are selected using a variety of methods and a first-response/first-served criteria. As this program is often B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00114 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Figure 2. Survey used for analyses of impact, science self-assessment, and scientific interest.
Heads are used to demonstrate how the five senses are used to make observations and the importance of protecting each in a laboratory setting. Another prop used is a poster of the Chemistry Dogs in full laboratory gear (see Supporting Information: Supplement A for some examples). The students are asked to identify how the Chemistry Dogs are protecting their senses. A few chemistry reactions (i.e., liquid stacking and colorimetric pH indicators) are performed to garner excitement for their upcoming laboratory visit. It is often important to remind the teachers (and the volunteers) that the students are attending a Chemistry Show35 and not a dognapping, so as to not ruin the surprise. The visit is finalized by answering any questions and assigning the students homework of using their five senses prior to their laboratory visit.
Laboratory Visit
On the day of the show, the various rooms and stations are readied but kept hidden so the students do not suspect the upcoming dognapping. Upon arrival, the students adorned with badges obtained at the school safety visit are given goggles,36 paper lab coats,37 and seated to discuss some safety rules prior to the show. Several key topics are addressed in the opening, including the following: the importance of the supplied lab coats and goggles, their physical location (most are viewing a laboratory for the first time), the instructors for the day, and our encouragement for the students to ask questions. The students are then told the Chemistry Dog will be along shortly to help perform the experiments in our show. The show starts with the presentation of several chemistry experiments conducted by the most diverse group of volunteers C
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00114 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Figure 3. Flowchart of the CSI: Dognapping Workshop process.
possible. This diversity allows students to see that all types of people are scientists, and ideally, they may begin to see
themselves as scientists. Our experimentalists compete against each other to determine who gets the opportunity to work with D
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00114 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Figure 4. Clue sheet handed out during workshop for identifying the dognapper.
the Chemistry Dog. Since this is performed at Sandia, setup of complicated reactions is easily and safely achieved. After a predetermined amount of time, the show is stopped and everyone is informed that the Chemistry Dog cannot be found and presumed dognapped by the students. Students are told that the dognapper left their fingerprint, voiceprint, footprint, height, and radiation level (see Supporting Information: Supplement A). The students are sent to each identification station where their measurements are taken and recorded on a provided identification (ID) card (see Supporting Information:
Supplement B). These ID cards are collected (for return to the teacher after the workshop), and the students are told the results will be analyzed by our computer. The analysis of the ID card identifies four suspects and absolves the students of dognapping. Once cleared, students are deputized, given badges, sworn in as Junior Scientists, and asked to help solve the crime. The four suspects are (i) the school’s principal (or some authority figure they will know), (ii) our building manager, (iii) a happy-looking researcher (guilty), and (iv) a grumpy-looking researcher. These images are used to allow the E
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00114 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Junior Scientists to determine that evidence, not appearance, is important in finding the culprit. The students are also shown investigatory notes about the depicted suspects (see Supporting Information: Supplement A). The crime scene is visited, which consists of a dog bed along with a predetermined number of clues. The students identify the unusual aspects of the scene (clues) including items not typically observed on a dog bed. These clues are the basis of the various stations they will visit. Students are split into groups and attend the different clue stations. Every station (see Supporting Information: Supplement C and Figure 4) has a question, or questions, detailing whether each suspect is applicable to a presented fundamental scientific principle (i.e., pH of a spill indicates lemonade and suspects that like lemonade are marked). The clue stations (and crime scene clues) vary from year to year but for our efforts the stations typically involve: (1) nanogoldclue: purple water found in the dog bowl; (2) pHclue: a yellow spill (lemonade); (3) magnetsclue: a set of keys; (4) fiber analysisclue: three types of fibers (dog hair, colored, and white nylon); (5) luminescent materialsclue: invisible ink messages on index cards; (6) YUCKclue: a white powder (cornstarch), (7) gasesclue: CO2 (g) evolution in another dog bowl, (8) radiationclue: Americium (Am) in a smoke detector, and (9) biologyclue: a clear, colorless spill (dog drool). A rest station called Popcorn, located outside of the laboratory, has no clue and gives the students a break/food during the workshop. The students conduct experiments, collect data, and review the suspect notes to identify who is associated with each station. The results are tabulated from the stations using a clue sheet (Figure 4), wherein a check is given if the suspect is applicable. These marks are eventually tallied to identify the dognapper (similar to the Hasbro game Clue). After collecting the data, the students are brought back into one room. The results are discussed to emphasize the science concepts learned and identify the dognapper. Once identified, the guilty suspect confesses, the Chemistry Dog is returned, and the dognapper apologizes as well as explains why they took the Chemistry Dog. Most importantly, the dognapper is forgiven by all through providing everyone liquid nitrogen ice cream. Students are also given gift bags that contain handouts with pictures and experimental procedures from the workshop, along with other factoid sheets. Magnets, stickers, balloons, etc. are included to reinforce the fun they had.
