Abstract
Marginalized individuals and communities have been largely disengaged in science museums, science festivals, or informal Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. This study recognizes these difficulties and aims to develop an inclusive STEM course. A conceptual framework comprising seven recommendations guided our online STEM course that comprised three STEM workshops, relevant to everyday life, and included art and traditional methods and tools. These workshops underwent a pilot phase for improvement and later included deaf/hard-of-hearing students. The improved workshop promoted inquiry question submissions from the group of students with lower interest in science and technology and its quality; however, significant differences were not noted in inquiry report submissions. The study emphasizes the importance of examining the inclusion of those with lower interest, and of examining the impact of long-term courses on student learning to ensure continuous access to resources.
1 Introduction
Marginalized individuals and communities have been largely overlooked and undervalued, thus necessitating an inclusive approach to science communication (Canfield et al., 2020). In recent years, the number of papers on equity, diversity, and inclusion in the field of science communication has increased, especially in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) engagement (Judd & McKinnon, 2021). Canfield et al. (2020) also suggested that a growing number of practitioners are testing inclusive approaches that have not yet been published in papers.
To proceed with inclusive STEM engagement, it is crucial to determine the target audience. A systematic survey of papers on equity, diversity, and inclusion revealed that the diversity of the disengaged audience includes women, persons with disability, and people with low socioeconomic status (SES) (Judd & McKinnon, 2021). However, it is thought to be difficult for the disengaged audience to participate in science museums, science festivals, or informal STEM education because of their inequal science and cultural capital (Canovan, 2020; Godec et al., 2022; Polino et al, 2024). It is crucial to find a practical and actionable way to include the disengaged students.
1.1 Research Questions
The research questions in the present study are RQ1: “To what extent has the online STEM course supported the inclusivity of students during the pandemic?” and RQ2: “What are the types of inquiry questions that students are interested in and keep exploring?”
1.2 Literature on Inclusive STEM Education in the Informal Setting
As Falk et al. (2012) and Godec et al. (2022) pointed out, there have been a few papers on informal science learning focused on women and low-income students, and “informal STEM education research has predominantly focused on those within the system, at the expense of understanding more about people who do not, cannot or will not participate in informal STEM education.” Godec et al. (2022) also suggested that many young people in disengaged groups reported being interested in STEM, yet rarely participate in structured and community based informal science education, such as visiting science museums, zoos, or aquariums. Hence, informal science education settings lack inclusivity, and fundamental changes in practices are needed to include people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds (Dawson, 2014a; 2014b; 2018). In order to help practitioners to reflect on and evaluate the extent to which they are working in inclusive ways, a reflective tool called “equity compass” was co-developed by a team of academic researchers and practitioners in the UK as part of a five-year research-practice partnership project (Archer et al., 2022). This tool is expected to guide practitioners in more inclusive ways.
From the practical viewpoint, it was found that most of the participants in a science café, where scientists and the public have a dialogue on science, were people with an existing interest in science and technology (S&T), instead of those with lower interest in S&T (Kano et al., 2013). Through the large-scale surveys (Goto et al., 2014; Goto et al., 2015; Kano et al., 2019), it was found that the group with low interest in S&T in Japan is more likely to be women or from a lower SES. Japan has the lowest ranking among OECD countries (OECD, 2021) for women entering STEM fields in university, which remains an issue of inequality. These studies suggested that the lower interest in S&T correlated with a lower SES and gender issues. In practice, it was found that collaboration with the arts (Bisbee O’Connell et al., 2020; Kano et al., 2020, 2013; Okumoto et al., 2018), targeting families (Kano, 2019; Rawlinson et al., 2021), or going to the places where diverse people gather, such as shopping malls (Goto & Kano, 2021) could reach the group of lower interest in S&T.
As Humm and Schrögel (2020) pointed out “only some empirical results and practical recommendations on success-factors for promoting diversity and inclusiveness,” there has been a gap between the theory and practices to include the disengaged. To fill the gap, Humm and Schrögel (2020) reviewed the existing five guidelines and recommendations and found six overlapped themes and a theme that was only mentioned indirectly but needs special attention to focus on the possibility of exclusion by requiring skills and knowledge to join an interactive exchange with science (minding the “openness paradox”). Based on their findings and the qualitative analysis with interviews, they proposed seven recommendations: 1. starting with listening to the disengaged, 2. reducing the distance and being accessible, 3. being relevant for everyday life, 4. going where people are, 5. cooperation is key, 6. minding the “openness paradox” and 7. implementing long-term activities. These are unique in that they are practical and actionable for practitioners to incorporate into their practices rather than reflection.
