Interciencia

ISSN: 0378-1844
interciencia@ivic.ve
Asociación Interciencia
Venezuela

González-Espada, Wilson J.
The role of the scientific community In school science education
Interciencia, vol. 32, núm. 8, agosto, 2007, pp. 510-515
Asociación Interciencia
Caracas, Venezuela

Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=33932803

Cómo citar el artículo

Número completo
Sistema de Información Científica
Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal
Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto
 The Role of the Scientific Community
in School Science Education

Wilson J. González-Espada

SUMMARY

Scientists’ involvement in school science benefits science suggests specific ways scientists can help science teachers.
teachers, students, and the scientists themselves. This article Also, the benefits of scientists’ involvement for science stu-
familiarizes scientists with science education literature through dents are discussed. Helpful hints to improve oral scientific
research that supports their importance in school science and talks are presented.

n our highly techno-
logical society, scientists
have the responsibility to
do more than good science. They should
be involved in activities that disseminate
science knowledge to a broader audience,
too. Scientists should present their knowl-
edge to the public, which enriches their
culture and provides opportunities for the
development of future scientists (Gastel,
1983). One of the ways scientists pres-
ent science is to become involved with
schools (Timourian, 1993).
A gap exists between
those who teach school science and those
who do science. Teachers, on one hand,
are expected to teach how science works
without significant research training. Sci-
entists, on the other hand, are experts on
how science works but they are rarely in-
volved in school science education (Dru-
ger and Allen, 1998).
Scientists have helped
school science in the past. For example,
Bybee (1998) found that individual class-
room visits, science demonstrations, and
presentations on career day were shown
to be the most common form of involve-
ment of scientists with schools. In a sim-
ilar study by Druger and Allen (1998),
they found that presentations to students,
providing students with research oppor-
tunities, science teacher enhancement,
participation in science contests, and
donation/loan of equipment were identi-
fied as the most common activities of
scientists in school science education
(termed “K-12 science education” in the
USA). Unfortunately, the involvement of
scientists in school science seems not to
be widespread (Druger and Allen, 1998;
AIP, 1999).
Because of their ex-
pertise, professional scientists are in a
unique position to help science education
at the school level in significant ways.
Scientists contribute their perspective on
the overarching themes of science, sci-
ence process skills, subject matter knowl-
edge, and hands-on experience most
teachers and students lack. This article
familiarizes scientists with the science
education literature on scientists’ col-
laborations with schools. Ultimately, this
article aims at maximizing their chances
of successful partnerships with teachers
and students.
In order to provide or-
ganization to this extensive body of lit-
erature, three important elements will be
emphasized. First, when scientists help
teachers, it improves the presentation and
accuracy of the science content and im-
proves their professional development. In
addition, when scientists help students,
it provides scientists with opportunities
to interact directly with school students,
as well as clarifies misperceptions about
science from the perspective of a knowl-
edgeable practicing scientist. Scientists’
classroom interaction through effective
presentations shows that simply talk-
ing about science is not equivalent to
teaching science successfully. Scientists
should place themselves in the shoes of
school students, an audience with vary-
ing cognitive capabilities and instruction-
al needs they might not be familiar with,
so that their presentations lead to mean-
ingful and long lasting science learning.
Obviously, this article does not exhaust
the subject of scientists’ involvement in
school science, but is more of a helpful
introductory reference for those scien-
tists who are interested in contributing to
school science but do not know how.
Scientists Helping Teachers
Stereotypes
Many teachers see sci-
entists as “smart” and “intellectual”

KEYWORDS / Science Education / Science Stereotypes / Scientific Presentations / Scientist-School Partnerships /

Received: 06/26/2006. Modified: 07/02/2007. Accepted: 07/03/2007.

Wilson J. González-Espada. B.A., Physics Education, University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico.
M.A., Science Education, Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. Ph.D., Science Education, The University of Georgia, USA. As-
sociate Professor of Physical Science, Arkansas Tech University, USA. Address: 1701 North Boulder Avenue, McEver Hall 203, Rus-
sellville, AR 72801, USA. e-mail: wgonzalezespada@atu.edu

