Presentation from Susanne Kretschmer at the eucu.net general assembly in Leuven (31.05.2017)

1. Science and the Public:
Children‘s Universities
Theoretical reflections
and empirical studies
Susanne Kretschmer
Dissertation 2015

2. Controversy
„Children‘s Universities ensure important bonus
points in society for universities, but at the same
time children are used as advertisement for
media production. The symbolic space of the
university is the main aspect, and the event
itself is the goal.“
(Peter Tremp, Swiss educationalist, 2004)

3. Controversy
„Children‘s Universities are unnecessary…[they]
give answers to questions that children haven‘t
asked…The children think that they are learning
something. But what it is that they have learned
they cannot name precisely. But if they can‘t do
that, the knowledge is worthless because they
cannot use it to better understand themselves
and the world. It only hinders their sensual
perceptions.“
(Salman Ansari, German educationalist and publicist, 2015)

4. Aims
Are Children‘s Universities:
• Public relations of universities to stakeholders
and a means of recruiting future students and
scientists?
• part of a political campaign to enhance scientific
literacy and support interest in (economically and
socially relevant) science and technology?
• a means of fostering child development and
participation in society?

5. Research Questions
(1) Why is it so difficult to determine what
Children‘s Universities are for? Why is there a
controversy?
(2) What constitutes „learning“ in Children‘s
Universities?
(3) Is there a pedagogical value in Children‘s
Universities? What is it?

6. Methodoloy: Theory
Defining/Reflecting on
1. Science Communication
2. Learning
3. Scientific Literacy

7. Methodology: Empirical Study
• Focus group (10 Children, regular visits to
lectures at Children‘s University Bonn,
interviews, observation)
 What does the Children‘s University mean to
them?
 What is „Learning“ according to them?

8. Methodology: Empirical Study
• Interviews with 3 lecturers
> What is their motivation of taking part?
> What aims do they intend to achieve?
> What do they think about their role in
science communication?

9. Methodology: Empirical Study
• Analysis of 18 lectures at the Children‘s
University of Bonn between 2011-2013:
 Is there something like a typical lecture for
children? What approaches are there?
 What is the relation between content and
entertainment?

10. Theoretical Concepts (1):
Science Communication
What is Science Communication?
• Press releases from university press offices and
research departments of big companies,
• Children‘s Universities,
• scientific exhibitions at research institutions,
• science museums,
• school labs,
• science journalism,
• science marketing,
• science management, …

11. Theoretical Concepts (1):
Science Communication
• Popularization:
> semantically linked to Enlightenment,
„Bildung“, and participation (Daum 1998)
> knowledge-oriented, truth-oriented
> science as an autonomous sphere,
universities as independent think tanks
> type of communication: top-down, deficit
hypothesis, no compromises
> types of scientists: „missionary“ and
„advocate of knowlegde“ (Rödder 2009)

12. Theoretical Concepts (1):
Science Communication
• Enhancement of Acceptance:
> legimitization and securing resources of
science
> dialogue-oriented, truth is relative
> science in society („contextualization“,
Nowotny et al. 2001)
> directly linked to political campaigns (PUSH,
Horizon 2020, Excellence initiative)
> Type of communication: negotiation of interests
> types of scientists: „public scientist“
(Rödder 2009)

13. Theoretical Concepts (1):
Science Communication
Pedagogical perspective: Popularization! Why?
• Children‘s Universities represent universities,
not only formally, but also in content
(communication ethics)
• Pedagogical issues are linked to the public
function of universities, not to science in
research institutions
• Truth is the „core“ of science and the basis of
trust in universities as public institutions

14. Theoretical Concepts (2): Learning
• psychological theories of learning focus mostly
on explicit knowledge and effective
memorization of facts
• Learning is often linked to institutional
settings (i.e. school) and measurable results
> not suitable for evaluating informal
settings like the Children‘s University

15. Theoretical Concepts (2): Learning
Educational theory: Learning
– is an understanding of general rules,
– is finding causes and effects,
– is the linking of facts in systematic insight (Koch 2011),
– is a sensual experience,
– has explicit and implicit elements as well as
unintended effects (Meyer-Drawe 2011),
– is embedded in personal relationships,
– also reflects the development of the self through the
world and others („collective self“, vgl. Künkler 2011).