1.3 Conceptual Framework
This study is based on the current recognition of the difficulties in including the disengaged students of the group with a lower interest in S&T. The study aims to incorporate the above seven recommendations to develop an inclusive STEM course (Figure 1).
Conceptual framework between practical recommendations and practices
Citation: Research in Integrated STEM Education 2, 3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27726673-bja00026
Recommendation 1 suggests that the needs of the target audience, i.e., the disengaged students of the group with a lower interest in S&T, should be better understood and examined, as discussed in Section 1.1. However, it is also important to consider the ‘openness paradox’, as in Recommendation 6, which holds that an open and participatory approach may make it less accessible for the disengaged students (Humm & Schrögel, 2020). This necessitates cooperation with local stakeholders to make them comfortable to the open and participatory setting, which corresponds to Recommendation 5. In terms of Recommendation 2, online technologies, such as video conferencing, automatic transcription, and co-editing systems, enable participation from all over the world, meeting the condition of reducing distance and being accessible. These technologies also assist in fulfilling Recommendation 3 in that content is made relevant to everyday life (Priniski et al., 2017) and collaboration with the arts is common as already mentioned in Section 1.1 (Bisbee O’Connell et al., 2020; Kano et al., 2020, 2013; Okumoto et al., 2018), thereby reaching the disengaged more readily. Moreover, as representations and instantiations of science are typically executed by white, Western males (Bevan et al., 2020; Finlay et al., 2021), STEM content may be made more relevant to their cultural background using traditional knowledge or native knowledge. Other examples of practices are targeting families (Kano, 2019; Rawlinson et al., 2021) and going to the places where diverse people gather, such as shopping malls (Goto & Kano, 2021) as already mentioned in Section 1.1, corresponding to recommendation 4. Finally, regarding recommendation 7, Goto et al. (2018) suggested that science events could motivate participants, especially those with an interest in S&T, while long-term activities are needed for those with lower interest in S&T, through a large-scale longitudinal survey of participation in scientific events.
The recommendations are proposed with a comprehensive review and assessment of the guidelines and recommendations. Moreover, they are proposed to be practical in reaching the disengaged. Therefore, they are actionable for STEM education practitioners. This study proposes the design and development process during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it was needed to guarantee the right to receive education for everyone, even at home. The process should have been agile and adaptive because of the uncertain future and the requirement for rapid development. Therefore, this study proposes an agile and adaptive improvement process, such as coincident cooperation with a local stakeholder.
2 Background of the Study
Based on the conceptual framework in Section 1.2, we designed an online STEM course for families that targets and the disengaged students, and includes workshops relevant to everyday life, such as art and traditional knowledge, with long-term learning activities. In this regard, this may be coined as STEAM education, that is, Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics.
This course specifically targets elementary school students and their parents or guardians. The online STEM course offers three features: 1. The opportunity for disengaged elementary school students and their parents to learn scientific views and ideas with STEM workshops relevant to everyday life; 2. A ‘Home Lab’ system that combines the advantages of mailed experiment kits and online participation to reduce the distance and be accessible even during COVID-19 pandemic, and 3. A two-stage system of ‘inquiry question discovery phase’ and ‘inquiry phase’ that allows easy progress in exploration for a longer term. In the inquiry question discovery phase, students participate in three STEM workshops for three days to discover their own inquiry questions. Parents support students to do experiments during workshops and discover inquiry questions. Just after the discovery phase, students submit their inquiry questions. Then, in the inquiry phase, students try to answer their own inquiry questions. During the phase, parents and students may ask the science communication laboratory members, including professors and undergraduate students about any questions on how to tackle their inquiry questions. By the end of this phase, participants must submit their inquiry reports. A summary of this process is represented in Figure 2.
