Introduction

The term ‘outreach’ has so many possible meanings that we need to start with a definition. The one that underpins the outreach program in the chemistry department at the University of Otago is;

 “Delivery of activities designed to inspire children and support teachers using student volunteers and their subject specific knowledge as part of an extended school program.”

In less formal terms it was recently described by a Ngāti Kahu kuia as being:

“The sizzle that goes with the sausage (of science).”

The reasons for tertiary education establishments to run outreach/community engagement activities are many and varied.^1–5 At Otago, one of the main drivers is the role it plays in the development of student self–efficacy;⁶ positive outcomes and learning in outreach instils confidence and belief in the students which is then reflected in their more formal academic educational achievements.⁷  

Debates on social media and the literature highlight many issues surrounding public engagement, discussing the role scientists should play and even questioning what public engagement means.^5,8,9 In 2005 Andrews et al.⁸ reported on participation, motivations and impediments to scientists taking part in public outreach in the USA. They found the three top barriers to staff and students were time, lack of information about outreach and lack of value/lack of support within the institution. This makes outreach difficult to justify in spite of the acknowledged benefits to the staff and students who reported taking part in the activities. 

These finding were echoed in a later study of other sciences⁹ which reported that 74% of respondents listed one or more significant barriers to their ability to do science outreach. The reported barriers were similar to the findings by Andrews et al.⁸: scientists and their lack of skills in this area, the academic focus on research output with its related time constraints and lack of training in non-research related activities. 

In the UK a study by the Royal Society about science communication¹⁰ reported similar barriers: time taken away from research being the major barrier, followed by other scientists’ disapproval, career disruption and lack of funding for outreach. External funding seemed especially important with 81% of the respondents saying that they would be encouraged to do more outreach if they could bring more money into their department. Burchell¹¹ also reported that lack of confidence and/or training is a significant factor in public engagement as well as professional stigma and lack of reward (implying lack of value) from institutions, especially around promotion criteria. 

In spite of the overseas situation, some NZ universities include outreach in promotion documents and many (if not all) of the CoREs have an outreach strategy, yet there is no “Handbook of Outreach” to guide people who want to do outreach. 

This article describes the program in the chemistry department at the University of Otago and its underlying operation. It’s not the only way to do outreach but it works for us and suits the skill set of the department and its students. Finally, there is a description of the establishment and development of a new engagement using a recent partnership with a Far North iwi and school within their rohe.  

School outreach

The first thing to address is why do school outreach? The definition highlighted above reflects a focus on engaging with schools with the aim of breaking down barriers and addressing misconceptions that often exist around public perceptions of scientists and creating a positive attitude in school children and teachers towards chemistry. It is driven by concerns from around the OECD about disengagement with science,^2,12–15 especially in communities where science  is not perceived as part of everyday life or is not seen as a relevant career.^16,17 

The current outreach program at the University of Otago was established in 2008 and initially focussed on pupils of intermediate age (Years 7 and 8). This was driven by research that shows that school pupils in most countries in the OECD are losing interest in science by the time they are 12 years old. However, once we started the program it became apparent that to travel to a rural school in south Otago just to see one class once a year was not going to have much of an impact. A conscious effort was made to expand the program to focus on any pre-high school class and undertake multiple visits per year with the intention of building relationships with schools, focusing on improving skills that also overlap with maths and other subjects and provide a safe environment for university students to practice their engagement skills (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Photos from a year in our program: (a) primary school pupils in rural NZ explore colours using plants from the school garden and dilute acid and alkali, (b) making plant extracts to test as natural herbicides during activities at a marae (Māori meeting house), (c) students in Taiwan making a sodium acetate stalagmite during a crystal workshop and (d) end of a visit and farewells at a remote rural school in Malaysia.⁶

Outcomes for university outreach students

Research into outcomes for university outreach students¹⁸ identified three broad areas that are recognised by students when they are asked to reflect on their experiences: (1) relationships with partners, (2) relationships within the outreach network and (3) their own learning through outreach. The outcomes show a wide range of attitudes and development within these three broad areas. At one extreme we see students locked into an expert-novice discourse and at the other extreme a reflective and self-aware partner in the community group. Students frequently position their outreach experience in a university context and fail to see their learning in a new light. Sometimes they even fail to see their development as learning, possibly because they equate learning with assessment. These results indicate that the design and implementation of an outreach program is important to the student outcomes.

