Seoul National University - Hokkaido University Joint Symposium & Synergies Symposium, Dec. 17-18, 2013, Seoul National University, Korea

1. Design and Evaluation of Intensive
Workshop for Making Short-Time
Science Show Programs
2013.12.17
Gensei Ishimura
Associate Professor
Communication in Science & Technology Education & Research Program,
Hokkaido University (CoSTEP)

2. I am …
• Work at CoSTEP (Communication in
Science and Technology Education and
Research Program), Hokkaido University,
Japan.

3. Goal of CoSTEP
• The educational organization to nurture
“Science & Technology communicators”.
S&T
communicators
Specialists in
S&T
The society

4. History
• Founded in 2005 at Hokkaido University
as a 5-year project funded by the national
government.
• At April, 2010, Hokkaido University
decided to continue the program by its
own budget.
• Now the 9th yearly program is running.

5. Mission
1. To educate S&T communicators
2. To do practice variety of science
communications
3. Research and development of
educational methods
To realize better relationship between
science, technology, and the society

6. Principles
•
•
•
•
Mutual communication
Community based
Learning by practice
Science communicator as a “role” (not restricted to ,socalled, “profession”)
• Generalist-oriented (not to exclude specialists but to focus
on collaborating with them)
• Open to the public in general (not restricted to our
university students)
• No diploma, no credit, only certification (totally
independent of the university’s formal curriculum)

7. Education, Practice, and
Conceptualization
• Education
– lectures and seminars in the classroom
• Practice
– activities in the real society with diverse actors
(clients, audience, visitors, etc.)
• Conceptualization
– Description, abstraction, and systematization of
education and practice

8. Relation among the 3 processes
application
Education
evaluation
evaluation
evaluation
improvement
systematization
Practice
improvement
Conceptu
alization
systematization
evaluation

9. Curriculum: 3 major Components
I. Way of thinking in science communication
To understand theoretical constellation of the field and ‘frame of
reference’ which gives basis for agenda setting and decision
making for science communicators to handle with practical issues
II. Analysis and planning for action
To learn basic way of thinking to investigate, analyze, and
evaluate information about science and society, in order to give
basis for decision making, consensus building, and strategy
making
III. Practices in science communication
To learn basic knowledge and skills necessary for taking effective
role through a variety of practices in the real society

10. Curriculum: 7 Elements
3 major components
7 elements
Theoretical framework
I. Way of thinking in science
communication
Trans-science issues
Understanding diversity among related actors
II. Analysis and Planning for Action
Analysis and planning for action
Practical methods for expression and communication
III. Practices in science
communication
Practical methods for learning
Practices and management in the real society

11. Educational Program
Curriculum framework
3 major
components
program
mission
7 elements
Lectures
I. Way of thinking in
science communication
II. Analysis and
Planning for Action
III. Practices in science
communication
Seminars
Projects
To realize
better and
mutual
relationship
between
science and
the society

12. 3 Yearly Courses for Different Needs
courses
purpose
comprehensive
•To take leadership to plan and manage
science communication activities in the society
Selective A
•To learn basic knowledge and skills about
science communication
•Weight on designing face-to-face
communication experience
Setective B
•To learn basic knowledge and skills about
science communication
•Weight on scientific writing

13. 3 Yearly Courses for Different Needs
courses
purpose
comprehensive
•To take leadership to plan and manage
science communication activities in the society
Selective A
•To learn basic knowledge and skills about
science communication
•Weight on designing face-to-face
communication experience
Setective B
•To learn basic knowledge and skills about
science communication
•Weight on scientific writing

14. 3 Courses for Different Needs
course
number
Selective B
20～30
On site （ Sat. 14：00～15：30）
／ E-learning
On site （Wed. 18：30～20：00）
On site （Sat. 15：00～17：00）
Lecture：27
On site （ Sat. 14：00～15：30）
／ E-learning
Seminar：12
20～30
Lecture：27
Project：26
Selective A
style
Seminar：16
Comprehensive 20～30
Min. req.
Intensive （3 days）
Lecture：27
On site （ Sat. 14：00～15：30）
／ E-learning
Seminar：12
Intensive （3 days）

15. The 3 day workshop of the “Selective
Course A”
• In this presentation, the workshop of the
“Selective Course A” is focused, which was the 3day intensive one where participants made shorttime science show programs, held from 25th to
27th of August, 2013.
• There were 18 participants, which were divided
into 4 groups.
• Each group made a 20-minute science show
program.