Flow of the inclusive online STEM course
Citation: Research in Integrated STEM Education 2, 3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27726673-bja00026
3 Research Methods
3.1 Context of the Study
3.1.1 Developing an Inclusive Online STEM Course for Families
For inquiry question discovery, we developed three kinds of STEM workshops that are relevant to everyday life and include art and traditional methods and tools: A. Japanese Traditional Chemistry, Technology, and Engineering— ‘Kakishibu’; B. Biology and Art, collaborating with an aquarium—‘Ecology of Capybaras’; C. Physics, Mathematics, and Art—‘The Secret of Musical Scale.’ These three types of workshops were chosen specifically as they cover different areas of science (chemistry, biology, and physics) and they can be integrated with technology, engineering, and mathematics. These workshops aim to give participants an opportunity to formulate inquiry questions and ideas for their own inventions, rather than just answer given questions. Details of the workshop are as follows. In every workshop, STEM experimental kits were mailed to the participants (Table 1).
Summary of STEM activities for each workshop
Citation: Research in Integrated STEM Education 2, 3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27726673-bja00026
A: Kakishibu is a fermented persimmon juice made with traditional Japanese methods. It makes things waterproof, antiseptic, antibacterial, and has been used as a burn remedy (Shimamoto, 2016). Using it, participants tried bouncy ball scooping, which is a famous activity during ‘Matsuri,’ a Japanese festival of scooping bouncy balls floating on the surface of water with a paper scoop. They can scoop many bouncy balls using a waterproofed paper scoop covered with Kakishibu, as opposed to the noncoated paper scoop with which they can only scoop a few balls. The participants then learn more about the Kakishibu tradition through quizzes. Finally, the participants were encouraged to propose invention ideas with Kakishibu, an example of which is waterproofed origami (paper folding). Through the activity and based on their own unique ideas, students were able to formulate their own inquiry questions on Japanese technology and conceptualize useful inventions. Thus, the workshop includes elements of chemistry, technology, and engineering and contents that are relevant to everyday life, such as bouncy ball scooping at Matsuri.
B: This program was developed in cooperation with an aquarium and zoo named NIFREL. We focused on the ecology of Capybaras, which are originally from South America, because they are very popular in Japanese aquariums and zoos, despite their ecology not being familiar to the Japanese people. First, participants imagine whether the capybara’s fur will be fluffy like a cotton or rumpled like a ‘Tawashi,’ a Japanese scrubbing brush. Then, participants made their own model of a capybara using a Tawashi, which is as rumpled as the capybara’s fur. Finally, participants predicted where the capybaras live, based on the fact that the Tawashi is waterproof and through watching a virtual reality video of a capybara at the NIFREL. Through these activities, students were able to formulate questions on the capybara itself and its ecology. This workshop included elements of biology, art elements such as modelling, and ‘Tawashi’, a traditional Japanese tool that is relevant to everyday life.
C: Participants made a one-stringed instrument using rubber bands and disposable chopsticks. They then tried to find a musical scale using the hand-made instrument and a smart phone tuner app. To support them, we provided a tool that can measure 2/3-and-a-half length of a string, which enabled participants to find notes in perfect fifths and an octave higher based on the Pythagorean scale. Through these activities, students were able to identify the mathematical and scientific questions concerning the secret of the musical scale. Thus, the workshop included elements of physics and mathematics and music as an art element.
The pilot workshops were developed after the onset of COVID-19 pandemic and were piloted from November 2020 to January 2021. The participants included 11, 14, and 11 families with elementary school students (Grade 1 to 6) for STEM Workshops A, B, and C, respectively. During the implementation of the pilot workshops, we found that the differences in the speed at which the work was done in different grades were significant. Therefore, for the developed course, we decided to recruit Grades 4, 5, and 6. We also found that the mailing of the materials of the workshop needed to be done earlier and the instructions on how to use the online video conferencing tool and the mailed experiment kit needed to be made clearer; improvements were made accordingly. Thereafter, we integrated these workshops into the inquiry question discovery phase of the STEM course (Figure 2).
3.1.2 Cooperation with a Non-Profit Organization for Deaf/Hard-of-hearing Students
In late April 2022, a non-profit organization (NPO) named Silent Voice, which provides online educational programs for deaf/hard-of-hearing students, contacted us about our inclusive online STEM workshops. Every three in 4000 children are deaf, and they are geographically scattered all across Japan. Therefore, an online workshop can effectively reduce the distance between them and make knowledge sharing more accessible. The NPO was interested in the concept of our inclusive and online STEM workshops and asked if we could offer it to the deaf/hard-of-hearing children.