510 0378-1844/07/08/510-06 $ 3.00/0 AUG 2007, VOL. 32 Nº 8

(McDuffie, 2001). When asked to make a
drawing of a scientist, teachers predomi-
nantly portray scientists as a serious or
crazed male, middle aged or older, with
glasses, laboratory coats, and pocket pro-
tectors. Teachers often draw scientists
alone, surrounded by objects of research
(lab equipment, beakers, and chemicals)
or knowledge (books). Teachers rarely
draw scientists from a minority group
(Moseley and Norris, 1999; McDuffie,
2001). McDuffie (2001) compared preser-
vice and inservice teachers and reached
the conclusion that “Both groups describe
scientists as intelligent, hardworking, and
theoretical, but also as impersonal, bor-
ing, and nerdy … teachers’ stereotypes
are the same as their students on most
significant characteristics, that is, their
drawings of scientists did not evolve with
professional maturation”.
Challenging the teach-
ers’ stereotypical images of scientists is
important because it shows that the way
teachers portray scientists discourage fe-
male and minorities away from science
careers (Rosenthal, 1993).
Scientists ca n help
teachers correct any stereotypes about
scientists by challenging erroneous ideas
and presenting the successes and chal-
lenges of real science. They can also an-
swer teachers’ questions and establish a
professional dialogue.
Standards alignment
Many science topics are
not part of the formal school science
curriculum. As a consequence, even the
most interesting talk is not very helpful
if the scientists’ topic is too specialized
and it cannot address the prescribed sci-
ence topics that need to be covered by
the teacher. A science talk that helps the
teacher fulfill the schools’ instructional
goals is said to be “aligned” with the
curriculum or the science standards.
For the scientists’ col-
laboration to be more aligned with
the content needs of the students, they
should become familiar with school cur-
ricula. In many countries curricula de-
veloped by the government’s Ministry of
Education (or equivalent entity) must be
closely followed at the school level. On
the other hand, in the U.S., where there
is no centralized formal science curricu-
lum, the science education efforts of the
American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science (AAAS), and the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, through its
National Research Council (NRC), have
produced three seminal documents: Sci-
ence for All Americans (AAAS, 1989),
Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS,
AUG 2007, VOL. 32 Nº 8
1993), and the National Science Educa-
tion Standards (NRC, 1996).
These documents are
the basis from which most state stan-
dards have been developed in the USA.
These publications are not a preset list
of science topics, but a guideline of
what students should know, understand,
and be able to do in the natural sci-
ences over the course of school science
education. For example, the National
Science Education Standards (NRC,
1996) are divided into one category
applicable at all grade levels (unifying
concepts and processes in science) and
seven categories specifically tailored for
elementary, intermediate, and secondary
schools. These categories are: science
as inquiry, physical science, life sci-
ence, earth and space science, science
and technology, science in personal and
social perspective, and the history and
nature of science.
In order to align any
collaboration with the school science cur-
riculum, scientists must become familiar
with such curriculum. Scientists should
talk with the teacher and ask what topics
are appropriate for a talk. They can also
obtain a copy of the curriculum, usually
available online or through the school
administration.
Partnerships
The development of sci-
entist-teacher partnerships is an excel-
lent way for scientists to get involved in
school science (Timourian, 1993; Massell
and Searles, 1995). A large body of liter-
ature suggests that such partnerships help
teachers develop inquiry science projects;
create hands-on teaching aides; write
and implement state-aligned science cur-
ricula; model good laboratory safety
practices; obtain new or surplus supplies,
equipment, and publications; build sci-
ence self-confidence; integrate other sub-
ject areas into science lessons; and pol-
ish their science process skills. Scientists
also benefit from scientist-teacher part-
nerships by experiencing teaching in an
inquiry-based context and learning from
someone trained in teaching strategies,
assessment, and classroom management
(Alper, 1994; Massell and Searles, 1995;
Roy, 2003).
For a scientist-teacher
partnership to work, planning and open
communication are essential. The indi-
vidual scientist and the teacher, work-
ing as equal collaborators, must decide
what to do; set short-term and long-term
goals and objectives; meet as frequently
as possible before, during, and after the
collaboration; and divide the workload
and the responsibilities equally. The
teacher’s role is to keep the school ad-
ministration informed of the partnership
and its positive impact, and to prepare
his or her students ahead of time so that
they can adjust their routine accordingly.
Also, the lines of communication be-
tween the teacher and the scientist must
remain open by sharing contact informa-
tion such as work, home, fax, and mobile
phone numbers, as well as electronic and
physical addresses (Massell and Searles,
1995).
Advocacy
In a world where most
of the population is not scientifically lit-
erate, scientists must promote teaching
quality science in public schools and de-
fend science against those pseudoscientif-
ic, religious, metaphysical, and commer-
cial forces that aim at undermining rea-