answers for each question was determined over the entire population of each survey and normalized.
■
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Numerous hurdles exist that prevent research scientists from engaging in community service (i.e., no career reward, funding, difficulty in bringing experiments to students, time lost away from work, safety issues, etc.).21,22,26,41 The CSI: Dognapping workshop was designed to minimize these issues and simultaneously inspire and excite students about science. In particular, it was reasoned that bringing elementary students to a working laboratory was an important aspect of the interaction. This minimizes the volunteers’ efforts (i.e., setup, chemicals, and travel), maximizes the excitement for the students, and introduces/increases the students’ familiarity with a laboratory environment. The CSI: Dognapping workshop series was designed and implemented to (i) inspire fourth grade level students to view themselves as capable of doing scientific investigations (what we term Junior Scientists) before they enter middle school when career decisions are made, (ii) enable hands-on experience in fundamental scientific concepts, (iii) increase public interaction with STEM personnel by providing face-to-face opportunities that cannot be achieved in a classroom, (iv) give teachers a pathway forward for scientific resources (e.g., direct contact, summer RET fellowships through NSF,42 ACTS fellowships through DOE,43 etc.), (v) meet the New Mexico K−5 Science Benchmark Performance Standards,38−40 and (vi) most importantly, for everyone to have fun! Note: Lab safety is stressed throughout the entire process and the students receive among their many gifts, a set of safety goggles36 and a paper lab coat37 to take home. The 2016 CSI: Dognapping Workshop was held over 5 days and included more than 450 New Mexico public school students (∼90 students/day). Schools were selected using Sandia’s outreach database to ensure inclusion of underrepresented schools. Letters detailing the workshop were sent and a hierarchy selection system based on school, response time, and returning versus first time attendance was utilized. This is necessary, as the program has grown in the past 10 years and demand far exceeds our ability to cover all interested schools. Once selected, several demands are made on the schools to ensure participation and commitment to the time needed for the workshop (∼3 h). Transportation costs were provided by Sandia to alleviate limited field-trip budgets. All lunches were supplied by the school system or individual families. Our experience shows that between 20−25 volunteers per day (1:4 volunteers to students) are needed to assist in the overall production of the workshop for the daily ∼100 student groups described here. There is no ideal size, but typically, more than eight students per clue station with four volunteers makes interactions with all of the students difficult.
Scientific Standards
The CSI: Dognapping workshop described above is not just an ordinary show, but a fun way to explore science and engineering with hands on opportunities to solve a mystery.29−33 More importantly, it meets our New Mexico’s Science Benchmark and Performance Standards.38−40 The effectiveness of the workshop was evaluated by an identical 14question survey given to the students before the safety visit (survey 1), immediately after the workshop (survey 2), and 2 months after the workshop (survey 3). The aim of the workshop was to determine if the scientific interaction with the community would be improved, assess what information was learned (e.g., nanotechnology) as well as their enthusiasm and self-confidence toward STEM, and identify the retention time of presented topics. Both multiple choice and fill in the blank questions were recorded, averaged, and analyzed. Due to differences in class size, an average percent (%) of correct
Workshop Testimonials
It was found that the hands-on activities used during the workshop to teach students standard scientific curriculum and nanotechnology also had an impact on the volunteers/mentors. In particular, volunteers found the interaction with the students one of the most valuable aspects of the workshop. The morale of the staff was markedly improved as the direct communication with students and their positive responses reinforced the volunteer’s own interest in the STEM field. The ability of the staff to show-off their skill sets to a group of interested students led to a number of the laboratory staff becoming invested with F
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00114 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Figure 5. Plot of normalized population with facial-expression responses (green smiling face = positive, purple neutral face = neutral, blue frowning face = negative) as a function of survey number: (a) scientific interest and (b) science self-assessment.