It has been suggested that online education is effective for deaf/hard-of- hearing students during COVID-19, despite deaf/hard-of-hearing students finding learning extremely stressful during the pandemic (Aljedanni et al., 2021; Alshawabkeh et al., 2021; Lynn et al., 2020). It has also been suggested that using flexible and diverse communication methods is important to communicate with deaf/hard-of-hearing students (Gehret et al., 2017). In Japan, inclusive education in the public education system began in 2007. More deaf/hard-of-hearing students are now studying in regular schools with added support instead of schools exclusively for the deaf/hard-of-hearing (Kanazawa, 2013). However, there are challenges to the teachers’ professional skills regarding the education of deaf/hard-of-hearing students in regular schools. These factors have resulted in the narrowing of the learning environment for deaf/hard-of-hearing students. In this situation, the possibility of online education for deaf/hard-of-hearing students from the perspective of eliminating distance limitations and the possibility of effective video subtitling services for the hearing impaired have been pointed out (Ogawa & Noguchi, 2021).
3.1.3 Deaf/Hard-of-hearing Student Workshop Implementation and Workshop Improvement
The challenge in the collaboration was that the NPO uses sign language, which the authors were not proficient in. To remedy this, we proposed the use of an automatic transcription system in the workshop to communicate with deaf/hard-of-hearing students (Figure 3 (i)). A policy of using alternatives to sign language to communicate with us was decided upon, and the coincidental cooperation with the NPO to implement Workshop A for the deaf/hard-of-hearing students began in July 2022. One challenge faced during implementation involved the lack of a method to reengage the deaf students when they took their eyes off the screen during the experiment. To solve this, children were instructed to use paper panels to indicate their ‘I could do it/I have trouble’ intentions (Figure 3 (ii)). Students were then instructed to show the panel stating ‘I could do it’ to the camera to ensure their attention toward the screen after the experiment was over. When troubled, they could call for help, using the panel ‘I have trouble’. Pictograms were used (Figure 3 (i)) to minimize the use of language to reduce the burden of understanding signs and automatic transcripts.
Deaf/hard-of-hearing student course implementation and STEM course improvement process
Citation: Research in Integrated STEM Education 2, 3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27726673-bja00026
The improved inclusive online workshop for deaf/hard-of-hearing students was conducted twice on August 17 and September 30, 2021 for five students each. An automatic translation system assisted with communicating with the deaf/hard-of-hearing students. The deaf/hard-of-hearing students were able to experiment, conceptualize inventions, and express their own ideas without leaving the workshop proceedings to the same extent as participants in the developed STEM course in Section 2.
Based on this experience, we believed that the methods used to support the deaf/hard-of-hearing students—showing automatic transcription, using pictograms, and paper panels for the children to indicate their intentions—would be helpful for able-bodied people as well. Therefore, we improved the online STEM Workshops A and B to incorporate the support system for the deaf/hard-of-hearing students (Figure 3). Workshop C was not improved due to difficulties with the musical scale for the deaf/hard-of-hearing.
3.2 Research Participants
3.2.1 Participants in the STEM Course
From February 8 to March 7, 2021, thirteen families with elementary school students (Grades 4, 5, and 6) were openly recruited through online from all over the country and participated in the developed STEM course. In the STEM course, Workshops A, B, and C of the inquiry question discovery phase were conducted on March 27, 28, and April 3, 2021, respectively, followed by the inquiry phase from April to September 2021. Information on the course was registered on and spread through popular event announcement websites ‘science portal’, where more than five hundred thousand events of various types were listed by more than fifty thousand organizers and more than two million people have participated in those events. The announcement webpages were also disseminated through the university’s website and social media pages of the laboratory and laboratory members. Thirteen students and their parents participated in the course from all over Japan. The parents and guardians supported students to do experiments during workshops and discover inquiry questions.
3.2.2 Participants in the Improved STEM Course
The improved version of STEM course was implemented from November 2021 to February 2022 (Figure 2). In this implementation, Grade 1, 2, and 3 students were targeted because the workshop procedures were more understandable even for lower grades students. Eight students and their parents were openly recruited from all over the country to participate in the developed STEM course. The information was updated to describe the course in more detail and was disseminated in the same way as the first developed course.
In the STEM course, Workshop A and B of inquiry question discovery phase was implemented on November 13 and 14, 2021, respectively, followed by inquiry phase from November to February 2021. Eight students and their parents participated in the course from all over Japan. The parents and guardians supported students to do experiments during workshops and discover inquiry questions.