son and scientific thinking. Bybee (1998)
suggested that scientists talk to state
and local school boards to declare their
support of a) science teachers and their
professional development in science, b)
improved school science programs, and
c) better textbooks. In addition, scientists
can advocate for an increased emphasis
in hands-on, inquiry-based experiences,
and the appropriation of adequate funds
for science equipment, materials, perish-
ables and technology.
Scientists Helping Students
The nature of science
Scientists can improve
students’ attitudes toward science by
clarifying what science is and is not (Ry-
der, Leach and Driver, 1997), as well as
the limitations of the scientific method
(González-Espada, 2005). Scientists, sci-
ence teachers and administrators should
have a common, accurate view of the
nature of science. For example, The Na-
tional Science Teachers Association, a
group of science teachers, scientists, and
science teacher educators in the USA,
developed a position statement on the
nature of science that should be consis-
tent with the scientists’ public views of
science. Some basic ideas about science
that should be stressed by scientists in-
clude (NSTA, 2006) the tentative na-
ture of science (“Having confidence in
scientific knowledge is reasonable while
realizing that such knowledge may be
abandoned or modified in light of new
evidence or reconceptualization of prior
evidence and knowledge”), the complex-
ity of scientific endeavor (“No single
universal step-by-step scientific method
511
captures the complexity of doing science.
Science includes observations, rational
argument, inference, skepticism, peer re-
view and replicability”), and a rejection
of the supernatural to describe and ex-
plain nature (“Science demands natural-
istic explanations supported by empirical
evidence that are, at least in principle,
testable against the natural world”. “Sci-
ence, by definition, is limited to natural-
istic methods and explanations and, as
such, is precluded from using supernatu-
ral elements in the production of scien-
tific knowledge”).
Scientists should clearly
understand creativity, multiculturalism,
and personal judgment in science, the
difference between theories (inferred ex-
planations of some aspect of the natural
world) and laws (generalizations or uni-
versal relationships related to the way
that some aspect of the natural world be-
haves), and the influence of the existing
state of scientific knowledge, the social
and cultural context of the researcher
and the observer’s experiences and ex-
pectations on science. Scientists should
emphasize the fact that basic scientific
research is not directly concerned with
practical outcomes, but rather with gain-
ing an understanding of the natural world
for its own sake (NSTA, 2006).
Scientists should also
point out that there are areas of knowl-
edge other than science. These are not
necessarily better or worse, just sig-
nificantly different from science in their
philosophical foundations and their vali-
dation of knowledge. An interesting ex-
ample is religion. Religion asks one to
believe based on faith, that is, religion
knows the truth (or truths as there are
many religions!) before consulting nature.
In contrast, science “consults” nature
first, asking one to understand based on
the evaluation of alternatives, evidence,
and reason. In science, tentative expla-
nations must be consistent with nature,
even if a better explanation is developed
later on (Lawson, 1994).
Scientists should warn
students against pseudoscience, a set of
ideas based on theories misleadingly put
forth as scientific when they are not (Sa-
gan, 1995; Shermer, 2002). Examples of
pseudoscientific ideas are astrology, ex-
tra sensory perception, intelligent extra-
terrestrial life forms landing on Earth,
haunted houses, ghosts, faith healing,
communication with the dead, and lucky
numbers. (NSB, 2002).
Scientists should talk to
students about being critical thinkers,
checking things for themselves or to ask
basic questions about the validity of a
claim (Shermer, 2001). Sagan (1995) sug-
512
gested several tools for testing arguments
or evaluating the validity of a claim.
These include an independent confirma-
tion of facts, evidence-based debates,
testing multiple hypotheses, quantifica-
tion and measurement of data, and Oc-
cam’s Principle (if there are two hypoth-
eses that explain the data equally well,
choose the simpler). Students should be
suspicious of arguments supported by au-
thority and not by evidence, people who
refuse to examine competing hypotheses,
complex arguments without logical con-
nection between constituting parts and
hypotheses that cannot be proven wrong
(Sagan, 1995).
Scientists help students
when they shift the perception of the
role of the scientist from an all-know-
ing authority to a facilitator, a guiding
figure that provides effective direction
and posed questions for students to think
about (Lawson, 1994). Ultimately, if stu-
dents get used to the idea that knowledge
comes from an authority, they will be
less likely to question ideas coming from
questionable authorities, such as pseudo-
scientists. Scientists can not only empha-
size the role of expertise in science, but
also suggest that even experts are some-
times wrong.
Research collaborations
Students can also take
advantage of the scientist’s expertise
through research collaborations and men-
toring programs (Waltner, 1992). These
collaborations have helped students expe-
rience authentic science, share their re-
search results with peers, solve interest-
ing science problems, feel a significant
part of a larger project and apply the ac-
quired science process skills to new situ-
ations (Fougere, 1998).
