Thai pre-service science teachers' practice of science communication in communities

This section describes the findings that emerged from the data collected from three pre-service science teachers regarding their practice of science communication in communities, after participating in a science communication course.

Using wording appropriate to personal prior knowledge or background

With regard to the activities in the Science Education into Community Project, the three cases found that they had to use wording found in daily life instead of scientific terminology in communicating scientific knowledge to the public. In the Science Education into Community Project, Wandee and Benjamas were responsible for the topic of “Musical glass bottles”. The activity was done by placing eight glass bottles in a line and then filling them with different amounts of water. The levels of water ranged from low to high. The tip of a pencil was used to tap each bottle gently at exactly the same height. This activity was used to demonstrate the scientific concept of sound. The children who Wandee communicated with were in the upper-primary level. On the first day of the activity, Wandee was highly confident in her science communication because she had taken the science communication course. In the informal interview, Wandee said. “I am sure that the children will like our activity.”

After Wandee finished the demonstration, she picked a child randomly to tap each glass bottle gently with the tip of the pencil. In order to make them think, Wandee questioned the children: “Why does each of the glass bottles have different tones like the sound of the notes?” Some children were picked randomly to guess the answer. Most of their answers were simply “because we filled the bottles with different amounts of water.” The children did not explain the scientific reason for the activity. Wandee then tried to explain to them that “... by hitting on the glass bottles, this created vibrations. The velocity of the vibrations depends on the amount of water in the glass. If there is a lot of water, there are not many vibrations. Therefore, the tone is low. If there is a little amount of water, there will be many vibrations. Hence, the tone is high.” Some scientific terminology in this explanation was too difficult for the children to understand. When Wandee randomly picked some children to describe this phenomenon in their own language to their friends, no child wanted to do so, despite the fact that Wandee used a reward as an incentive.

Then, Wandee realized that her explanation had used scientific terminology that was too difficult for the primary schoolchildren to understand. When Wandee asked the children why they could not explain this phenomenon to their friends, the children said that they did not understand “low tone” and “high tone.” A girl asked Wandee, “What is low tone?” Therefore, Wandee switched to the word “deep sound” in order to give an explanation. This helped the children understand, and they could answer the questions better. In her journal entry after the activity, Wandee wrote, “the children did not understand low tone. Their body language showed that the children were perplexed at what I meant. Therefore, I, as an explainer, switched to the word ‘deep sound’, which made it easier to understand.” Hence, on that day, Wandee also learned how to use language appropriate to the age of the information receivers. Wandee said, “in conducting science communication, the communicator must use appropriate language. For example, in a biology experiment, if we asked children to “cross section,” they would not understand us. We have to select appropriate words. This could be done by explaining the procedure while demonstrating it. Then, we have to explain to the children that what we have done is called the “cross section” method.”

Benjamas found that the children in the community did not understand technical words when she explained things to them. According to her journal entry after participating in the activity, Benjamas stated that “By hitting the bottles, vibrations were generated and that we should explain vibrations to the children.” Moreover, Benjamas found that the communicator should explain technical words to the information receivers for their better understanding. According to Benjamas’s journal entry, “when we hit the bottle which caused vibrations as the water in the glass moved.” Benjamas linked this statement to the learning activity in which the learners developed knowledge by themselves. In the journal entry made after participating in the activity, Benjamas stated “... in order to make children understand the meaning of words, we need to know the details related to those words. Also, in order to obtain this information we need to observe.”

Juree worked with people in her community to campaign the control of common house mosquito larvae in the community. In conversations with the people in the community, Juree had learned that technical words perplexed people. In the interview, Juree said, “the people in the community were advised to put Abate sand into containers which hold water in order to prevent the mosquito from laying eggs. We have to explain to the people about what Abate sand is and how to use them. We have to communicate with the language that people can easily understand. We do not use words that are too technical as they would not be interested in those words. Also, the people do not remember them.”

Juree, therefore, gave an additional explanation about technical words so the people would have better understanding of them. In the interview, Juree said that “according to my experience of working with the people in my community, sometimes the people were not able to understand what we have explained to them. It is necessary for us to change questions or explain some words so that the language used is what the people frequently use and is easy to understand.”

Juree also learned to use language appropriate to the age of the listeners. In the interview, Juree stated that “... I also used appropriate language according to the age of the people that we asked for the information. People at different ages have different interests. If we asked them what the species of the mosquito that causes hemorrhagic fever is ... what do we call them? ... I think this is inappropriate and useless. Since most of the people in the village are old and not well-educated, it is better to ask them if they know the mosquito that causes hemorrhagic fever. What do they look like? And, how can we eliminate mosquito breeding grounds?”

