Bayer Genç Bilim Elçileri - Ara Rapor

8/2/2019 Bayer Gen Bilim Elileri - Ara Rapor

1/69

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

0


OCTOBER 2011FEBRUARY 2012

MIDTERM REPORT


2/69


1

CONTENTS

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................ 2

Project Summary................................................................................................................................................ 4

Project Statistics ................................................................................................................................................. 6

Project Content................................................................................................................................................... 8

Project Activities................................................................................................................................................. 9

Determination of TOG Volunteers ................................................................................................................ 15

Scientific Literacy Training ............................................................................................................................ 15

Press Conference .............................................................................................................................................. 16

Science Workshop ............................................................................................................................................ 17

Project Team..................................................................................................................................................... 18

Mid-Term Evaluation Report ........................................................................................................................ 19

Links ................................................................................................................................................................. 68


3/69


2

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS MIDTERM REPORT

Project Name Bayer Young Science Ambassadors (BYSA)

Project Partners Bayer Turk & Toplum Gnllleri Vakf (TOG)

Financial Supporter Bayer Turk

Implementation

Period

01.09.201130.05.2012

Reporting Period 01.09.201129.02.2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Science is always considered to be redundant for society in Turkey. One of the most important issues of that

understanding comes from the very pragmatic approach that the economic return must be very quick in one

humans life. There is a general opinion that the individuals that work for science cannot earn enough money

for their life. This understanding affects the scientific literacy of the people very negatively. From primary to

the higher education level, the approach to science is not welcomed or promoted. The curriculums are not

enough for the promotion of the science. The text books do not adequately promote the learning process itself

and the formal education cannot achieve to foster the creative and critical thinking of the scientific literacy.

According to the PISA 20061, looking at the performance in Science and self-efficacy in science, Turkeys

rank is at the lower mean performance in science.

As the science begins early in childhood, it is a must to empower the children in the age of primary school.

During this time interval young peoples role is very important for children as they are big sisters and brothers

who shall act as the agents of encouraging.

Through partnership of Bayer Turkey and TOG, a new scientific literacy training model designed that based

on non-formal techniques in which TOG has great experience and know-how.

TOG, as a youth NGO that gathers young people all over Turkey on the different subjects on the local,

national and international level, creates participation areas for the empowerment of young people and use non

formal education tools to spread the idea and vision. The project increases the scientific literacy amongst

young people through a non formal training tool and young people, as a multiplier and the agents of change,

support the learning of children in primary school. The understanding of the science is needless for the

society will be changed through the participation of young people as Science Ambassadors exists now and

after. Young people are being role models for the children now and will be in the future.

1 http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html . PISA measures scientific literacy across acontinuum from basic literacy skills through high levels of knowledge of scientific concepts and examines students capacity to use their understandingof these concepts and to think scientifically about real-life problems. p. 13 in the executive summary
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.htmlhttp://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html


4/69


3

The aims of the BYSA Project;

By creating the scientific literacy amongst Young Community Volunteers (age between 17-25);

Supporting the science education

Supporting the children and their learning process at primary schools (age between 10-12)

The main objectives of the BYSA Project;

Accordingly, the main objective of the project is to improve the scientific literacy level of its target groups

(6th, 7

thand 8

thgrade primary school students and young community volunteers ) by providing space for them

to;

Get motivated to learn about and understand nature,

Have curiosity about science and technology,

Try to understand the interrelations among science, technology, society and environment,

Get willing to question, reason and understand the happenings and facts in nature

Question their prejudices about science and scientists

Understand and appreciate the value of science and technology.

Through the partnership of Bayer Turkey and TOG, between Oct 2011 and Feb 2012,

Project team was built up by project coordinator.

Project Content was prepared and booklets for young science ambassadors and for children were

written by the project consultant.

Tools for monitoring and evaluation of the project were designed by the external expert.

24 Young TOG volunteers participated in the Scientific Literacy Training that took place in Istanbul.24 young science ambassadors shared their knowledge and experiences with the other volunteers in

their local communities in order to expand the project team and reach more primary school children.

In total, 76 young science ambassadors reached 275 children until the end of Feb 2012.

A Press Conference organized by Bayer Turkey with the attendance of TOG and young science

ambassadors in Dec 2012.

A Science Workshop was carried out by 8 young science ambassadors at TOG 19.Youth Councilwhere approximately 300 young volunteers participated.

