Your job would be hosting/moderating live chats, approving questions, checking the site for errors and inappropriate content and helping to run the site. It’s actually a lot of fun as the young people are sparky and funny and full of energy. And hey, promoting science engagement is a good thing.

You should be bright, pick stuff up easily, ideally with an interest in science engagement. You’ll have great attention to detail and will enjoy being online. The site is all built on wordpress, so if you’ve used that the techy stuff will be pretty familiar. You’d be working from home, so you must also have broadband.

Please send a CV and short covering letter ASAP (by this Friday 2nd March), to Shamini on shamini@gallomanor.com telling us why you think you’d be a good moderator. Feel free to give us a ring to find out more about the job – 07527 021004.

Dates: 12th – 23rd March (weekdays)

Hours: 37.5/week, 08.30-16.00 GMT

Pay: £7.50/hr

You can find out more about the events at: imascientist.org.uk and imanengineer.org.uk.

By looking at teachers’ previous responses to the 41 questions we were able to identify the questions which worked, and the questions which didn’t. Using this information we’ve made the survey simpler.

It’s also more quantitative. Funding from the Wellcome Trust for the next 3 years allows us to improve the way we evaluate I’m a Scientist, and move to evaluating outcomes through more quantitative measurements.

My next task is to do the same for the scientist and student surveys, and cut them down from 28 and 25 questions.

These are just some of the questions we’re trying to answer about evaluating I’m a Scientist and other Gallomanor run projects. Judging from the first in a series of seminars looking at Evaluating Impacts of Public Engagement and Non-Formal Learning, last Friday 4^th November, others are thinking along the same lines.

The Core Issues & Debates seminar kicked off the series at the Dana Centre in London, and bought together a range of researchers, evaluators and learning and communication practitioners. Future seminars focus on areas such as how to reach new audiences, evaluating online engagement and using qualitative evaluation methods.

The 7 speakers approached evaluating impacts from different views – funding, strategy, science festivals, academic, and museums/science centres. There were some key themes that emerged during each of the 20 minute talks and the resultant Q+A sessions. (It would have been useful to have a bit more time for Q+A discussion after each speaker, as the allocated 10 minutes were quickly eaten into.)

1. Evaluation needs to be shared with others so all projects are ‘learning projects’. The British Science Association’s Collective Memory is a good place to start. It’s worth constantly thinking about how to improve evaluation during a project, such as changing evaluation questions so they return more useful responses.
2. Evaluation is very important right from the grant application stage at the start of a project, but shouldn’t be done for the sake of it, or just because funders ask for it.
3. There are still lots of questions unanswered about how to evaluate and measure the impacts of an engagement project. Is it really possible to measure if students are more engaged with or interested about science as a direct result of one activity? Is it enough to accept your activity is one of many factors that may have influenced a change seen? These will hopefully be explored further, and maybe even answered, in future seminars in the series.
4. Negativity can be hard to capture in evaluation. Evaluation studies can therefore be designed to try and capture negativity, such as framing questions to encourage participants to think not just about the positives of the event.
5. Bad evaluation that draws inaccurate or invalid conclusions from data can be more damaging than no evaluation.

Overall it was a useful introduction and summary of how impacts are being evaluated. Armed with my 7 pages of dense notes scribbled during the seminar we’re now working out how to put some of these ideas into practice with I’m a Scientist. This will likely spark another post in due course.

Click on the RSS symbol at the top left of the page to subscribe to the blog, or register for email updates.

Summary

I’m a Scientist Debate Kits is a project to help get more debate and discussion in the UK’s science classrooms. It was a Gallomanor project funded by the Wellcome Trust

• Over the last 18 months we have produced and distributed four kits, on different biomedical topics.
• Altogether roughly 4,500 printed copies, on three biomedical topics, have been printed and distributed, plus a further 4,000 copies downloaded.
• They have proved extremely popular with teachers, apparently meeting a teaching need for high-quality, simple-to-use resources to stimulate debate and discussion in the science classroom.
• Teachers judged them to be very effective.
• The kits got students seeing different sides to an argument, expressing their opinions and backing them up with facts, and developing their confidence and discussing science issues.
• They also increased teachers’ confidence and skills at running debates and saved teachers time in lesson preparation.
• Teachers told us they also supplied far more in-depth coverage of each topic than they would have had time to provide.

Key findings

Total kits distributed (print and electronic): 8,521.
98% of teachers would recommend the kits to a colleague.

The kits

• Were effective at prompting in-depth discussion.
• Engaged young people.
• Were easy to use and saved teachers’ time.

Download the full evaluation report (pdf)

Download kits, or make your own

For more info please email
debatekits@imascientist.org.uk

Teachers, please vote for which themed zone(s) you’d most like your class to take part in. There’s more explanation about zones under the poll.

If there’s another theme you’d really like to see, then email us (rosie@gallomanor.com) or let us know in the comments.

Further explanation about zones

How do I decide what themed zone to pick? It’s not a huge deal. The main point of the I’m a Scientist event is that students get an insight into How Science Works/HSW (particularly, how it really works). They are talking to real scientists, getting to see scientists are real people. They get insight into issues like science funding. So don’t get too caught up on the themes – HSW should still be the real focus. But a themed zone gives you the option of doing some more detailed subject work. Pick one that ties in with a topic you are studying, or one you think will capture your students’ interest.