Outreach at Otago

For our program, successful outreach means developing a positive attitude towards chemistry in young school children. As already mentioned, in many countries, including New Zealand, school pupils start to disengage with science as early as 8-12 years old,^12,13,15 especially at schools in rural and less affluent areas where science is not perceived as part of everyday life or is not seen as a relevant career.^16,17 By working with these communities, the traditional barriers between scientists and the general public can be broken down. This is an important step in the process of rectifying science disengagement. Working in schools means chemists are the visitors and the school is the host, generating a more relaxed atmosphere. This is an important consideration given that a study of the impact of our program on a small rural school has shown that a visit by university scientists can be stressful for pupils in our target demographic.¹⁹ 

The Otago philosophy of outreach is that it should build on children’s innate curiosity of their world using a wide range of hands-on activities during long term partnerships with schools. This is approached through a program involving a coordinator who mentors a team of chemistry student volunteers, typically using 2 or 3 students per visit, with up to 15 active students over an average year. The program delivers 80-100 outreach events throughout the year. It is valued by school partners that the coordinator is both a trained teacher and a scientist. The approach itself is nothing new - many outreach programs around the world use students to facilitate such activities and have ex-teachers acting as coordinators. However, we made a conscious effort to develop long-term relationships with a small number of target schools - two of our current partnerships have been running since 2008. There can be multiple visits to schools over a given time period, in some cases up to 10 times in the year. 

Our approach has two main benefits. Firstly, very close relationships develop with classes, teachers and families, to the point that invitations to attend school functions such as the end of year prize giving are frequent. Secondly, it allows our own students flexibility by providing a diversity of schools and activities. Students can postpone their involvement in outreach for significant periods of time and still work with the same schools when they return to the program. Running activities at different times each week, as well as evenings¹⁹ and weekends also allows undergraduate volunteers to participate, permitting long-term membership of the outreach team; students have spent up to seven years with the program and delivered up to 2,000 hours of outreach. Students develop skills, confidence and the ability to run their own section of the program with minimal support from the coordinator. A further benefit of such a flexible system in a range of schools is that the coordinator can mentor the students and suggest new challenges as skills develop (Table 1).^6,20 

This approach maximises the impact for students whilst minimising possible negative aspects of an outreach program such as time management, frustration and the feeling of lack of support.²¹

At the heart of the Otago chemistry program is a reciprocal, non didactic, way of learning. It recognises that both sides are involved in the learning process which moves away from the deficit model that has traditionally underpinned outreach and community engagement.  This is widely recognised as a more powerful way to work with communities around the world than the traditional model of scientists providing a one way transmission of knowledge.^11,22–24 

The model used is best described as ‘critical exploration’ with a focus on the outreach team learning about the misunderstandings of the school students that they are working with, rather than assuming what they know already, and then facilitating exploration of the topic. Critical exploration was originally pioneered by Eleanor Duckworth using research techniques developed in her research work with Piaget. She describes practitioners as trying to: 

“… teach in such a way as to make their students’ thoughts visible to them; and seeing their students’ thoughts affects how they teach.”²⁵ 

In order to do this, practitioners are listening to responses from their group and then drawing out their thinking, frequently with questions targeted specifically to individuals or small groups:

“What do you mean? How did you do that? Why do you say that? How does that fit in with what she just said? Could you give me an example? How did you figure that? In every case these questions are primarily a way … to try to understand what the other is understanding”.²⁵

Activities are designed to encourage conversations and create: 

“… situations in which the children are called upon to think, and to talk about what they think. It has two levels of meaning: both exploration of the subject matter by the child (the subject or the learner) and exploration of the child’s thinking by the adult.”²⁶

In the first instance the design and delivery of these activities is the role of the outreach coordinator. Their major responsibility is to provide a fluent and flexible structure to the program that can be adapted to new circumstances and used as the basis by outreach students in the design of their own school sessions. There needs to be a diverse range of activities that can be presented to school children so that they can explore ideas and be engaged and challenged.

The role of the outreach students in this approach is encompassed by three requirements:²⁷

• Know the subject matter and try to engage with the school students at their level of understanding 
• Recognise teaching and learning as an interactive process and encourage (joint) student-driven explorations, discussions and reflections requiring high student involvement
• Be open to self-evaluation, listen to feedback from the school pupils and their peers and look at what school students are learning as a result of the classroom interaction to continuously improve delivery.