Moreover, scientists can
mentor students interested in completing
science fair projects. Most of the litera-
ture agrees that science fair participation
can be a valuable experience (Czerniak
and Lumpe, 1996). Many science educa-
tors think that student involvement is one
of the best ways to develop their science
skills, positive attitudes, and important
knowledge about science and the scien-
tific method that might lead students to
consider science careers (Grote, 1995;
Bellipani and Lilly, 1999). Galen (1993)
argued that science fair projects have
positive long-lasting effects on students
by helping them to identify their science
talents, to engage in scientific endeav-
ors, to learn how to use the library ef-
fectively, to meet community resources
interested in science, to obtain a deeper
knowledge in one science topic, to con-
sider science careers as an option and to
receive recognition from local and school
newspapers. Bundenson and Anderson
(1996) proposed additional benefits of
science fair projects for students, includ-
ing the encouragement of creativity, the
development of opportunities for indi-
vidual research and the exploration of
individual interests by students choosing
their own projects.
Career orientation
For students interested
in science, deciding on a career can be
a difficult task (Waltner, 1992). Scien-
tists can help students reflect on what
factors might influence someone to con-
sider a science career and what career
options are available (Timourian, 1993;
King and Bruce, 2003). Scientists can
share how they perceived science in
school, what school experiences can help
students be better prepared for a science
career and how to make good choices.
Students should have the opportunity to
develop a personal connection with the
scientist and learn that he or she is a hu-
man being no different from other peo-
ple. As one of the authors (Bruce) said,
“The physical presence of a scientist in
the classroom seems to have a tremen-
dous impact on the way young learners
view the profession and the way they
view science as a discipline. If we really
want to increase the size of the science,
engineering, and technology workforce,
perhaps we ought to send more scientists
into school science classrooms”.
Females and minority
scientists are strongly encouraged to par-
ticipate in school science. Reports from
the USA indicate that minority students
are more likely to attend inadequate
schools, more likely to be taught by un-
der-qualified teachers and more likely to
drop out of school. They are also less
likely to graduate from high school, at-
tend college, succeed in college, attend
graduate school or receive a terminal
degree (USDE, 2003a, b, c; González-
Espada, 2004). Not surprisingly, females
and minorities are also underrepresented
in science employment and training (Ed-
wards, 1999; NSF, 2004).
Surprisingly, schooling is
a possible reason for this under-represen-
tation. Lack of preparation and motiva-
tion in science among minority groups
in the early elementary grades under-
mines enrollment and success in second-
ary-level school science programs and,
ultimately, in college and career choices
later in life (Clark, 1999). For females,
researchers suggest that factors such as
gender-based disparities in classroom in-
AUG 2007, VOL. 32 Nº 8
teractions, differential expectations for
males and females in math and science
classes, and a tendency of females to at-
tribute academic problems in science and
mathematics as a lack of ability work
to decrease females’ confidence in these
subject areas. As a consequence, fewer
females take advanced mathematics and
science courses, and when they do, they
perform worse compared with males
(Kardash, 2000). Female and minor-
ity scientists can serve as powerful role
models to challenge the perception that
only white males can become scientists.
Stereotypes
As previously mentioned,
media often unrealistically portray scien-
tists in television, fiction, and textbooks.
Through these media, students develop
their own images of scientists. By the
second grade, students start to develop a
stereotypical image of scientists (Fung,
2002; Leslie-Pelecky et al., 2005). Sci-
entists can help students dispel errone-
ous and stereotypical images of science
and scientists. Research suggests that
most students think of scientists as white
males wearing a laboratory coat. When
students meet and work with scientists
who do not fit the stereotype, they real-
ize that a career in science is not just for
some (Massell and Searles, 1995).
Making Effective Presentations
Individual classroom visits,
science demonstrations and presentations
on career day are the most common form
of involvement for scientists with schools
Bybee (1998). In order to use the avail-
able time in the most effective way, sci-
entists must understand that presenting
at scientific conferences is very different
from talking about a science topic dur-
ing a school visit. Some suggestions for
scientists include:
Be aware of students’ misconceptions
Before preparing for an
oral presentation, the professional sci-
entists must be aware that students will
probably have some prior knowledge
and a number of misconceptions or al-
ternative conceptions related to the top-
ic to be discussed (Henríquez, 2002).
Throughout their lives, students have
received all sorts of scientific, pseudo-
scientific and non-scientific information
through their daily experiences, their
own environment explorations, their so-
cial interactions, media and formal in-
struction. As a consequence of constant
constructing, deconstructing, processing
AUG 2007, VOL. 32 Nº 8
and organizing the received information,
students have ideas that are not current-