wearing their safety goggles to bed; numerous teachers have also sent class pictures of the participants wearing their goggles. Teachers have indicated that the students continue to talk about the CSI: Dognapping Workshop and play CSI on the playground weeks after the field trip. This led many of the parents to express an interest in how their children can get involved in other STEM educational programs at the middle school and high school level. These positive experiences, generated by the enthusiastic volunteers as well as hands-on activities, have parents, students, and teachers eager to continue their ties with Sandia to gain assistance in STEM areas, which may garner additional public support by the parents for scientific endeavors. Overall, the annual feedback from the
these students. Continued interactions with the schools and teachers in ongoing science efforts were found to be an additional impact from this workshop. Unexpectedly, the volunteers also reported an improved ability and confidence in speaking to both the K−12 community and the general public about scientific topics. According to one volunteer, they “. . .learned how to explain scientific topics by simplifying concepts and relating them to everyday life!”. Testimonials from the teachers and parents indicate that the students also benefited from the information learned at the various stations. Several parents relayed stories of their children still having their Junior Scientist certificates prominently displayed weeks after the conclusion of the workshop. Furthermore, parents have relayed stories of junior scientists G
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00114 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Figure 6. Plot of population with correct response as a function of select survey question: (1) survey 1, (2) survey 2, and (3) survey 3. Abbreviations are NS for nanosize, Rad for radiation, SA for science activities, Vis for viscosity, Gas for gases, Safe for safety, Fib for fibers, Bio for biology, Mag for magnets, NG for nanogold, and S or E for scientist or engineer.
visitors and volunteers was, “This was the best field trip EVER!”. One important aspect that was learned over the years of performing this workshop was that the story line is of utmost importance. Students often found holes in the logic and/or shared suspect results with other classes at the same school (especially from year to year). Therefore, it is vital to continually improve, alter, and update the story line. In addition, the plot line was very important, and it was observed that older students (fifth and sixth grades) appeared to be too mature for our dognapping scenario. Furthermore, queries such as “Why were there so many things already set up for the workshop?”, “Why do the clues mean the dognapper was guilty?”, and many others were often raised. Overall, this workshop worked best for the students in the fourth grade; however, with subtle adjustments it can be tuned for older or younger students. Additionally, it was found that it was critical to allow the dognapper to be forgiven, as the students at these younger ages may feel the overall process is real and not a show.
you like science?”) and their scientific-ability confidence (Figure 5c; “How good are you at science?”) were altered by attending our workshop. From Figure 5a, it is apparent that the majority of surveyed students (>90%) appear to like science. Immediately following the workshop, it appears that a slight increase (net gain 1%) in the number of students that had a positive response (i.e., selected a “Wahoo (green smiling face)” or “OK (purple neutral face)” response) was noted for the normalized population. This increase is maintained for survey 3. Most likely, this is within statistical error with little change noted overall in their interest in science; however, it is of note that the majority of students in the fourth grades invited were still very interested in science activities. The impact on the students’ scientific confidence was also evaluated (Figure 5b). On the basis of survey 2, it was found that the response from the normalized population of students felt that they were better at science (net gain 4%). After time, there is a slight decrease in the overall confidence in science, but these are above preworkshop levels by 2%. These appear to be beyond statistical error. Individual school analysis (see Supplement E) revealed population fluctuations and inconsistent attitude shifts, which may account for some of the variations noted above. In particular, the lack of responses in the test question for Figure 5a, skewed the results to initially appear as a drop in the interest level. Reconstruction of the physical appearance of the test by removing the faces or making them larger may help increase the number of responses for this question. Another aim of this workshop was to introduce students to scientists and engineers as a means to improve interaction between students and the professional scientific community. Attempts to determine the extent of interactions remembered from the workshop were evaluated by two questions on the survey [i.e., (1) Name a scientist or engineer that you have met and talked to; (2) Name some of the science activities you have done]. The response results to these questions are shown in Figure 6 (SA and S or E). Both queries indicated significant increases for survey 2, which were maintained for survey 3 at