The result of this approach is recognised by the schools and teachers that engage with the program:

“Factors that influenced the students’ attitudes towards the Chemistry Outreach programme included the scientists’ passion for science, a climate that accepted errors, the positive power of peers, reciprocal relationships, trust, and humour all helped to forge the students’ positive emotional connections with the science programme.”¹⁹

A typical outreach session starts with what we call a ‘hook’, a demonstration intended to get the school students engaged quickly with the session. It is also the time when we begin to find out things about the school students, their background knowledge, misconceptions they have and how they are understanding what we are sharing with them. This is where the questioning technique from critical exploration comes to the fore. The way the rest of the session progresses is determined during this time and the upcoming hands-on activities can be modified in light of the answers from the school students (and their teachers). This activity is open ended with no set time as we explore the chemistry with the class. This is an important part of our outreach training; newer members of the team observe and support one or two more experienced people as they take the class through this session. Discussion of the session in a debrief is important to new members’ understanding of what we are trying to do.

The ‘hook’ is then followed by a hands-on activity for the school students to carry out. There are a wide range of activities that can be used for this and two important resources that we use for starting ideas are the Salters Chemistry Club²⁸ and the Royal Society of Chemistry e.g. ‘Classical Chemistry Demonstrations’.²⁹ There are no set worksheets, as these go contrary to the approach as described above, but rather reliance on verbal instructions allowing the school students the chance to explore and work out their own way of doing things. The student team are closely involved with this and provide help/support/question/suggest when they see groups who are struggling or asking those “what if I do this….” questions. 

One of the benefits of extended partnerships is that it allows follow-up activities with a related concept/skills during future visits. This core way of operating can also be extended to work with families, for example in after school activities where parents are invited to come along with the children and try out activities and talk to the scientists. These have proved very popular over the years and are run in the school hall with a series of activities set up that groups can walk around and try. One frequently encountered learning point for our students is the relating of a poor experience by one of the parents when they were at school and how this turned them off science.³⁰ It brings home to our outreach student the underlying ethos of our program and the role that outreach can play in developing an interest in science.

As outreach students gain more experience they go through stages⁶ that can be identified through their reflexive practice: how do they see themselves and what they do? For example, do they advocate for outreach to other students? Do they act as mentors to new students? Do they start to develop their own ideas and activities and lead their own team? 

As can be seen in Fig. 1 this progression requires a program that offers opportunities for students to develop. Over the years we have been involved in several activities that have offered exceptional opportunities to students. One example is a project with international partners in Taiwan,³¹ delivering workshops on nano-clay tough gels, crystals and cyanotype chemistry³² as part of the Madam Curie High School Chemistry camp. We have also partnered with a number of teacher training institutions in Malaysia,³³ where we worked with teacher trainers and trainee teachers in schools and rural communities in Sarawak and Perak delivering activities around indigo synthesis, PVA slime, chromatography and plant-based pH indicators amongst others (Fig. 2).

These programs become an extension for our more experienced outreach team members, allowing them the opportunity to develop and test their learning in unfamiliar environments and situations and sometimes working through a translator (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Images to illustrate the variety of activities required to extend student development in outreach: (a) demonstrating activities, (b) front of house delivery, (c) planning outlines of activities with Māori students, (d) developing new ideas for teaching high school students, (e) developing new ideas and (f) designing, planning and running a program. These images represent typical steps in the ‘career’ of our outreach students rather than being seen as activities all students take part in.⁶

A fundamental requirement of the activities is that they are flexible and can be adapted to a variety of situations and age groups. It is not feasible to take several different activities to one school when we are travelling to rural schools and working with several classes with differing ages and abilities. Therefore, a single activity needs to be amenable to a range of ages, abilities and requirements. Some of these activities have been used with our international outreach partners and have proven to be equally effective in engaging school pupils across language and culture barriers.^31,33,34

Recent outreach activities

A recent opportunity offers an example of how outreach can start and develop and how initial contacts/requests for engagements can come through a variety of channels. In 2022 my wife went to work for Ngāti Kahu in the Far North (Te Hiku) to support their mobile COVID vaccination program. There were discussions within the team and the Rūnanga-A-Iwi about the distrust around vaccinations. This led to discussion around outreach, including the science wānanga program at Otago. Experience has shown that most people don’t quite understand the impact outreach can have on rangatahi so, as a koha to the iwi for their manaakitanga and whanaungatanga towards my wife, I offered to visit some local schools in the rohe. The team would do some outreach as a pilot to see how it was received, with a view to setting up a longer term program. In some ways this was an ideal opportunity, the  koha offer carried no undertones of recruiting students or trying to get publicity for the university - this was simply me offering my mahi. This is an important distinction, as outreach activities can be seen as a way of a tertiary educator getting into schools to recruit and for the relationship to be solidly built, it needs to be clear to the partners that this is not the primary goal. 