ly supported by the scientific community
(Wandersee et al., 1995; González-Espa-
da, 2003).
Alternative conceptions
are tenacious and very resistant to change.
First, unlearning is extremely difficult
if the information “makes sense” from
the uninformed viewpoint of the student.
Also, the strong credibility of media is a
stumbling block to overcome. Finally, tra-
ditional methods of teaching science are
thought to be far from effective in fight-
ing the students’ stubborn incorrect prior
knowledge (González-Espada, 2003). Con­
sequently, the scientists’ effort to create
engaging and informative talks might be
wasted if the new information cannot be
reconciled with incorrect previous knowl-
edge.
An alternative to chal-
lenge the students’ conceptions is to
use a conceptual change teaching model
(e.g. Posner et al., 1982; Suping, 2003).
A scientist preparing a talk around this
model will a) probe what prevailing al-
ternative conceptions students have, b)
demonstrate using multiple techniques
that the students’ conceptions cannot ful-
ly explain the science concept discussed,
c) introduce a new, intelligible, plausible
conception, and d) direct students into
hands-on investigations on the correct-
ness of the new conceptions.
Use analogies and examples frequently
When preparing science
talks, scientists should use as many
analogies as possible. Analogies are
defined as bridges between familiar
and unfamiliar phenomena, between
what is known and what is less known
(González-Espada and Trantham, 2005).
Analogies, however, have some limita-
tions. Most importantly, what the in-
structor might consider analogous phe-
nomena might not be from the students’
perspective if some prior knowledge is
not there. Also, analogies are limited
by nature, so there is always the risk
of over-generalizing or creating errone-
ous analogical connections. It is recom-
mended that scientists follow research-
based models for teaching with analo-
gies (Radford, 1989; Glynn, 1991).
Also, researchers sug-
gest placing numbers in a familiar con-
text by avoiding scientific notation and
unfamiliar units (Gastel, 1983). Relating
magnitudes with those familiar to stu-
dents is another way to present quantities
in a friendly way. For example, some
teachers compare the size of an atom
and the diameter of a football field. In
this analogy, if an atom were the size of
the football field, the nucleus would be
the size of a grain of rice, with nearly
all of the mass of the atom within the
grain of rice. Other teachers use veg-
etables to teach the relative size of the
planets of the solar system. In this anal-
ogy the Sun is about the size of a giant
pumpkin, Earth can be compared with a
small radish, Jupiter with a grapefruit,
and Neptune with a small peach.
Including as many ex-
amples as possible is another impor-
tant strategy (Gastel, 1983), including
examples that are shocking, humorous,
and specific. Concrete examples are
the best since they serve as a means
for both students and scientist to check
their understanding and reduce reliance
on limited short-term memory. Ideally,
examples should be presented in a vari-
ety of different contexts and with many
different “representations” of the ideas.
Scientists can also use counterexamples
to demonstrate exceptions to a general
guideline.
Know your audience
Scientists can help stu-
dents learn science if they take into con-
sideration the students’ characteristics
(Gastel, 1983). The students’ developmen-
tal level is another important characteris-
tic. According to the theory of cognitive
development (Piaget and Inhelder, 1969)
most school students are in the third
level of development, known as “con-
crete operations.” In this level, students
start to think from different perspectives
at the same time, with a thought process
that is more flexible, organized and logi-
cal if the information is presented in a
concrete way. The resolution of complex,
abstract problems and the development
of hypothetico-deductive reasoning are
not achieved by many students until they
reach high school, while some psycholo-
gists suggest that not all adults reach this
final level, known as “formal operations.”
As a result, scientists should use as many
concrete experiences as possible, such as
audiovisuals, hands-on activities, coop-
erative learning and demonstrations. Au-
diovisual aids should preferably be used
after the students had the opportunity to
experience a science concept firsthand
(Lawson, 1994).
Keep it simple
Science education re-
form and the U.S. National Science
Education Standards emphasize a “less-
is-more” approach (NRC, 1996). Scien-
tists should limit the points they make
513
or the content they cover and then go
into enough detail so that the students
can understand. Talks that are too broad
tend not to result in significant under-
standing and long-lasting recall. Also,
they should avoid jargon so they con-
nect with their audience. Excessive jar-
gon use is probably one of the most
widely caricatured behaviors of scien-
tists (Gastel, 1983). Avoid technical
terms whenever possible, or define them
clearly when first presented.
Think about organization and context
Scientists can help stu-
dents understand the content of a talk
better if it is planned using an effec-
tive organization (Lawson, 1994). Scien-
tists need to organize their talks going
from the simple to the complex, from
the concrete to the abstract. Research-
ers suggest that concepts build on one
another, with the understanding of some
concepts being a prerequisite for subse-
quent learning (Gagné, 1977). The be-
ginning of the science talk can take the
form of an advanced organizer (Ausub-
el, 1978) or the presentation of the most