Survey Results
While the anecdotal discussion is gratifying, an analytical measure of the impact that this program had on the students was of interest. In order to achieve this, an identical survey (Figure 2) was given at specified intervals: before the school safety visit (survey 1) and immediately after the workshop (survey 2). A third interval (survey 3) was added 2 months after completion of the workshop. The results for the schools that returned all three of the surveys were tabulated and normalized. The paper discusses the total population for each survey, whereas Supporting Information: Supplement E identifies the results per school. Plots of scientific attitude impact and retained scientific concepts are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. Some discussion of the general trends noted from these results are below. Since one of the goals of the workshop is to improve students view of the STEM field, it was of interest to determine how their attitude toward science (Figure 5a; “How much do H
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00114 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
■
higher levels than before the workshop (Survey 1). Thus, these results suggest that any interaction by the STEM community with students, even sparingly, will ensure a remembered experience. Finally, the ability to transfer scientific knowledge during the workshop was also evaluated. The plot of survey population with correct responses as a function of survey station question is given in Figure 6. For all but one of the questions, the information presented appears to be retained via surveys 2 and 3. In fact, 25% of the questions had a sequential increase between surveys 2 and 3. While in some instances (42% of the science questions), survey 3 reveals a loss of information retained over time, nearly all questions indicated a higher level of correct responses upon comparison to survey 1. As mentioned, only one question revealed a decrease in correct answers from the comparison of survey 1 to surveys 2 and 3. This was the question concerning the pH level of a drink. It is not clear as to why this learning point would be lower than the other stations. In order to improve the response, the pH experimental process has been simplified through the use of a single pH indicator and reduction in the number of ideas presented during the station. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of the CSI: Dognapping workshop in the short term. Long-term impacts on knowledge are made but there are several influences that could undermine these results. Our current hypotheses include: (i) lack of interest and self-confidence based on not winning the recently held school science fair, (ii) perceiving/concluding that science is hard, and (iii) end of the year exhaustion due to standardized testing. More interactions with the various school teachers are currently being explored to examine this problem closer.
Article
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00114. Supplement A: Observation & Safety Outline for CSI: Dognapping Workshop; Supplement B: Outline of CSI: Dognapping Workshop; Supplement C: Experimental Plans for Various CSI: Dognapping Stations; Supplement D: Hyperlinks to Related Articles; Supplement E: Survey Data Results PDF, DOCX)
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Timothy J. Boyle: 0000-0002-1251-5592 Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS All pictures were supplied with permission by T.J.B., B.A.H.-S., or J.M.S. The authors acknowledge the help of all of the volunteers over the years (too many to properly list all of them) and the various contributors that make this workshop possible, including Sandia’s Community Involvement (A. Tapia, N. Tencza); Student Intern Program (D. Foley-Wilson); MANOS (S. King, M. Carrion); Sandia Daily News (R. Montoya, N. Singer, R. Brock), the Advanced Materials Laboratory (W. F. Hammetter, P. R. Schunk); and Center 1800 Materials Science & Engineering Center (D. Dimos, C. Adkins, T. Asleage); Central New Mexico Local Section of the American Chemical Society (D. Porterfield, A. Ambrosini), The Rio Grande Symposium on Advanced Materials (S. J. Glass); ASM International (R. Smith, J. Edwards, L. Dieber); New Mexico Section of the American Vacuum Society (K. Artyushkova); New Mexico American Ceramic Society (K. G. Ewsuk); NM local section of the Materials Research Society (K. Hattar), State of New Mexico Fire Fighters Training Academy (A. R. Sais, D. A. Romero); Belhaven Elementary School PTA (F. Solano); NISE Network Nano Days; S. Vigil Media; D. J. Sears; and L. S. Valdez-Boyle.