As a result I took a team of 6 students, and, in a supporting role, the Kaituitui Māori for the Division of Sciences and the senior university kaumātua for a one week visit in the mid year break of 2022. The team was a mixture, chosen to represent Māori students with whakapapa to Te Hiku, experienced outreach students and the two university rangatira with the mana to support the kaupapa of the trip. It was important that the first meetings with both schools and iwi went smoothly; the team was chosen for their ability to work with school-aged pupils and not academic ability (or even subject specialism).

The costs of flights to Kerikeri and vehicle hire meant it was more economical to fly into Auckland and pick up vehicles at the airport and drive north. The gear was shipped to the rūnanaga office in Kaitāia. Accommodation was a mix of a motel and a small house provided by the rūnanga. Five schools were visited on the first trip (identified by the Education team of the rūnanga) with students ranging from a Year 13 class at a Kura Kaupapa to new entrants classes in a rural primary school. Most classes did the same activities but pitched at different levels to reflect their age; this approach allowed the team to focus on only one or two activities over the week, kept down the amount of gear and simplified day to day operation. The focus was on engagement rather than teaching but, as usual, learning happened with all the classes, with lots of questions from pupils and teachers.  

Many of the schools were part of the Enviroschool scheme so the kaupapa of the trip was very focussed on chemistry with an environmental impact. The subjects chosen were plastic waste and making simple biopolymers for younger students and the bioactivity of kānuka for the older (secondary) students. One interesting issue was around the collection of kānuka samples and their drying and pressing for future study (with complete approval of the iwi and the school) and whether this was appropriate (how would it be viewed by tipuna?). Our kaumātua talked to the students about the potential benefits of such work as well as the importance placed on iwi permissions/partnerships in this type of work. It was a great example of the need for cultural support when non-Māori scientists engage in these activities, especially when developing those initial relationships. 

A formal meeting at the rūnanga went off really well, with the students all talking about their studies and aspirations. The attendees were especially impressed by the students seeing their role in society. They talked about how their future work would make a positive contribution to society, rather than being focussed on the science itself. There was a wide range of career plans; from a natural products chemist with plans to work with iwi to a pharmacist who wanted to work in Pacifica communities to address issues she had experienced. This was followed by one of the highlights of the trip - a sit down informal meal cooked by our hosts in the rūnanga Kitchen. This was a great chance for the students to chat informally and talk with our hosts. University science and studies were discussed, along with discussions of  students’ whakapapa and talk of the positive impact that had already been reported through the grapevine from the tumuaki, parents and teachers in the schools. One of the ‘Aunties’ (a term of affection used for kuia) said she hadn’t understand what we were doing bringing science into the schools but after spending a day with us and seeing the kids’ reactions in the classrooms she was completely behind a longer term engagement: 

“I didn’t understand what this science stuff is or why it’s useful, I’m so proud of my mokos and the opportunity this is for them.”

As a direct result of this evening, one of the students (a natural product chemist) was given permission to sample three kānuka trees on the papakāinga of one of the hapū. These samples and their analysis have become part of his Masters research and he has presented his findings to the rūnanga in both written reports and meetings at the rūnanga during subsequent trips (Fig. 4). The experience has had a big impact on him as a young pākeha scientist and he has learnt valuable lessons that will help him in his future career. His MSc thesis will include a chapter on his development of outreach activities during the trips to Te Hiku.

‍Conclusions

An active outreach program (as opposed to infrequent ‘one-offs’) can greatly enhance the engagement of university students with their own subject while developing skills that are difficult to teach in a structured degree program. It can also have a major impact in local communities since school children go home and talk, parents talk to each other and people on the team end up feeling part of a community. However, it needs support to run, not just financially but also resourcing staff with a time allocation to commit to logistics and delivery. It also needs staff (and students) who are willing to cover people if they are going to be away, e.g. working on a marae in Waikato (as happened to me twice recently). If you are lucky your institution will also recognise it for promotions.