general ideas of a subject first, with
subsequent content presented in a pro-
gressively differentiated way in terms of
abstraction, interconnections, and detail.
The end of the talk should summarize
the main points.
The science talks should
include materials or activities that stu-
dents are interested in. Students get
motivated to learn if the content is pre-
sented in a fun way or if the material is
presented in a way that creates curiosity.
Also, the material should be contextually
relevant, related to matters about which
the students already know and care. Oth-
erwise, the students will not understand,
or will understand but will not be moti-
vated to find out more. As Gastel (1983)
suggested, “How to begin? With rain-
bows, not refraction. Influenza, not im-
munology.” She also suggests opening
a talk with a historical observation, an
item from the news, an anecdote from
a famous person, or a personal story. In
addition, the material should move away
from rote memorization or complicated
terminology that might confuse students.
It should emphasize the development of
thinking skills. Students should question,
analyze, compare, evaluate, and infer as
they are exposed to the material.
Use visuals
Scientists can enhance
science presentations through audiovisuals.
Research suggests that students remember
514
more information when effective audiovi-
suals are used (CTL, 1992). According to
the literature, audiovisuals: a) clarify lec-
ture material, b) provide additional cues
for memory, c) cater to students with dif-
ferent learning styles, d) provide intellec-
tual stimulation, e) offer a cost/effective
alternative in terms of time, and f) help
the presenter to get organized.
Harshaw (1995) discussed
a number of interesting suggestions to
enhance visuals. Many of them sound
obvious, but are often overlooked even
by the most experienced scientists. One
suggestion is to plan ahead of time.
For instance, scientists should plan to
use a certain kind of technology, learn
how to use it in advance instead of be-
ing caught off guard in the spotlight.
If possible, they should visit the class-
room before the day of the presenta-
tion and assure that the projected im-
ages are readable from all areas of the
classroom. The day of the presentation,
they should have it ready in at least two
formats, such as a Powerpoint CD and
overhead transparencies of the same
slides. On more than one occasion, the
author had to use “Plan B”, the over-
head transparencies, when there were
technical issues with the computer or
the digital projector.
Scientists should be
conscious of the best way to deliver their
presentation, including using visuals and
computer-created images only when they
add to the subject, instead of distracting
bells and whistles. Numbers and statis-
tics reinforce a point or provide context
during a talk. However, they should be
used sparingly to avoid overwhelming
the students. Finally, scientists should in-
teract with the students as much as pos-
sible during and after the talk instead of
a one-way discourse (Harshaw, 1995).
Conclusion
Few people question the
need to improve science education. As
scientists, our informed perspective has a
fundamental impact in the science liter-
acy of teachers and students, and it only
takes a few hours of our time. Visits,
classroom demonstration, partnerships
and presentations will only be useful
if scientists are committed and prepare
themselves to do their best. As Druger
and Allen (1998) suggested: “Research
scientists can individually contribute a
reasonable amount of time to school sci-
ence education. If each scientist does so,
the collective impact can be substan-
tial”. Following some of the suggestions
presented in this article is a step in the
right direction.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks
Daphne LaDue, Center for the Analysis
and Prediction of Storms, Norman, OK,
USA, and Joy Moss, English Depart-
ment, Arkansas Tech University, Russell-
ville, AR, USA, for their feedback in the
preparation of this article.
References
AAAS (1989) Science for all Americans. Ameri-
can Association for the Advancement of
Science. Oxford University Press. New
York, NY, USA. 246 pp.
AAAS (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy.
American Association for the Advancement
of Science. Oxford University Press. New
York, NY, USA. 418 pp.
AIP (1999) Joint statement on the education of
future teachers. American Institute of Phys-
ics www.aip.org/education.
Alper J (1994) Scientists return to the elementa-
ry science classroom. Science 264: 768-769.
Ausubel D (1978) In defense of advance orga-
nizers: A reply to the critics. Rev. Edu. Res.
48: 251-257.
Bellipani LJ, Lilly JE (1999) What have re-
searchers been saying about science fairs?
Sci. Child. 36: 46-50.
Bundenson ED, Anderson T (1996) Pre-service
elementary teachers’ attitudes toward their
past experience with science fairs. School
Sci. Math. 96: 371-377.
Bybee RW (1998) Improving pre-college science
education: The involvement of scientists and
engineers. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 27: 324-328.
Clark JV (1999) Minorities in science and math-
ematics. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science
Mathematics and Environmental Education.
Doc. ED433216. 4 pp.
CTL (1992) Media in the college classroom.
Center for Teaching and Learning. http://ctl.
unc.edu/fyc11.html.
Czerniak CM, Lumpe AT (1996) Predictors of
science fair participation using the theory
of planned behavior. School Sci. Math. 96:
355-361.
Druger M, Allen G (1998) A study of the role
of research scientists in K-12 science educa-
tion. Am. Biol. Teacher 60: 344-349.
Edwards LD (1999) Using multimedia to coun-
ter stereotypes in science classrooms: New