16. Titles of the 4 Science Shows
1. What is “Skin Beauty*” for You? – Let’s Think of the
Conditions of Beauty and Health of Our Skin –
2. “Aha!”s are Falling Down from the Sky - Harm of
Volcanic Dust and the Counter Plans –
3. Outbreak of the Tornado !! - I’m ready! I’m so brave that
I will run away and hide without any hesitation –
4. A Court Case in the Future “The Murder Case of
‘Doroemon**’” – Let’s Think of the Definitions of Life
and Human Nature * beauty because of having beautiful skin
** named after the robot in the popular
Japanese comic “Doraemon”

22. The Design Policy of the Learning
Environment of the Workshop
1. Cycle among expression, sharing, and
reflection
2. The learning context composed of the
three periods: pre-workshop, workshop,
and post-workshop

23. Cycle among
Expression, Sharing, and Reflection
• The author designed
the workshop based
on the concept of the
“cycle among
expression, sharing,
and reflection”.
Sharing
Expression
Reflection

24. Three
periods
pre-workshop
workshop
post-workshop

25. Why the Policy?
• For learning through workshop, sharing, reflection, and
long-term context are essentially important.
• These are typical “meta-learning” experiences and are
especially necessary for practitioners of science
communication, because of extreme diversity and nonsystematicity of the domain.
• Without them, the workshop might become just an
“transient entertainment experience”.
This is my take-home message.

26. The Basic Structure of the Workshop
sharing
sharing
sharing
lectures
Interaction
(group works)
science show
production
daily
reflection
self & mutual
evaluation

27. The Whole
Structure
of the Workshop
in Detail

28. The Structure of the Workshop
[pre-workshop]

29. The Structure of the Workshop [day 1]

30. The Structure of the Workshop [day 2]

31. The Structure of the Workshop [day 3]

32. The Structure of the Workshop
[post-workshop]

33. Pre-Workshop Period
• At the pre-workshop
period, participants
shared their self
introduction sheets by
using an online tool
and put comments on
their sheets each other,
which became “seeds”
for science show
programs.

38. Self Goal Setting and Self Evaluation
• Before the workshop
began, participants had
decided their own
learning goals, which
they could change after
the workshop began.
• At the end of the
workshop, they
reconfirmed their own
learning goals and
evaluated their
performance by
themselves.

40. Short Lectures Given in the Workshop
• Short lectures about
general guidance,
planning, program
designing, writing press
releases, designing
flyers, and facilitation
were given (each of
which was in
approximately 20
minutes or less).

41. The lecture on
how to design flyers

42. Outbreak of the Tornado !!
- I’m ready! I’m so brave that
I will run away and hide
without any hesitation –

43. Group Works
• Using the knowledge
and skills given by the
lectures, participants
developed their science
show programs during
group works.
• They discussed about
plan of the program,
prepare, and rehearse
for it.

48. Sharing
• The participants
exhibited all
intermediate outputs
(for example, learning
goal worksheets or
notes of mutual
interviews).

49. The participants put
their outputs on the
wall to share them each
other.

50. Mutual Interviews
•
Participants practiced
mutual interviews to
train facilitation skill
and to promote
interaction among
them.

53. Daily Reflections
•
Participants reflected
their own activities at
the end of each day,
wrote down their
findings,
achievements, and
anything to be
improved on sticky
notes, and they
exhibited them on the
wall to share with
each other.

56. Real-Time Documentation
• Besides, we introduced
“real-time
documentation”
method, where our
staff took photos of
participants’ various
activities during the
workshop and put it on
the wall along the
“timeline” with short
comments.