References

1. Bolstad, R.; Hipkins, R. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Seeing Yourself in Science: The Importance of the Middle School Years : Report Prepared for the Royal Society of New Zealand; New Zealand Council for Educational Research: Wellington, N.Z., 2008.
2. Anderhag, P.; Wickman, P.-O.; Bergqvist, K.; Jakobson, B.; Hamza, K. M.; Säljö, R. Sci. Educ. 2016, 100 (5), 791–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21231.
3. Beacons for Public Engagement | NCCPE. https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/nccpe-projects-and-services/completed-projects/beacons-public-engagement (accessed 11/01/2019).
4. Leshner, A. I. Science 2007, 315 (5809), 161–161. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1138712.
5. Editorial: Encouraging Science Outreach. Nat. Neurosci. 2009, 12 (6), 665.
6. Mackay, S. M.; Tan, E. W.; Warren, D. S. Commun. Chem. 2020, 3 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-020-0315-0.
7. Clark, G.; Russell, J.; Enyeart, P.; Gracia, B.; Wessel, A.; Jarmoskaite, I.; Polioudakis, D.; Stuart, Y.; Gonzalez, T.; MacKrell, A.; Rodenbusch, S.; Stovall, G. M.; Beckham, J. T.; Montgomery, M.; Tasneem, T.; Jones, J.; Simmons, S.; Roux, S. PLOS Biol. 2016, 14 (2), e1002368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002368.
8. Andrews, E.; Weaver, A.; Hanley, D.; Shamatha, J.; Melton, G. J. Geosci. Educ. 2005, 53 (3), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.3.281.
9. Ecklund, E. H.; James, S. A.; Lincoln, A. E. PLoS ONE 2012, 7 (5), e36240. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036240.
10. Royal Society. Science Communication; Creating Excellence; The Royal Society: London, UK, 2006.
11. Burchell, K. Factors Affecting Public Engagement by Researchers: Literature Review; Policy Studies Institute, 2015.
12. Osborne, J.; Dillon, J. Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections; London: The Nuffield Foundation, 2008; Vol. 13.
13. Sjøberg, S.; Schreiner, C. The ROSE Project: An Overview and Key Findings. Oslo Univ. Oslo 2010, 1–31.
14. Martin, M. O.; Mullis, I. V. S.; Foy, P.; Hooper, M. Student Engagement and Attitudes – TIMSS 2015 and TIMSS Advanced 2015 International Results. http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/timss-2015/science/student-engagement-and-attitudes/ (accessed 17/01/2018).
15. Ministry of Education; Educational Assessment Research Unit; New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Science 2012; Wellington, 2013.
16. Archer, L.; Dewitt, J.; Osborne, J. Sci. Educ. 2015, 99 (2), 199–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21146.
17. Archer, L.; DeWitt, J. Science Aspirations and Gender Identity: Lessons from the ASPIRES Project. In Understanding Student Participation and Choice in Science and Technology Education; Henriksen, E. K., Dillon, J., Ryder, J., Eds.; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, 2015; pp 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7793-4_6.
18. Brown, K.; Shephard, K.; Warren, D.; Hesson, G.; Fleming, J. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2016, 35 (4), 643–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1137880.
19. Penrice, G. P. Rural Primary School Students’ Experiences of a University Science Outreach Programme: Explorations of a Cultural Fit between Students’ Culture and the Chemistry Outreach Programme, University of Otago, Otago, 2016. https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/6682 (accessed 2017-04-03).
20. Warren, D. J. Chin. Chem. Soc. 2020, 67 (12), 2233–2240. https://doi.org/10.1002/jccs.202000442.
21. Laursen, L. Transitioning from Researcher to Outreacher | Science | AAAS. http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2010/04/transitioning-researcher-outreacher (accessed 17/01/2018).
22. Buys, N.; Bursnall, S. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 2007, 29 (1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800601175797.
23. Byrne, J. V. J. High. Educ. Outreach Engagem. 2000, 6 (1), 13–21.
24. O’Connor, K. M.; Lynch, K.; Owen, D. Educ. Train. 2011, 53 (2/3), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911111115654.
25. Duckworth, E. “The Having of Wonderful Ideas” & other essays on teaching & learning.; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, US, 1987.
26. Duckworth, E. New Educ. 2005, 1 (4), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/15476880500276728.
27. Hoidn, S. Glob. J. Hum.-Soc. Sci. 2014, 14, 39–45.
28. The Salters’ Chemistry Club. http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/Salters/ (accessed 06/11/2019).
29. Classic chemistry demonstrations. RSC Education. https://edu.rsc.org/resources/collections/classic-chemistry-demonstrations (accessed 06/11/2019).
30. Weal, G. Science 2019, 363 (6434), 1407–1407. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat6054.
31. Kao, J.; Sutherland, S. P. H. Science 2018, 360 (6392), 974–974. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat6407.
32. Warren, D. S.; Sutherland, S. P. H.; Kao, J. Y.; Weal, G. R.; Mackay, S. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (11), 1772–1779. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00389.
33. Warren, D. Science 2018, 361 (6408), 1209–1209. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat6367.
34. Roxburgh, M. Science 2018, 360 (6390), 724–724. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat6040.