Why do you have zones at all? To encourage students engaging more deeply with the issues. During I’m a Scientist students have to choose which scientist gets a prize of £500. Students can only choose out of the five scientists in their zone – this is so they have a chance to really get to know those scientists and think in more depth about which they will choose. If we didn’t have zones and students could vote for any of 100 scientists then we believe more would be choosing on who’s got the nicest picture, etc.

Are all zones themed? No. Half the zones will be themed. Half will be ‘general’ – this means a mix of scientists studying all different topics. General zones are named after elements. Have a look at the 2010 archive for an idea of the range of scientists, e.g. in Aluminium Zone we had everything from volcanoes to chicken behaviour.

Should I go for a themed zone or a general zone? Up to you, much of the experience (and the learning) should be the same in both. A themed zone can give you a more in-depth look at a given topic, a general zone can give students a better idea of the breadth of science. After the event last year we asked the teachers who’d taken part whether they’d rather be in a themed or a general zone next time and it was almost exactly 50/50. Once we’ve picked the zone themes for the June event (on Tues 26th April) we’ll email all registered teachers asking for your zone preferences, so you don’t have to decide now.

So, here goes! I’m Rosie and I’ve joined the team as ‘Project Executive’ so I’m dealing with the day-to-day running and admin of I’m a Scientist. Sophia is still producing I’m a Scientist but she’s now working part-time, giving her time to get involved with other exciting projects. I’ll be taking over as the main point of contact for the event, so you’ll be hearing a lot more from me! Sophia and I will both be keeping you updated through the I’m a Scientist twitter account, and to distinguish who’s who I’ll be ending all my tweets with RS. Sophia will continue tweeting as normal from @imascientist, with the luxury of not losing any precious characters through signing her initials at the end!

Santiaguito volcano erupting

I’m fresh out of university, having studied the Science of Natural Hazards at Bristol following a BSc in Geography at Durham. As part of my degree I went on a fieldtrip to Guatemala to see how local residents adapt to the volcanoes, earthquakes and landslides that disrupt their everyday lives. This time last year I watched Santiaguito volcano erupt at sunrise from Santa Maria volcano above,  toasted marshmallows on lava flows off Pacaya volcano, and visited the sobering site of the Panabaj mudslide that killed hundreds of villagers in 2005.

Bristol 'Doors Open' 2010

Back in Bristol I was really excited by science communication and public engagement so started volunteering at events such as Bristol ‘Discover’ Science and Bristol Festival of Nature. To give you some idea of what gets me excited, think back to mid-August 2010. Instead of being (sensibly) sat at my desk frantically writing up my dissertation I was standing in the middle of Ashton Court Estate making boats out of tin foil with kids. This was the Bristol International Balloon Fiesta and I was science busking with @Bristol Science Centre. Despite our modest stall being beside a giant purple Milka truck (complete with inflatable Milka cow and free chocolate!), children would repeatedly return to the @Bristol stand to experiment and compete to see whose ‘stomp rocket’ would travel the furthest. Being more popular than chocolate has never seemed cooler.

Since joining I’m a Scientist I’ve embarked on a steep learning curve. I’ve selected teachers for the March event, discussed evaluating the event, updated the Teacher Pack and our website and made many cups of tea. I can’t wait for March so I can experience the excitement of I’m a Scientist that I’ve heard so much about. See you there!

Destined to win IAS?

Thinking about taking part in I’m a Scientist, but wondering how to increase your chances of winning? Wonder no more, we’ve done some analysis of last year’s winners and here are our top tips on how to win I’m a Scientist…

1. Change your first name to Jo (or Joe). It seems that if you are named Jo in any way you are more likely to win! Five of our winners from 2010′s events were called Jo or Joe. Out of the 125 scientists who took part in the events only 6 were named Jo or Joe.

2. Change your surname to one beginning with C, M or S. 32% of our winners from both the March and June events had surnames starting with C or M. This is closely followed by those with who begin with S who won 12% of the zones. Out of everyone that took part (n=125) 11 had surnames starting with C, 13 with M and 13 with S.

3. Go arty. Only two people used a black and white photo – however both won their zones!

4. Have something interesting in the shot. An interesting background seemed to have an effect on your odds of winning.  68% of this year’s winners had one, the pictures included aquariums, mountains and the sea. A brightly coloured wall also seemed to work.

5. Get speedy with your question answering. The more questions you answer the longer you seem to survive. Some scientists from last year’s event who survived the early evictions answered over 400 questions!

6. Head vs Long Shots. Last year the majority of people gave us head shots (115 people), only seven gave us long shots and three people used either no picture or a non-photographic image. Out of this only two people with long shots won their zone and those who gave no photo did not win at all. This looks like a reasonable showing for long shots, but actually those five non-winners were more likely to be evicted first or second – and no-one wants that, do they?