60. Comprehensive Reflection
• After the all science
shows were finished,
each group evaluated
their own performance
by using the result of
questionnaire for the
audience, and comment
papers (goods and
bads) written by other
groups’ participants.
• What’s more, all the
participants share their
own reflection for the
3-day experience.

63. Post Workshop Period
• At the post workshop
period, they shared
various outputs of the
workshop.
• As a whole, cycle
among expression,
sharing, and reflection
occurred in all of the 3
periods.

65. Several Tools to Realize the Cycle
• We introduced several tools to realize the “cycle
among expression, sharing, and reflection.”

66. Learning Goal Work Sheet 1
• Each participant was made decide his/her own
learning goal at the beginning (learning goal
work sheet 1). The questions were as follows:

67. Questions
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
What do you especially want to learn in this workshop? Write down
your learning goal?
How do you think and behave in the workshop to achieve the goal?
What kind of role do you try to take during group works?
Which part of planning, group works, event preparation, and event
operation do you dislike or feel difficult to deal with?
Which part of planning, group works, event preparation, and event
operation do you like or feel easy to deal with?
What do you find or think about, reflecting your study at CoSTEP
up to now?
What do you especially want to study at CoSTEP from now on?
Your promotion comments, etc.

68. Learning Goal Work Sheet 2
• They evaluated their achievement by themselves
at the end of the workshop (learning goal work
sheet 2). The questions were as follows:
a. If you changed your "learning goal", describe it.
b. How well have you achieved you learning goal?
Evaluate by yourself.
c. What did you realized through the workshop?
d. What "the next learning goal" do you want to have
after reflecting the workshop?

69. Other Tools to Realize the Cycle
1. Exhibit all intermediate outputs (for example, learning
goal worksheets or notes of mutual interviews) on the
wall to share them with each other.
2. Participants reflected their own activities at the end of
each day, wrote down their findings, achievements, and
anything to be improved on sticky notes, and they
exhibited them on the wall to share with each other.
3. Real-time documentation: Our staff took photos of
participant’s various activities during the workshop and
put them on the wall along “timeline” with short
comments. Besides, they uploaded the pictures with
comments on the special facebook page to share among
each other.

70. Use of Online Tools
• We used some online tools for participants to
share their learning goals and presentation files
for their self introduction, let them put comments
on others’ presentation, and let them share
various outcomes of the workshop.

71. Evaluation
• After the workshop finished, participants
answered the questionnaire to evaluate the whole
workshop, and “the cycle among expression,
sharing, and reflection”.
• Results were as follows (n=10):

72. General Satisfaction
80
(%)
70
60
A: satisfied
B: relatively satisfied
C: neither
D: relatively unsatisfied
E: unsatisfied
50
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
E

73. Length of the Workshop
(%)
70
60
A: too long
B: relatively too long
C: appropriate
D: relatively too short
E: too short
50
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
E

74. Organization of the Workshop
Elements
(%)
60
50
A: good
B: relatively good
C: neither
D: relatively bad
E: bad
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
E

75. Management of the Workshop
(%)
70
60
A: good
B: relatively good
C: neither
D: relatively bad
E: bad
50
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
E

76. Learning Goal Work Sheet
(%)
60
50
A: good
B: relatively good
C: neither
D: relatively bad
E: bad
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
E

77. Real-Time Documentation
(%)
80
70
60
A: good
B: relatively good
C: neither
D: relatively bad
E: bad
50
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
E

78. Pre-Workshop Tasks
(%)
70
60
50
A: good
B: relatively good
C: neither
D: relatively bad
E: bad
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
E

79. Use of Online Tools during
Pre-Workshop Period
(%)
60
50
A: good
B: relatively good
C: neither
D: relatively bad
E: bad
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
E

80. Daily Reflection
(%)
60
50
A: good
B: relatively good
C: neither
D: relatively bad
E: bad
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
E

81. Conclusion
• The evaluation by participants was good in
general.
• However, the program seemed to have been
slightly too short for them to thoroughly
experience the “cycle”.
• It might be better to share the diagram which is
shown in this presentation with the participants ,
or to develop it together for deeper learning
experience.