perceptions on who becomes a scientist.
Annual Convention of the Association for
Educational Communications and Technol-
ogy. Houston, TX, USA. 14 pp.
Fougere M (1998) The educational benefits to
middle school students participating in a
student/scientist project. J. Sci. Educ. Tech-
nol. 7: 25-30.
Fung YYH (2002) A comparative study of pri-
mary and secondary school students’ im-
ages of scientists. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ.
20: 199-213.
Gagné RM (1977) The conditions for learning.
3rd ed. Holt, Rinehart, Winston. New York,
NY, USA. 339 pp.
Galen DF (1993) Science fair: A successful ven-
ture. Am. Biol. Teacher 55: 464-467.
Gastel B (1983) Presenting science to the pub-
lic. ISI. Philadelphia, PA, USA. 146 pp.
AUG 2007, VOL. 32 Nº 8
Glynn SM (1991) Explaining science concepts:
A teaching-with-analogies model. In
Glynn SM, Yeany RH, Britton BK (Eds.)
The psychology of learning science. Law-
rence Erlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ, USA. pp.
219-240.
González-Espada WJ (2003) A last chance
for getting it right: Addressing alternative
conceptions in the physical sciences. Phys.
Teacher 41: 36-38.
González-Espada WJ (2004) Multicultural edu-
cation: helping all students succeed in sci-
ence. Electr. J. Lit. through Sci. 3: 1-14.
González-Espada WJ (2005) Las limitaciones
del método científico. Spin Cero 9: 87-91.
González-Espada WJ, Trantham K (2005) How
is energy like money? Using analogies in
physics teaching. School Sci. Rev. 86: 85-
90.
Grote MG (1995) Science teacher educators’
opinions about science projects and science
fairs. J. Sci. Teacher Educ. 6: 48-52.
Harshaw L (1995) 101 Top Tips. Presentations.
Dec. 1995. pp. 7-26.
Henríquez L (2002) Children’s ideas about
weather: A review of the literature. School
Sci. Math. 102: 202-215.
Kardash CM (2000) Evaluation of an under-
graduate research experience: Perceptions
of undergraduate interns and their faculty
mentors. J. Educ. Psychol. 92: 191-201.
King MD, Bruce MC (2003) Inspired by real
science. Sci. Child. 40: 30-34.
Lawson AE (1994) Science teaching and the de-
velopment of thinking. Wadsworth. Belmont,
CA, USA. 593 pp.
Leslie-Pelecky DL, Buck GA, Zabawa A (2005)
Broadening middle school students’ images
of science and scientists. J. Mat. Educ. 27:
173-178.
Massell LN, Searles GM (1995) An alliance for
science. Sci. Child. 32: 22-25.
McDuffie TE (2001) Scientists: Geeks and
nerds? Sci. Child. 38: 16-19.
Moseley C, Norris D (1999) Pre-service teachers’
views of scientists. Sci. Child. 37: 50-53.
NRC (1996) National science education stan-
dards. National Research Council National
Academy Press. Washington, DC, USA. 262
pp.
NSB (2002) Science and engineering indicators
2002. NSB-02-1. National Science Board.
National Science Foundation. Arlington,
VA, USA. 488 pp.
NSF (2004) Women, minorities, and persons
with disabilities in science and engineering.
NSF 04-317. National Science Foundation.
Arlington, VA, USA. 316 p.
NSTA (2006) Position statement on the nature
of science. National Science Teachers As-
sociation www.nsta.org/positionstatement&
psid=22.
Piaget J, Inhelder B (1969) The psychology of
the child. Basic Books. New York, NY,
USA. 173 pp.
Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson, PW Gertzog
WA (1982) Accommodation of a scientific
conception: Towards a theory of conceptual
change. Sci. Educ. 66: 211-227.
Radford D (1989) Promoting learning through
the use of analogies in high school biol-
ogy textbooks. 62 nd Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research in Sci-
ence Teaching, San Francisco, CA, USA.
28 pp.
Rosenthal DB (1993) Images of scientists: A
comparison of biology and liberal studies
majors. School Sci. Math. 93: 212-216.
Roy K (2003) Safe speakers. Sci. Scope 27: 10.
Ryder J, Leach J, Driver R (1997) Undergradu-
ate science students’ images of the nature
of science. Annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago,
IL, USA. 18 pp.
Sagan C (1995) The demon-haunted world:
Science as a candle in the dark. Random
House. New York, NY, USA. 457 pp.
Shermer M (2001) Baloney detection. Scient.
Am. 285: 36.
Shermer M (2002) Why people believe weird
things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and
other confusions of our time. Freeman. New
York, NY, USA. 349 pp.
Suping SM (2003) Conceptual change among
students in science. ERIC Clearinghouse
for Science Mathematics and Environmental
Education. Doc. ED482723. 4 pp.
Timourian H (1993) Training the scientific com-
munity. In Sussman A (Ed.) Science educa-
tion partnerships: Manual for scientists and
K-12 teachers. University of California. San
Francisco, CA, USA. pp. 55-60.
USDE (2003a) From risk to opportunity: Fulfill-
ing the educational needs of Hispanic Ameri-
cans in the 21st century. President’s Advisory
Commission on Educational Excellence for
Hispanic Americans. U.S. Department of Edu-
cation. Washington, DC, USA. 82 pp.
USDE (2003b) National Center for Education Sta-
tistics: Status and trends in the education of
Blacks, by Kathryn Hoffman and Charmaine
Llagas. Project Officer: Thomas D. Snyder.
(NCES 2003-034). U.S. Department of Edu-
cation. Washington, DC, USA. 182 pp.
USDE (2003c) National Center for Education
Statistics: Status and trends in the educa-
tion of Hispanics, by Charmaine Llagas.
Project Officer: Thomas D. Snyder. (NCES
2003–008). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC, USA. 182 pp.
Waltner JC (1992) Learning from scientists at
work. Educ. Leadership 49: 48-52.
Wandersee JH, Mintzes JJ, Novak JD (1995) Re-
search on alternative conceptions in science.
In Gabel DL (Ed.) Handbook of research
on science teaching and learning. Macmil-
lan. New York, NY, USA. pp. 177-210.