Similarly, Benjamas also participated in a stop-smoking campaign in her community. Most of the people in her community smoke. Smoking not only has bad effects on a smoker’s health but also indirectly pollutes the air and harms other people. Benjamas searched for information about the danger of smoking and explained it to the people in her community. However, most of them did not understand scientific terminology, which she noticed in the listeners’ facial expressions. In the interview, Benjamas said, “people in the community looked perplexed as they did not understand scientific words that I mentioned (e.g. nicotine, carbon monoxide, and radiation).” Therefore, Benjamas switched to language that the people would understand, and she used pictures to accompany her explanations, which made them more successful. In her journal entry after participating in the activity, Benjamas stated, “I switched to daily-life language and this made people better understand the dangers of smoking. Many of them tried to quit smoking.”

Providing reasonable and sufficient explanations to change the viewpoint and behavior of people in communities

Wandee tried to encourage the children to participate in the activity as much as possible. She found that apart from choosing appropriate language in communication, children’s beliefs and background knowledge affected their use of scientific terminology. After participating in the activity, Wandee stated in her journal entry “it took a long time for the children to be able to explain things by themselves. Some children understood thing slowly, some did it quickly. This depends on experiences of each child.”

Wandee also had the opportunity to conduct science communication about global warming to people in the community. She found that having experiences in common was helpful in communication because it increased the listeners’ understanding. In an informal interview, Wandee said, “in my neighbourhood, there were old people aged around 60-70 years old coming to have a chat together in the evening. On that day, it was very hot. The old people were complaining about the weather. I, therefore, explained to them about global warming. At first, there were perplexing because I explained the topic to them according to what I have read from a book. Then, I switched to use easier examples for them to understand the topic (e.g. burning away the refuse and deforestation).” Wandee also found that the reasons she gave to explain global warming to these people had to be both reasonable and convincing in order to change their viewpoint and their behaviour. In an informal interview, Wandee said, “I told them not to set the fire in their rice fields after they finished doing rice farming because this could increase the global temperature. Burning will produce gases that flow to the atmosphere and this causes the warmer weather nowadays. However, they asked that if they did not set the fire in their rice fields, it would take too much time and they could not do rice farming. I tried to persuade them for a long time to leave their rice fields, as this would maintain the fertility of the surface of the ground as well. At the end, they took my view and admired me a lot.”

Moreover, Wandee had an opportunity to explain some scientific principles of cooking to the people in her community. In the interview, Wandee said, “I had a chance to talk with people in my community who were curious about scientific explanations about cooking. They asked me that when we added some salt to the cooking water to boil eggs, why the eggs were easily to peel. I explained to them that there was a process of Osmosis. Osmosis is the process where molecules of water travel from an area with a lower concentration to an area with a higher concentration. The egg white has two parts: higher concentration and lower concentration. There is a process of Osmosis and the egg white with the lower concentration will get through the membrane. It will travel to the part with a higher concentration.” However, Wandee realized that she would need to find out more information in order to support her explanation and make it more credible. Wandee said, “I was not sure if my explanation was correct so I sought out the information from other sources. If I found that things that I have explained to them were not completely correct, then I would come back to explain to them again.”

Similarly, Benjamas found that children with good background knowledge understood what she explained better than those who had misconceptions. After participating in the activity, in her journal entry, Benjamas stated that “I was at the activity base of ‘Musical glass bottle’. I had to use scientific knowledge in order to explain and make the students understand. Some students have good background knowledge and it was easy for them to understand. But, some students have their prior knowledge with misconception and it took a longer time to explain to them until they understood.” Benjamas then asked the students who already understood to explain what they had learned to their fellow students. After participating in the activity, Benjamas wrote in her journal that “I asked the students who did not understand to participate in the activity again and asked the students who already understood to explain what they have learned to their friends. I question the students until they understood.”

Furthermore, in her frequent science communication, Benjamas found that the use of pictures or samples was helpful in increasing the effectiveness of scientific explanations. In the interview, Benjamas stated that “we need to make a concrete picture for the people in the community to understand by using pictures or samples when we explain. For example, in explaining about unicellular species like paramecium, which is very tiny, we need pictures or samples for better understanding of the students.”