3.3 Data Collection
3.3.1 Data from the Pre-improved STEM Course
Before participating in the course, participants were asked to answer the questionnaire on their demographics. Three were women and ten were men. Four were in the lower group of interest in S&T and nine were in the group of higher interest in S&T, which were analyzed using the segmentation method developed by Kano et al. (2019). Just after the inquiry question discovery phase, six out of thirteen students (response rate was 46.2%) submitted their own inquiry questions and started working on their own research projects. By the end of the inquiry phase, two of them submitted their inquiry reports (Table 2). All six students who proposed inquiry questions were the group of higher interest in S&T and two students who submitted inquiry reports were men and the group of higher interest in S&T.
Inquiry questions proposed by six students
Citation: Research in Integrated STEM Education 2, 3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27726673-bja00026
3.3.2 Data from the Improved STEM Course
Before participating in the course, participants were asked to answer the questionnaire on their demographics. Two were women and six were men. Five were in the lower group of interest in S&T and three were in the group of higher interest in S&T. After the inquiry question discovery phase, eight out of eight students (response rate was 100%) submitted their own inquiry question and started working on their own research projects. By the end of the inquiry phase, three of them submitted their inquiry reports (Table 3).
Inquiry questions proposed by all eight students
Citation: Research in Integrated STEM Education 2, 3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27726673-bja00026
3.4 Data Analysis
We analyzed the difference of the inquiry question submission rate and inquiry report submission rate between stundents in the pre-improved STEM course and students in the improved STEM course, with Fisher’s exact probability test, which can be applied to small samples. Then, we analyzed proposed inquiry questions from the viewpoint of students’ interest in S&T and their quality.
4 Results and Discussion
The present study sought to investigate to what extent the online STEM course has supported the inclusivity of students during the pandemic (RQ1) with the seven recommendations for inclusive science communication (Humm & Schrögel, 2020). According to the recommendations, first, we targeted disengaged students (Recommendation 1), used an online video conference system to reduce distance (Recommendation 2), and aimed at providing a course at home, where families gather (Recommendation 4). Additionally, the workshops were made relevant for everyday life (recommendation 3), and we implemented long-term activities of inquiry (Recommendation 7).
Second, the developed STEM course was improved through cooperation with an NPO providing online education for deaf/hard-of-hearing students, a local stakeholder (Recommendation 5). Consequently, inclusive tools were developed to assist students in participating in the open discussion space (Recommendation 6).
We analyzed the inclusiveness of the developed online STEM course from three viewpoints: inquiry questions submission rates, inquiry report submission rates, and who submitted inquiry questions and reports.
First, in terms of inquiry question submissions, the submission rate for students who participated in the improved workshop (8 of 8) was significantly higher (Fisher’s exact probability test p < .05) than the rate of students who participated in the pre-improved workshops (6 of 13). The improved workshops resulted in a higher submission rate for fewer workshops and lower grade levels. This suggests that despite the inclusion of recommended inclusive elements, the pre-improved workshops posed a problem for participants in submitting their own inquiry questions; the improvements of the workshops made it easier to find the inquiry questions.
Second, regarding inquiry report submissions, there was no significant difference (Fisher’s exact probability test) between the submission rate of students who participated in the improved workshop (3 of 8) and the rate of students who participated in the pre-improved workshop (2 of 13).
Finally, regarding interest in S&T, all who proposed inquiry questions were not in the group of lower interest in S&T (0 of 6) at the pre-improved workshop, compared with improved workshop (5 of 8). These suggested that the improvement of workshops may have encouraged more disengaged students to propose more detailed inquiry questions, although it may not be possible to make a general comparison because of the individual differences among participants. These results suggested that design and implementation of the STEM course incorporating all seven recommendations better included the disengaged students than incorporating some of them. However, we found that a few students submitted the inquiry reports and those who submitted were all men and almost all were in the group of higher interest in S&T. This suggests that the improvement of inquiry question discovery STEM workshops did not lead to long-term activities for the disengaged audience, although the improved workshops facilitated participants to find their own inquiry questions in the short-term. This high rate of drop outs suggests that long-term inquiry phase needs to be improved to maintain overall engagement and encourage the disengaged to invest in their own inquiry questions.
These results suggested that the importance of collaboration with the local stakeholders and creating comfortable open discussion space as following recommendations 5 and 6. As a result, we found that the improvement of workshops with all seven better supported the inclusivity of the students.
