The programme ran over seven sessions, approximately fortnightly. Student enthusiasm for the programme was clear, although there is no doubt that some of this was linked to the social aspects (meeting same-sex and opposite sex peers from other schools), and perhaps the novelty and prestige of working in the University environment. The numbers attending each session were mostly in the 20-30 range. Some students were very regular in their attendance, and others less so, but the general impression was that they certainly appreciated the opportunity to be involved.
Student comments about the programme
Students attending the final meeting completed a questionnaire at the end of the session, that included several open questions (see Box 3), and copies were sent out to the schools for other students who had attended some of the previous sessions. We were interested in finding out which aspects of the programme students found especially enjoyable, interesting and challenging, as well as how they considered the sessions differed from school science lessons. They were also asked what they thought helped them learn science, and what changes they might suggest to the ASCEND approach:-
- What did you enjoy most about being involved in this project?
- What did you find most interesting about the activities?
- What (if anything) did you find most challenging about the sessions?
- How were these sessions different to the science lessons you have at school?
- What type of activity do you think helps you learn science?
- Were there things you did not enjoy / would change?
Enjoying science
In terms of enjoyment, three particular themes can be identified in the feedback. The students enjoyed the way most of the activities were based around group work, e.g. "working in groups to work out things", and some of this related to being in a group from several schools, i.e. the "chance to work with different people". Recognising that the topics went beyond the school curriculum was also appreciated, i.e. "getting the opportunity to do things we don't do at school" or even "learning stuff that cannot [sic!] be learnt in school". In particular, there were a number of comments suggesting the activities had tapped into ways of thinking that were not commonly used in school science. So one student enjoyed "exploring new ideas and a new way of thinking [as] we were not just told facts but asked to think and question our knowledge". The notion of novelty was also reflected in "thinking about more complex things that I haven't thought about before".
The way the activities were set up was appreciated, as much as the topics met. Students enjoyed "getting the opportunity to tackle interesting and stimulating problems"; "learning things using different approaches to the ones we use at school"; and "being involved in interesting discussions". One student explained:
"It stimulated me to think about science from different angles. Made me think about simple things on a deeper level than I've been taught. Made me realise how little of the simple things I remember".
Interesting science activities
Again, students were interested in "learning things we would not learn at school". A number of the students, explicitly linked interest with being encouraged to think:
- "Expanding my train of thought"
- "Working things out from first principles"
- "Seeing connections between things and learning new points"
- "The independence and depth of thinking required"
Debate and discussion were considered to make the work interesting, for example: "Discussions about our opinions. Hearing others' views. Brainstorming." One student noted how finding out existing ideas were incorrect made work interesting: "bettering my scientific understanding, especially after being told I was wrong".
Challenging science activities
Interestingly students recognised that some of the features that made the sessions enjoyable and interesting were those that made the work challenging. Challenge came from:
- "Trying to specify one answer and cutting down many good answers to one real answer"
- "Reasoning my ideas, not just taking what I had been taught on face value"
- "Thinking about the connections between various things"
- "Thinking for myself, thinking beyond the box"
- "Wrapping my head around new ideas and new points of view"
One of the students explained that the work was challenging because of:
"In-depth discussions – really made you think. YOU thinking for yourself, not being told answers, having to get these yourself".
Comparison with school fare
The students had explicitly mentioned how the programme differed from usual school activities in their answers to previous questions. In response to being specifically asked about the differences, they referred to the sessions offering "more independent thinking", "less influence from teachers, more independent discussion".
One student referred to how "they [sic] made us do the work rather than being told it", and another reported "having to come to our own answers and conclusions, making you think". The approach was described as "less answers and more questions" and one of the delegates summarised the difference thus: "We were given a lot more space to think for ourselves and allowed to develop ideas further".
Overview of the programme
Most of the feedback was very positive. Practical work was considered useful in learning science by quite a few of the students, and some would have liked more 'practicals' in the sessions. Despite the comments about independence, some students would have liked more guidance. At least one student thought there were too many activities based around cards (a useful way of feeding-in information to be considered or sorted whilst avoiding too much direct teacher input). There were surprisingly few references to the large number of adults present (so that typically each group of four students had a member of the research team in close proximity at all times). Where this was commented upon, it was interpreted variously: being described both as
"having strange people taking notes and recording us"
and
"getting the opportunity to work with a group of experienced scientists".
I will leave the last word on the student experience to one of the delegates. Shortly after the programme ended, one of the partner schools included this account in a newsletter home to parents:
"Over the last few months, a group of researchers from [the University] have been conducting fortnightly sessions on various science topics, to see how we, as Year 10 students, reacted to them. These sessions were a lot of fun, for a variety of reasons. It was an interesting opportunity to mix with our peers from various other schools in the area, and the topics were very mind broadening, because we were largely left to our own devices, having been given some points and ideas to discuss. This meant we could have lengthy discussions with people from both our own and other schools who are as interested in science as we are, and we had lots of helpful science graduates around to help us, both by giving extra data and by making us consolidate our ideas by questioning us on precisely what we meant. The sessions were, if anything, too short, as they had provided lots of materials to analyse and discuss for each session. I think that the type of free discussion that was engendered was very helpful to us, but only because it was guided closely. Each session had a goal in mind, and this provided a focus for the discussions, which might otherwise have faltered more easily. If any opportunities arise for this type of thing again, I heartily recommend it to anyone who is interested in science."
Peyton-Jones, 2005