16. Theoretical Concepts (2): Learning
• evaluation of learning in German Children‘s
Universities (Basel 2004, Münster 2006,
Braunschweig 2008) relied almost solely on
explicit knowledge or perceivable behaviour
• strong normative tendency to separate
intuitive categories like „fun“ and „learning“
without further definition
• emphasis on quantitative empirical approach

17. Theoretical Concepts (2): Learning
Basis of this study:
• a broad understanding of learning with regard
to „Bildung“/self-development
• qualitative study: trying to find the
construction of sense and relevant categories
in children‘s statements

18. Theoretical Concepts (3):
Scientific Literacy
• Knowing facts about scientific fields
• Knowing and understanding scientific
methods (procedural knowledge)
• Understanding the relevance of science for
society
• Using scientific reasoning for critical reflection
and opinion-forming (language-based)

19. 3-d Model of Scientific Literacy
(Koballa et.al. 1997; Burns et al. 2003)

20. Empirical Study: Children
My focus group (or some of them…)
Henri Jette Timon Leonie
Marcus Joshua
+ Lea, Helena, Emilia,
Sebastian
Age 7 : 1
Age 8 : 6
Age 9: 2
Age 12: 1

21. Children
Relevant Categories:
• Attention
• Focus
• Identification/Non-identification
• Learning/Fun
• Ideas about science and scientists

22. Children
Focus: Contrasting Cases
1. Henri
- Mother German, father
American
- parents do not hold
academic degrees
- Father absent, no contact
- Mother without job
- moderately good grades
at school
- watches science
documentaries on TV

23. Children
• „Da muss mein Gehirn ein paar Sachen löschen“
• Difficulties of staying focussed during the lecture
(concentration) although interested
• distracted by the lecture hall (experimentation
material exhibited)
• Lack of structuring of information
• memorizes fragmentary bits
• Difficulty of finding the right words to describe
what he has seen and heard

24. Children
Focus: Contrasting Cases
2. Timon
 Parents German
 both have academic degrees
 one of the best students in his class
 moved one grade up in
mathematics
 Watches science documentaries
on TV, reads popular science books

25. Children
• „Darüber hab ich schon ganz viel gehört“
• stays focussed during the whole lecture
• remembers details and sums up the topic
• refers often to related knowlegde he has already
acquired
• has expert knowlegde in some areas (e.g. reptiles)
• draws parallels to similar phenomenons in everyday life
• has a rich vocabulary to describe and reflect on things

26. Children
Identification
• Timon: socio-economic
status (+), academic
background (+)
• Henri: socio-economic
status (-), academic
background (-)
(+) both parents academics/high status
(o) one parent academic/middle status
(-) both parents non-academic/low
status
Non-Identification
• Helena: socio-economic
status (o/-), academic
background (o)
• Sebastian: socio-economic
status (+), academic
background (+)

27. Children
Fun or Learning?
• Children do not distinguish those categories
• Clearly identify Children‘s University as „Learning
without having to work“
• Appreciate expert knowledge
• Appreciate topics and areas of knowledge that
school does not cover
• References to other areas of informal learning
(museum, travel, books, films)

28. Lectures
• Differenciating „fun“ and „learning“: Attention and
truth orientation
• Attention-orientation: similarities to presentation of
science in mass media, personalisation, sensational
stories, drawing on everyday life and experience of
children, show-elements, visualisation, participation
• Truth-orientation: science-related choice of topics,
explaining definitions of scientific terminology and
knowledge systematics of a research area, lecturers
represent their research/area of study

29. Lectures

30. Lectures
• About 2/3 of lectures show either a pedagogic or
an encyclopedic model, i.e. attention and truth in
balance
• Distinctive style of science communication made
by scientists, different from mass media
presentation: you do not have to tell a
sensational story of discovery
• Questions after the lecture show that some
lecturers still underestimate their audience:
children want to know about methods and
concepts

31. Scientists
• Areas of research: Chemistry, Theology, Literature
• All are „advocates of knowledge“: science
communication is necessary, but facts come first;
compromises concerning truth must be minimal
• No interest in gaining financial or personal resources
• Science must remain an autonomous sphere
• Science in Children‘s University must represent all
areas and departments (variety)
• Function of Children‘s University: Enhancing curiosity
and thirst for knowledge

32. Scientists
• Personal aims and roles vary according to specific
field of science
• Theology: counterbalancing a liturgy-oriented
religious education at primary school with
scientific facts
• Literature: introducing children to basic literary
theory to enable them to participate in public
debates
• Chemistry: no introduction to science, but
keeping up interest until a later age when facts
can be understood properly („Oberstufe“)

33. Conclusions: Learning
• Children learn facts (relative to already acquired
knowlegde)
• Curiosity and interest for science does not
depend on socio-economic status, but on
identification
• Children are interested in methods, especially
starting around age 9, but procedural knowledge
is conveyed less in lectures
• Children learn in terms of experience (being a
student, learning academic rules, forming ideas
about scientists and what they do)

34. Conclusions: Pedagogical Value
• depends on keeping pedagogical and political
aims separate
• Children‘s Universities as part of science
communication is ambiguous and encourages
criticism
• the pedagogical value of Children‘s
Universities lie in their representation of
universities as spaces of public reflection and
debate