Thai pre-service science teachers' practice of science communication in communities

The analysis of the data collected in the case studied of Wandee, Benjamas, and Juree yielded four main aspects in the practice of science communication in the community: they were able to use wording that was appropriate to personal prior knowledge or background; they provided reasonable and convincing explanations that changed the viewpoints and behavior of people in the community; they told the truth about bad experiences with propaganda in order to promote critical thinking; they used more than one communication technique in science communication to promote people’s understanding of science.

Many children in the community did not understand technical words when the pre-service teachers explained things to them, so for better understanding they used language that was appropriate to personal prior knowledge or background. Tinnaluk & Hemasiri (2005) indicated that scientific language is well understood among scientists in the same field or close fields. However, when conducting science communication, the communicator must understand the differences between scientific, academic, and casual levels of language. If the communicator does not understand the communicating language, an unbalanced communication might result. Gross (1994) found that unbalanced communication occurs when the listener lacks the necessary knowledge of scientific principles. Hence, the communicator should recognise the background knowledge of the receiver of the information. Supporting this idea, Piano, et al. (2011) stated that in order to understand the meaning of words, the communicator must consider the surrounding context. When the context changes, the meaning of the words changes accordingly. The meaning of some words might change when they are used in a different culture. Charunrochana (2005) stated that language is not an instinct with which humans are born. Instead, language is a system that is invented for communication. Moreover, there will be a process of passing on this invented system to a new member.

The finding also revealed that the three participants also provided reasonable and sufficient explanations for changing the viewpoints and behavior of people in the community. Supporting this idea, Tadtasaai (2004) stated that the distribution of scientific information and technology by scientists or researchers to the public are a means of building consciousness about the importance of science and its effects the daily lives of people now and in the future. However, the information receivers showed selective reception, selective attention, selective perception, and selective retention of the information, according to their own thoughts, beliefs, viewpoints, and experiences. These factors are barriers that prevent the information from being transferred to the information receiver (Phungamdee, 2003). The National Office of Statistics [NOS] (2006) also found that nowadays people have incorrect beliefs. Hence, it is extremely crucial for them to be able to think and select information to make decision accordingly.

In order to promote people’s critical thinking, the three participants also told the truth about their bad experiences with beauty propaganda. According to Sadler & Zeidler (2003), social issues related to science and technology are increasing because of anxiety about the safety of technology and the rapidity of scientific advancement, which might affect life, society, the economy, and the environment. Therefore, the three participants disseminated knowledge regarding critical thinking to their family members and friends. The subjects’ conduct could be considered characteristic of a well-informed person in the field of science. They could explain, predict natural phenomena, and conduct science communication (e.g., they read and understood articles in the press, which were related to science, and they took part in a discussion about the credibility of scientific conclusions). Well-informed persons in the field of science can identify scientific issues, based on their knowledge of science and technology. Well-informed persons in the field of science can evaluate scientific information, based on the information source and the creation of that information (National Research Council [NRC], 1996).

Moreover, all three participants had the opportunity to use more than one communication technique in their practice of science communication to promote people’s understanding of science. They applied their techniques of science communication. Tyler (2002) found that when a person who is involved in a communication has an alternative concept that is not in accordance with the concept of a scientist, it could be difficult to build a knowledge base. Wandee used a questioning technique, which helped her students to acquire new and correct knowledge that was good for further communication. In addition, Juree used two-way communication to promote people’s understanding of science. Luhnman (1990) indicated that two-way communication is a good promoter of interaction among the communicator, the transmission media, and the information receiver.

In summary, these three cases indicated their understanding of constructivist theory in their practices of science communication in communities even though this context differed from the context of their learning. The framework of their practices shows that constructivism is the most useful and relevant theory to explain how people learn about science in both formal (e.g., in school) and informal situations (e.g., learning resources in a community). In order to apply the constructivism to the design of a science communication event or activity, science communicators should ensure relevance, which induces people to participate in events and activities. Moreover, science communicators should also consider participant learning and interaction, providing hands-on activities, ask questions, asking for opinions, and encouraging reflection and self-analysis (Bowater & Yeoman, 2013).