So as you can see, in order to win you need to change you name to Jo McCormick and then take your picture in black and white in front of the Taj Mahal. Once you’ve done all of that you’d better get practicisng your speed typing! Easy right…

Oh, it isn’t???

OK, so correlation doesn’t mean causation and we don’t really recommend changing your name. BUT do give some thought to your photo. A friendly-looking photo does seem to make a difference (we mentioned this in our top tips last year). A close-up picture where people can see your face seems to make a difference. – i.e. showing just your head, or head and shoulders. Other than that, just be yourselves, and relate to the young people as people – don’t expect to lecture them!

If this has whetted your appetite, and you’re interested in taking part in ‘the world’s most stunningly innovative teen science education programme‘, then you can find out more, and sign up, here. Good luck!

HOWEVER, you’ll see that some suggestions I haven’t put up. This is because I wasn’t quite sure how they’d work, or they were a bit vague and I wasn’t sure what the right specific suggestion would be.

I’m explaining why (i.e. rambling on about this) below the poll. Please can you help me work this out?! Use the comments to add your thoughts and when we’ve worked out more suggestions I can keep adding things to this list.

A discussion on How Science Works (HSW) zone topics

One suggestion was a HSW zone. The problem with this is, who would we put in it? Sadly we don’t have enough time/money to develop extra teaching materials for each zone, so the topic has to sort of be covered (as much as it’s going to be) by the people in the zone.

So surely any scientist could go in a HSW zone? In fact they are all HSW zones! The main idea of the event really is that students learn HSW more than anything else (and that’s why the info sheets and lesson plans are all on HSW topics). I can’t quite see how a HSW zone would work, but I can see how we could have zones on some HSW topics.

For example, Verity suggests Investigative Science and Evaluating data. But again, who would we put in those zones? Surely any scientist could go in there? What would make it specifically an evaluating data zone?

Emily suggests a moral/ethical debating zone. I’m not sure whether she means one ‘ethics’ zone, or having zones on different issues. Which would you prefer? What issues would you want to see a zone on?

I would definitely LOVE to have zones on different issues – and potentially have some relevant scientists, but also social scientists or philosophers, who could bring a different angle. I think this would be a fantastic HSW exercise, showing the students that different sorts of evidence and points of view need to be considered.

One specific example, we’ve just brought out the cannabis legalisation debate kit. I would love to have a cannabis legalisation zone. Then I think it would make sense to have scientists who’ve studied the effects of smoking cannabis, for example whether it’s likely to cause psychosis. But also have a sociologist who could talk about the social effects of it being illegal, etc, etc.

Or would broader topics be better – for example, ‘Medical ethics’ which could then include medical researchers whose research has ethical implications, as well as, for example, a philosopher who specialised in ethics?

Would you like zones like ‘Philosophy of science’ zone? Although I’m not sure that we could have any actual scientists in that…

Would you feel OK in general about including non-scientists in zones where it seemed relevant? For example,last year we had a Drug Development zone. If we did that again, would it make sense to have a medical ethicist who could discuss the ethical issues in drugs trials?

Please contribute your thoughts, requests, etc and together we can work out some things that will work well for teachers and in the classroom, but also are feasible for us to organise:-)

I can’t promise that whatever we decide, I’ll be able to recruit the ideal people anyway! Of course I’ll do my best, but bear in mind that to an extent, broader suggestions are more feasible to put into practice (like I can’t promise to find five experts on the science of climbing Everest). But too broad and topics become a bit meaningless.

Our grant doesn’t cover printing and distributing this kit, so it’s online only. Just click the link below and print it out.

Download Cannabis Debate Kit (normal size) (pdf)

Download Cannabis Debate Kit (large print) (pdf)

The debate kit is a simple-to-use role play on the topic ‘Should the UK legalise cannabis?’. Your students play characters with different points of view and have a structured debate. It helps to cover the following curriculum points:-

AQA

• To evaluate claims made about the effect of cannabis on health and the link between cannabis and addiction to hard drugs.
• Some people use drugs recreationally. Some of these recreational drugs are more harmful than others. Some of these drugs are legal, some illegal.

CCEA

• the effects of cannabis
• the legal position of cannabis

OCR

• Discuss the consequences of the legal classification of drugs in the context of both school and national policy.

General HSW skills

• To practise discussing and debating issues and expressing an opinion
• Consider social, ethical and factual issues in an integrated way
• Think about different points of view
• Learn to back up their opinions with facts
• Using data to draw conclusions
• Societal aspects of scientific evidence
• Developing an argument

The kits can also be used for PSHE (or SPHE) and Citizenship. Designed for years 9-11 (i.e. age 13-16).

Key facts

Science Debate Kit: Free teaching resource
Activity: Role play on topic: Should the UK legalise cannabis?
Kits contain: Character cards, lesson plan, background info, suggested homeworks
Time: Approx 1 hr
Age: Designed for KS4, have been used for ages 11-18
Aim: Promote discussion skills

“I thought the IVF cards were brilliant for debating. It made the debate run smoothly and showed them clearly how different people have different points of view. By giving more info gradually, the pupils started to think about each situation and change their opinion with justification.”

Teacher, Winterhill School, Rotherham and I’m a Scientist pilot participant