EL PAPEL DE LA COMUNIDAD CIENTÍFICA EN LA ENSEÑANZA ESCOLAR DE LA CIENCIA

Wilson J. González-Espada

RESUMEN

Cuando los científicos profesionales colaboran con las escue-
las, todos se benefician. Este artículo familiariza a la comunidad
científica con la literatura asociada a la didáctica de las cien-
cias, en particular aquella que resume las razones por las que
la comunidad científica debe ayudar a los maestros y estudiantes
de escuela. Además, se presentan sugerencias concretas para fo-
mentar la colaboración científico-maestro y científico-estudiante.
El artículo también discute sugerencias para aumentar la calidad
de las charlas que los científicos suelen ofrecer a los estudiantes
de escuela.

O PAPEL DA COMUNIDADE DE CIENTISTAS EM INSTITUTOS DE EDUCAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA

Wilson J. González-Espada

RESUMO
O envolvimento de cientistas com institutos de ciências
beneficia aos professores, alunos de ciências e aos própri-
os cientistas. Este artigo familiariza aos cientistas com as
publicações de educação científica através de pesquisas que
apóiam sua importância em institutos de educação científica
e sugere vias específicas para que os cientistas possam aju-
dar aos professores de ciências. Também são discutidos os
benefícios, do envolvimento de cientistas, para os estudantes
de ciências. São apresentadas sugestões úteis para melhorar
as palestras científicas.

AUG 2007, VOL. 32 Nº 8 515