Juree applied the knowledge she gained in the science communication course in her daily life. She found many incorrect viewpoints. In the interview, Juree said, “As I have studied Science Communication, I found when I have applied the knowledge to my daily life that each individual person has different background knowledge. Some people have incorrect beliefs, which we call incorrect notions (e.g. doing rice farming in the dry season). To do so would not make them whole. However, the local people still believe that it would be okay for them to do so. They thought that they did it in the past and others also did. This is an incorrect notion. So I tried to let them know and explain to them that it was not good to do rice farming in the dry season. But, no one believed me.”

Therefore, in Juree’s case, she gave an explanation with reasons in order to persuade the people. It would take time for them to change their beliefs. In the interview, Juree said, “... I think it is necessary for us to give them more reasons when we explain to them. We should inform them the pros and cons of doing rice farming in the dry season. Some people did change their beliefs when I explained to them. However, some still stick to their beliefs.” However, Juree did not give up, and she kept trying to change their beliefs. She found that a demonstration and an interesting explanation were better science communications than only a spoken explanation. In the interview, Juree said, “I began to change the belief of the people who are around me. Then, I asked them to follow my advice and demonstrate it to other people. If the other people saw that doing rice farming in the dry season only resulted in loss, no profits, and a waste of their energy, they might change their beliefs and the way of doing rice farming.”

Telling the truth about bad experiences with propaganda to promote people’s critical thinking

In communication with her friends, Wandee had an opportunity almost every day to use what she learned about critical thinking in the science communication course, particularly regarding beauty—a topic in which Wandee and her friends are interested. In the interview, Wandee said “I like to beautify myself. But, before doing anything, my friends and I will find out the information as much as possible in order to make a decision whether or not to go for it. This is a critical thinking in science communication as nowadays the use of propaganda is common in the beauty industry as to become a norm”

Furthermore, Wandee was not persuaded by the propaganda (e.g., plastic surgery and injections of glutathione to whiten skin). She also let her friends know about her thoughts so that they too were not persuaded by the propaganda. In the interview, Wandee said, “I would like to have a fair skin and I used to consider injecting glutathione to make my skin fair. But I have not done so. When I searched for the information, I found that a doctor has stated that if we inject Glutathione into our body, the chemical will inhibit melanin synthesis. Our pupils also have melanin. If the melanin is inhibited, it could result in blindness in the future. What the doctor said has made me think critically about the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. I told my friends about this. My friends agreed with me and they decided not to go to inject Glutathione.” Wandee also had opportunities to use critical thinking in discussions with her parents regarding scientific news (e.g., landslide, heavy rains, and floods.) In the interview, Wandee said, “My mom or my dad and I often have a conversation about the news that we hear from the media (e.g. television, radio, newspaper) before we believe so.”

Benjamas was personally interested in weight loss. She would like to have a good body shape. Benjamas applied her knowledge about critical thinking by not believing in propaganda. In the interview, Benjamas said that “there are weight-loss drugs, fat-burning drugs, fat-burning pills for a specific body part, fat-absorbing vitamins, and fat-reducing gel sold in the market. There are also advertisements that state that the drugs could reduce weight within 7 days or in one month. I think it is propaganda, and I need to do some research before buying those products.” Benjamas shared her views with her friends so that she had more information in order to make a decision about buying these products. In the interview, Benjamas stated that “I talked to my friend about the weight-loss pills that were advertised on Facebook for 3 bahts each. I thought it was very cheap so I asked my friend about the pills. My friend said she does not know about the pills but she used to take other weight-loss pills that did not have any side-effects on her. So I asked a further question if the pills are approved by Thai FDA. My friend said they were not approved by the FDA. She said if they were, some of the ingredients had to be changed and/or reduced. This would make the drugs ineffective. So, I had to think critically when listened to that and I reached a conclusion that the pills might be harmful.”

Benjamas also had an opportunity to inform her friends about her direct experience of weight loss. She advised them to switch to using natural ways of losing weight. In the interview, Benjamas said, “I used to buy thigh-reducing pills. However, I did not forget that I also had to consider about the danger of taking the drug. The result of taking it was that I got “yo-yo effect.” I gained weight back like before taking the pills. I also told my friends about this experience so that they could think critically before buying the drug.”