The study also investigated the types of inquiry questions that students are interested in and keep exploring (RQ2). We categorized all inquiry questions from pre-improved and improved workshops from two viewpoints: the focus on specific question and possibility of experiments at home. As a result, we found three categories: “A. Focusing on specific questions, and can be experimented at home,” “B. Focusing on specific question, but observation needed at zoo,” and “C. Not focusing on specific question” (Table 4).
Three categories of inquiry questions
Citation: Research in Integrated STEM Education 2, 3 (2024) ; 10.1163/27726673-bja00026
We found that all inquiry questions in the category “A” led to the submission of inquiry reports and that all inquiry questions in the category “B” were proposed by the participants in the improved workshops, compared with that all inquiry questions in the category “C” were proposed by the participants in the pre-improved workshops. In the category “B,” only an inquiry question was explored. The inquiry was based on the encyclopaedia of animals and the observation at a zoo.
These results suggested three insights. First, the quality of the proposed inquiry questions became more concrete and focused after the improvement of workshops. Second, the inquiry questions that can be experimented with many times at home were likely to be better for longer-term inquiry. Third, when outside activities at zoo were supported by families, it could lead to further inquiry and submission of the inquiry report. This result suggested that continuous access to resources were important to keep exploring, although the category “B” was caused by the pandemic because it was difficult to do outside activities during the pandemic. This implied that STEM inquiry during the pandemic might be more challenging due to the limited access to the resources, as Chiu et al. (2021) pointed out.
5 Limitations
The number of workshops and the grade levels covered differed between the pre-improved course and the improved course; hence, they cannot be simply compared. A more empirical approach is needed for the course to be more broadly applicable. Moreover, it is necessary to examine how much the inclusive online STEM course includes those with lower interest in S&T, how a long-term course affects student learning, and how native knowledge may differ to general knowledge. Further, qualitative analysis is needed to examine reasons for dropping out of the course or not participating at all to understand how low-income minority ethnic groups may be socially excluded (Dawson, 2014b).
6 Implications
For future prospects, we could propose implications to practitioners. First, for better practices, it would be necessary for practitioners to incorporate existing recommendations or theories. Our study incorporated seven actionable recommendations and succeeded in developing an online STEM course, promoting the inclusivity of students during the pandemic from the viewpoint of the more participants who have lower interest in S&T and the better quality of inquiry question themes. Especially, it would be important for practitioners to collaborate with local stakeholders to develop a better open discussion space. In our study, the pre-improved STEM course without incorporating the recommendations “5. cooperation is key” and “6. minding the openness paradox,” still had some challenges to its inclusiveness. However, when we incorporated them, we could develop better open discussion space. Thus, incorporating practical recommendations could lead to bridging the gap between practices and theory in STEM education field.
Second, to support inquiry online, it would be better that partitioners facilitate students to focus on specific questions and support continuous access to the resources together with guardians.
Finally, as Dawson (2014a) pointed out, inclusive informal science education practices exist without making their way into the literature, and more research about practices that explore potentially inclusive activities are needed. We believe that the current study serves as a contribution to literature in this regard. Thus, it would be needed for STEM education practitioners to write down their practices’ design and implementation process into the literature.
7 Conclusions
A conceptual framework comprising seven practical and actionable recommendations guided the development process of the inclusive online STEM courses. First, we incorporated some of recommendations, but the developed STEM course had a room to be improved to include disengaged students. Then, we improved our STEM course to include all recommendations in cooperation with an NPO providing online education for deaf/hard-of-hearing students. The improved STEM course better promoted inquiry question submissions and its quality. Regarding the group with lower interest in S&T, the inquiry question submissions were more encouraged. However, inquiry report submissions were not promoted, which suggested an impact of long-term courses was limited. These results suggested that the conceptual framework promoted at least the short-term impact on the disengaged students. On the other hand, it was found that when the inquiry questions were focusing on specific questions, and can be experimented at home, long-term impact was expected. This suggests that continuous access to the resources would be a key for students to keep exploring their inquiry questions and submit inquiry reports.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the nonprofit organization Silent Voice, NIFREL, Osaka Aquarium Kaiyukan Co., Ltd., Kyoto University of Advanced Science Junior & Senior High School, and our lab members. Silent Voice members include Tomoya Onaka, Shoichi Idoue, and Takayuki Otsuka. NIFREL members include Hiroshi Obata, Hiroyuki Doi, Kiyoko Onda, Kazuki Matsuura, Sho Kozono, and Satoko Shibuya. Kyoto University of Advanced Science Junior & Senior High School members include Toshihiko Matsuda, Moka Hidani, Rui Okumura, Miki Wakayama and Kokoro Tahara. Our lab members include Rie Sano, Yuho Minami, and Haruka Makizawa. We would like to acknowledge all the participants in the workshop. Finally, we would also like to thank Editage for English language editing.