■
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Since national reports have shown that more interest must be generated in STEM to improve the nation’s prosperity,3−16 Sandia is enhancing collaborations with educators for all levels of a scientific career path: kindergarten−postdoctoral.44 CSI: Dognapping is one part of Sandia’s efforts to undertake handson science education and enhance, through pedagogical methods, the local public’s awareness and education of nanotechnology. While we realize that not all of the CSI: Dognapping workshop participants will become scientists, numerous alternative positives are realized, such as keeping the students interested in science a little longer until they can make a more-informed career decision. In addition, this workshop initiates a positive relationship between scientists and future scientific researchers, their teachers, and their parents. Furthermore, the positive feedback from the students’ local community (i.e., other students, teachers, and aids that attended the workshop) concerning STEM careers will be invaluable as these students determine their career path. Survey analyses of the impact of this workshop indicate that an overall improvement and positive impact on helping students to understand concepts from materials science and chemistry was realized. This experience led to the initiation of nearly 500/year Junior Scientists that may assist in keeping students interested in a science field. If the reader requires additional information, assistance with organization, or clarification of any of the aspects of this workshop, they are encouraged to contact the authors directly.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Gopnik, A. Scientific Thinking in Young Children: Theoretical Advances, Empirical Research, and Policy Implications. Science 2012, 337, 1623−1627. (2) Stahl, A. E.; Feigenson, L. Observing the unexpected enhances infants’ learning and exploration. Science 2015, 348, 91−94. (3) Chiles, H. G. J.; Barker, R. B.; Curtis, C. B.; Drell, S. D.; Herbst, R. F.; Hoover, R. A.; Kendall, H. W.; Welch, L. D. Commission On Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise: Report to the Congress and Secretary of Energy; U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, 1999. (4) Glen, J. G. Before It’s Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century; The National Commission on Mathematics and Science, 2000; p 50. (5) National Academy of Engineering. Rising Above the Gathering Storm. Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future [Online]; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2007; http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html (accessed June 08, 2017). I
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00114 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
(6) National Academy of Engineering. Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2005; p 208. (7) Allen-Ramdial, S. A.; Campbell, A. G. Reimagining the Pipeline: Advancing STEM Diversity, Persistence, and Success. BioScience 2014, 64, 612−618. (8) DeWitt, J.; Archer, L. Who Aspires to a Science Career? A comparison of survey responses from primary and secondary school students. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2015, 37 (13), 2170−2192. (9) DeWitt, J.; Archer, L.; Osborne, J. Science-related Aspirations Across the Primary−Secondary Divide: Evidence from two surveys in England. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2014, 36 (10), 1609−1629. (10) Guedens, W. J.; Reynders, M. Science Outreach Programs as a Powerful Tool for Science Promotion: An Example from Flanders. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (5), 602−604. (11) Karukstis, K. The Impact of Undergraduate Research on America’s Global Competitiveness. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84, 912−914. (12) Ham, B. Chemistry on Television. ChemistryAmerican Chemical Society Newsletter Spring 2006, pp 29−35. (13) Lowell, B. L.; Salzman, H. Into the Eye of the Storm: Assessing the Evidence on Science and Engineering Education, Quality, and Workforce Demand; Urban Institute: Washington, DC, 2007. (14) Spellings, M. Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council; U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC, 2007. (15) Tai, R. H.; Liu, C. Q.; Maltese, A. V.; Fan, X. Planning Early for Careers in Science. Science 2006, 312, 1143. (16) Washam, C. Career View: Plugging a leaky pipeline. ChemistryAmerican Chemical Society Newsletter Spring 2006, pp 16−18. (17) Bergmeier, B. D.; Saunders, S. R. The Chemistry Magic and Safety Show. J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 59, 529−529. (18) Boon, H. J. Regional Queensland parents’ views of science education: some unexpected perceptions. Aust. Educ. Res. 2012, 39, 17−43. (19) Brown, M. K.; Brown, L. C.; Jepson-Innes, K.; Lindeau, M.; Stone, J. Bringing Organic Chemistry to the Public: Structure and Scent in a Science Museum. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 251−255. (20) Kerby, H. W.; DeKorver, B. K.; Cantor, J.; Weiland, M. J.; Babiarz, C. L. = Demonstration Show That Promotes and Assesses Conceptual Understanding Using the Structure of Drama. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (4), 613−618. (21) Peters, H. P. Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013, 110, 14102−14109. (22) Pham, D. Public engagement is key for the future of science research. npj Science of Learning 2016, 1, 1−2. (23) Shepherd, J. Careers advice at primary school: Why being Superman is no longer an option. The Guardian [Online] 2010, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/jan/26/primarychildren-careers-advice (accessed June 08, 2017). (24) Shugart, E. C.; Racaniello, V. R. Scientists: Engage the Public! mBio [Online] 2015, 6, 10.1128/mBio.01989-15 (25) Smolkin, R. ACS Student Affiliates: Fostering Undergraduate Research. ChemistryAmerican Chemical Society Newsletter, Spring 2006, pp 20−21. (26) Funk, C.; Rainie, L.; Page, D. Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Pew Res. Center 2015, 1−111. (27) Wolfe, R. Not Just Another Magic Show. J. Chem. Educ. 1990, 67 (12), 1008−1008. (28) National Research Council Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2007; pp 1−404. (29) Gerber, S. M. Chemistry and Crime. From Sherlock Holmes to Today’s Courtroom; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1983. (30) Harmon, K. J.; Miller, L. M.; Millard, J. R. Crime scene investigation in the art world: The case of the missing masterpiece. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 817−819.