In the case of Juree, she met many people and received much scientific information in her daily life. Juree learned about critical thinking in communication by reading and listening to advertisements. In the interview, Juree said, “We need to find a lot of information in order not to be persuaded by the propaganda which states that the product is good. I think, Science Communication helps me to develop critical thinking so that I will not be persuaded by the propaganda. I read much more than before taking the course. Before I buy a product, I will find the information in order to make a decision. I will ask people who have used it, read some books, or search on the internet from credible websites.”

Regarding the issue of building an expressway in front of the university, Juree considered that she had to use critical thinking in communication. In the interview, Juree said, “there are many people who agree and disagree about building an expressway in front of my university. I think it is the issue of critical thinking in science communication. The information that we have obtained from watching television states that there is a calculation of risks to my university caused by building the expressway and the effects of having the expressway. There is a speed estimation of cars, which might harm students in the case of a car falling off the expressway. Other estimations are about the problems of dust, smoke, and noise. In distributing the information to the public, the media needs to consider whether the public will understand the information.” They also needed to consider the extent to which the public understood the information correctly and the effects of miscommunication. Therefore, Juree told her friends, who had not taken the science communication course, about this issue. They then applied critical thinking in science communication. In the interview, Juree said, “I have advised my friends that, as an information receiver, they need to analyze and apply their critical thinking when listen to the news and think carefully before believing it. All the things were related to science in some ways. I think that learning and possessing science communication skills are necessary. They could also help people to understand each other better.”

Using more than one communication technique in science communication to increase people’s understanding about science

Because Wandee was often assigned to do homework and present it in front of the class, she applied her science communication techniques to her presentation. In the interview, Wandee said, “I applied techniques that I learned to other classes when I had to present scientific research in front of the class. For example, I presented a topic about animal behaviour. There are two types of animal behaviour: instinct behaviour and learned behaviour. I also gave examples in order to make a concrete picture for my classmates.” In addition, Wandee had opportunities to use many techniques of science communication when she taught in front of the class. Wandee recognized this when she questioned students in order to encourage them to explain about science. In the interview, Wandee said, “While I taught in front of the class. I participated in the activity with primary school children by teaching about the five main food groups. I asked students to explain what they are and what the differences between each group are.”

In the case of Benjamas, when she had an opportunity to do practice teaching in a school, she applied the techniques she had learned about scientific listening, speaking, reading, and writing. In the interview, Benjamas said that “in doing pre-service education, I applied my communication technique. I found that the success of a learning activity in a class depends on both the teacher and the students. The teacher should have good technique of listening, speaking, reading and writing in science communication.” With regard to the listening technique, Benjamas said that “a good teacher should possess good listening skills. She should accept students’ opinions, listen to them carefully, and engage in what students are explaining to her. While the teacher listens to the children, she should write down the points that the students have mentioned in order to draw and advise the students about the pros and cons of what they have said (e.g. listen to what students have presented in front of the class)”. As for the speaking technique, Benjamas stated, “a teacher should have good speaking skills. She should speak clearly and concisely on what she is prepared to teach. A teacher should not go off-topic too much; she should be smooth-tongued.” Regarding the reading technique, Benjamas proposed that “a teacher should have good reading: read correctly, pronounce a diphthong clearly, and pause while reading (e.g. reading questions).” With regard to writing, Benjamas stated that “while a teacher is teaching, she has to write on the board. In order to help students to understand better, the teacher should write in a way that is easy for the students to read. Her writing should be in an appropriate size. She should write only main topics.”

Juree had an opportunity to do practice teaching in the same school as Wandee and Benjamas. She applied her technique regarding science communication when she held learning activities. The activities emphasized two-way communication in order to encourage interaction among children and the teacher. In the interview, Juree said, “I tried to use communication techniques to promote my students’ scientific explanation. We need to listen to the children about what they think and why they think so. We tried to question them so that they would talk about what they know and think.” During the class activities, Juree found that most of the children still had incorrect knowledge. Juree then tried to find a way to help to correct the student’s viewpoints by questioning them. In the interview, Juree said, “each child I met has different background knowledge as they come from different families and social backgrounds. When we gave them a correct knowledge, which is not in accordance with their own views, they would be questioning against the new knowledge. If a student has an incorrect knowledge, it is better that the teacher has questioning skills for asking her until she has correct views.” Nevertheless, Juree found that the students could not answer questions because they did not have adequate information. Juree then advised her students to seek information from other sources. She then found that the students could finally answer more questions, and they raised some interesting points in the discussion. In the interview, Juree said, “nowadays, many skills must be used in science teaching and presentation in order to make it more interesting, and learners would be enthusiastic to learn. This makes science communication easier.”