Funding
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 19K21760 and 22K18624.
References
Alshawabkeh A. A., Woolsey L. M., & Kharbat F. F. (2021). Using online information technology for deaf students during COVID-19: A closer look from experience. Heliyon. 7(issue). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06915.
Aljedaani, W., Aljedaani, M., AlOmar, E. A., Mkaouer, M. W., Ludi, S., & Khalaf, Y. B. (2021). I cannot see you—the perspectives of deaf students to online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Saudi Arabia case study. Education Sciences, 11, 712. doi: 10.3390/educsci11110712.
Archer, L., Godec, S., Patel, U., Dawson, E., & Barton, A. C. (2024) ‘It really has made me think’: Exploring how informal STEM learning practitioners developed critical reflective practice for social justice using the Equity Compass tool, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 32(5), 1243–1265 doi: 10.1080/14681366.2022.2159504.
Austin U. G., Jessica W. T., & Lea V. M. (2017). Approaching undergraduate research with students who are deaf and hard-of-hearing. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 20(1), 20–35 doi: 10.14448/jsesd.08.0002.
Bevan, B., Calabrese Barton, A., & Garibay, C. (2020). Broadening perspectives on broadening participation: Professional learning tools for more expansive and equitable science communication. Frontiers in Communciation, 5, 52. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.00052.
Bisbee O’Connell, K. B., Keys, B., Storksdieck, M., & Rosin, M. (2020). Context matters: Using art-based science experiences to broaden participation beyond the choir. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 10, 166–185. doi: 10.1080/ 21548455.2020.1727587.
Canfield, K. N., Menezes, S., Matsuda, S. B., Moore, A., Mosley Austin, A. N., Dewsbury, B. M., Feliú-Mójer,M. I., McDuffie, K. W. B., Moore, K., Reich, C. A., Smith, H. M., & Taylor, C. (2020). Science communication demands a critical approach that centers inclusion, equity, and intersectionality. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 2. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.00002.
Canovan, C. (2020). Sharing the pi: Are incentives an effective method of attracting a more diverse science festival audience? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 10, 217–231. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2020.1753126.
Chiu, T. K .F., Lin, TJ. & Lonka, K. (2021). Motivating online learning: The challenges of COVID-19 and beyond. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 30, 187–190. doi: www.doi.org/10.1007 /s40299-40021-00566-w.
Cormick, C. (2012). How do we gain the interest of people who are uninterested in science and technology? In H. van Lente, C. Coenen, T. Fleischer, K. Konrad, C. Milburn, F. Thoreau, & T. Zülsdorf (Eds.), Little by Little: Expansion of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies (pp. 77–88). IOS Press.
Dawson, E. (2014a). Equity in informal science education: Developing an access and equity framework for science museums and science centres. Studies in Science Education, 50(2), 209–247, doi: 10.1080/03057267.2014.957558.
Dawson, E. (2014b). “Not designed for us”: How science museums and science centers socially exclude low-income, minority ethnic groups. Science Education, 98(6), 981–1008, doi: 10.1002/sce.21133.
Dawson, E. (2018). Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 772–786. doi: 10.1177/0963662517750072.
Falk J., Osborne J., Dierking L., Dawson E., Wenger M., & Wong, B. (2012). Analysing the UK Science Education Community: The contribution of informal providers. Wellcome Trust.
Finlay, S. M., Raman, S., Rasekoala, E., Mignan, V., Dawson, E., Neeley, L. & Orthia, L. A. (2021). From the margins to the mainstream: deconstructing science communication as a white, Western paradigm. Journal of Science Communication, 20(01), C02. doi: 10.22323/2.20010302.
Funakoshi Y., Teruya H., Shimojo M., & Hatoma C. (2020). The current state and issues of education for hard of hearing students; from the viewpoint of independent activities and inclusive education in the new course of study. Journal of Inclusive Education, 8, 30–39. doi: 10.20744/incleedu.8.0_30.
Godec S., Archer L., & Dawson E. (2022). Interested but not being served: mapping young people’s participation in informal STEM education through an equity lens. Research Papers in Education, 37(2), 221–248, doi: 10.1080/02671522.2020.1849365.