(31) Kaplan, L. J. Chemistry and Crime: From Sherlock Holmes to Modern Forensic Science-A Science Course for Non-Science Major. J. Crime Lab. Dig. 1992, 19, 107−132. (32) Koehler, B. G.; Park, L. Y.; Kaplan, L. J. Science for Kids Outreach Programs: College Students Teaching Science to Elementary School Students and Their Parents. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1505− 1509. (33) Meyer, A. F.; Knutson, C. M.; Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A.; Gruba, S. M.; Meyer, B. M.; Thompson, J. W.; Maurer-Jones, M. A.; Halderman, S.; Tillman, A. S.; DeStefano, L.; Haynes, C. L. Activities for middle school students to sleuth a chemistry “Whodunit” and investigate the scientific method. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (3), 410− 413. (34) truTV. Forensics in the classroom. http://www.nclark.net/Its_ Magic.pdf (accessed June 08, 2017). (35) Originally, the students were invited to a Chemistry Magic Show. During presentations of this work at a variety of meetings, many colleagues have pointed out that associating science with magic is not desired. Therefore, we have altered the programs name to the Astounding Science Show; however, for this report, we have maintained the original name. (36) Goggles were purchased from Home Science Tools. http:// www.hometrainingtools.com/safety-goggles-splash-child-size (accessed June 08, 2017). (37) Lab coats were purchased from Mr Disposable Inc. http://www. mrdisposable.com/disposable_lab_coats (accessed June 08, 2017). (38) New Mexico Science Content Standards, Benchmarks, and Performance Standards (2003) were used (http://www.ped.state.nm. us/MathScience/dl08/Standards/ScienceStandardsV2.pdf). New Mexico has recently adopted Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; https://www.nextgenscience.org/) used by many other states, as well as aligning to Common Core State Standards found at http:// www.corestandards.org/. Additional information pertaining to the APS NM standards can be found at http://www.aps.edu/curriculum-andinstruction/science. (All sites accessed June 08, 2017). (39) National Research Council, Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012. (40) The CSI:Dognapping Workshop was initially designed to meet the New Mexico Science Content Standards, Benchmarks, and Performance Standards approved in 2003 for third to fifth grades. Since this time, New Mexico and many other states have adopted the Next Generation Science Standards, which is based on the Framework for K−12 Science Education established by the National Academies of Science. Although the workshop did not include earth and space science concepts, introductions to the laboratory environment, demonstrations and hands-on activities supported initiatives to improve STEM education through practice, crosscutting concepts, and by disciplinary core ideas. (41) Laursen, S.; Liston, C.; Thiry, H.; Graf, J. What good is a scientist in the classroom? Participant outcomes and program design features for a short-duration science outreach intervention in K-12 classrooms. CBE Life Sci. Educ 2007, 6 (1), 49−64. (42) Research Experience for Teachers at the University of New Mexico School of Engineering. http://engineering.unm.edu/outreach/ research-experiences-for-teachers.html (accessed June 08, 2017). (43) DOE’s Academies Creating Teacher Scientists (DOE ACTS) summer program at Sandia National Laboratories. http://www.sandia. gov/LabNews/090828.html (accessed June 08, 2017). (44) Sandia National Laboratories. http://www.sandia.gov/about/ community/ (accessed June 08, 2017).
J
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00114 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