Goto, T., & Kano, K. (2021). Evaluating the representation of participants in a scientific workshop held in a shopping mall: A challenge for attracting a Wide Range of participants in terms of interests and learning motivation in science. Japan Journal of Educational Technology, 45, 113–126. doi: 10.15077/jjet.44059.
Goto, T., Kudo, M., & Kano, K. (2015). Measuring representativeness of participants in public engagement events. Japanese Journal of Science Communication, 17, 3–19. doi: 10.14943/70473.
Goto, T., Mizumachi, E., Kudo, M., & Kano, K. (2014). Verification on the utility of using the segmentation method developed in Australia to assess audiences of science and technology events. Japanese Journal of Science Communication, 15, 17–35. doi: 10.14943/66441.
Goto, T., Nakanishi, K., & Kano, K. (2018). A large-scale longitudinal survey of participation in scientific events with a focus on students’ learning motivation for science: Antecedents and consequences. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 181–187. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.12.005.
Humm, C., & Schrögel, P. (2020). Science for all? Practical recommendations on reaching underserved audiences. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 42. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.00042.
Judd, K., & McKinnon, M. (2021). A systematic map of inclusion, equity and diversity in science communication research: Do we practice what we preach? Frontiers in Communication, 6. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2021.744365, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/744365.
Kanazawa, T. (2013). Examining the concept of ‘Support’ in special needs education. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 92, 7–23. doi: 10.11151/eds.92.7
Kano, K. (2019). A survey of participants in science workshops for parents and their children from the viewpoint of their interest in science and technology. Japanese Journal of Science Education, 43, 291–298. doi: 10.14935/jssej.43.291.
Kano, K., Kudo, M., Yoshizawa, G., Mizumachi, E., Suga, M., Akiya, N., Ebina, K., Goto, T., Itoh, M., Joh, A., Maenami, H., Minamoto, T., Mori, M., Morimura, Y., Motoki, T., Nakayama, A., & Takanashi, K. (2019). How science, technology and innovation can be placed in broader visions—Public opinions from inclusive public engagement activities. Science Communication, 18, A02. doi: 10.22323/2.18030202.
Kano, K., Mizumachi, E., & Ikkatai, Y. (2020). Research on participants and potential participants in science cafes and science art events from the viewpoint of their interest in S&T. Japanese Journal of Science Education, 44, 254–260. doi: 10.14935/jssej.44.254.
Kano, K., Mizumachi, E., Iwasaki, T., Isobe, H., Kawahito, Y., & Maenami, H. (2013). Segmentation and targeting of participants in science cafes- From the viewpoint of the extent of engagement in science and technology. Japanese Journal of Science Education, 13, 3–16. doi: 10.14943/61989.
Lynn A. M., Templeton C. D., Ross D. A., Gehret U. A., Bida M., Sanger J. T., & Pagano T. (2020). Successes and Challenges in teaching chemistry to deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3322–3326. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00602.
OECD. (2021). Education at a Glance 2021.
Ogawa H., & Noguchi A. (2021). Possibility of online education based on inclusive education. Journal of Transactions of Japanese Society for Information and Systems in Education, 38(1), 16–23. doi: 10.14926/jsise.38.16.
Okumoto, M., Hashiyada, S., Takahashi, A., & Abe, N. (2018). How an understanding of nature of a science café promotes a joint initiative communication style. Japanese Journal of Science Education, 42, 131–139. doi: 10.14935/jssej.42.131.
Polino, C., Massarani, L., & Dawson, E. (2024). Social inequality determines science museums attendance in Latin America: a quantitative analysis of data from seven countries. Museum Management and Curatorship, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/09647775.2024.2357069.
Priniski, S. J., Hect, C. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2018). Making learning personally meaningful: A new framework for relevance research. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), 11–29, doi: 10.1080/00220973.2017.1380589.
Rawlinson, K. E., Duckett, C. J., Shaw, H., Woodroofe, M. N., Lacey, M. M. (2021). Family-focused campus-based university event increases perceived knowledge, science capital and aspirations across a wide demographic. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 11, 273–291. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2021.1971319.
Shimamoto, T. (2016). Chemistry of Kakishibu rooted in Japanese culture. Chemistry and Education, 64, 348–349. doi: 10.20665/kakyoshi.64.7_348.