Field visits to local project groups were done by project team.

A Semi-structured Evaluation Meeting organized by project team with 10 young science ambassadors.


5/69


4

PROJECT SUMMARY

Implementation Area

stanbul, Ankara, zmir and Kars

TOG Youth Organizations Implementing the Project

stanbul University, Maltepe University, Hacettepe University, Kafkas University, Dokuz Eyll University

TOG Groups.

Project Implemented Primary Schools:

Primary schools were determined with the assistance of the Directorates of Education.

stanbul:Ktip Kasm lkretim Okulu

Tevfik Kut lkretim Okulu

Ali hsan Hayrlolu lkretim Okulu

Ankara: Trk i Bloklar lkretim Okulu

Kars: Atatrk lkretim Okulu

Fevzi Paa lkretim Okulu

zmir: Zehra Semahat Erien lkretim Okulu


6/69


5

Kars

Target Group

The children in the project implemented primary schools (age between 10-12)The young people at the TOG Youth Organizations in the universities (age between 1725)

The Aims of the Pilot Project

By creating the scientific literacy amongst Young Community Volunteers (age between 17-25);


Supporting the children and their learning process at primary schools (age between 10-12)

The Main Objectives of the Pilot Project


(6th, 7

thand 8


to;








7/69


6

Project Partners

Ministry of Education

Bayer Turk

TOG Vakf

Expected Outcomes

A unique non formal training module on scientific literacy will be developed

24 young community volunteers will be the Science Ambassadors

900 children will be scientific literate citizenry for the pilot period in 4 primary school

PROJECT STATISTICS

24 TOG Volunteers participated in Scientific Literacy Training to be young science ambassadors which was

held in Istanbul between Nov 30thDec 4th.

Gender Distribution of the participants:

Table 1:

City / Gender Female Male

Istanbul 5 1

Ankara 2 4

Izmir 3 3

Kars 3 3

Total 13 11

24

Gender equality and positive discrimination were two of the criteria of selection process.

In total, 76 young science ambassadors and 275 children joined the project between Sep 2011 - Feb 2012 in

four cities. The number of the young science ambassadors did not show a significant difference by cities.

Getting the legal permissions from Directorates of Education took different durations in each city. Therefore

each project group started volunteering at different times.


8/69


7

Table 2: Participation of BYSA

City BYSA

Istanbul 16

Ankara 22

Izmir 23

Kars 15

Total 76

In the pilot period of the Project, those activities were done by the end of Feb 2012: Getting Legal

Permissions from Directorates of Education, Building up the Project Team, Developing the Training Module,

Determining the Youth Organizations joining the Project, Training of Local Project Groups, Determination of

the Project Implementation Schools, Determination of the Children in the Project, Monitoring and Evaluation,

Communication, Mid-Term Reporting and Project Coordination.

Table 3, below, shows the timetable of the activities.

Table 3: Project Activities by the end of Feb 2012

Activities Months 9 10 11 12 1 2

Getting Legal Permissions from Directorates of Education

Building up the Project Team

Developing the Training Module

Determining the Youth Organizations joining the Project

Training of the Local Project Groups

Determination of the Project Implementation Schools

Determination of the Children in the Project

Monitoring & Evaluation

Communication

Reporting

Project Coordination


9/69


8

PROJECT CONTENT

General Aim of the workshops

Children have a natural curiosity about the things happening around them. Curiosity is the main trigger of

learning. With this two days workshop, by the natural curiosity of children, the Project is aiming to get their

attraction focused on science by experiencing enjoyable experiments. And with that experience, children see

that in order to make science, people do not need any special materials or any special places. Science is

everywhere and making science is not boring but fun!

The whole Project content is designed with a children centered approach based on participation. The

workshops provide children a learning environment for creativity, ability to discuss and research and a skillfor observation about the understanding ofnature of science which is a part ofscientific literacy.


(6th, 7

thand 8


to;



Try to understand the interrelations among science, technology, society and environment,Get willing to question, reason and understand the happenings and facts in nature



Principles of the workshops:

There are some principles of workshops related with Project aims and objectives.

All workshops will be done with a group size of 16-20 children. They will work in small groups of 4-

5.

A calm and relaxing environment will support the learning process of both children and young science

ambassadors. The more they enjoy, the more they learn and share with each other.

Each child should actively participate in workshops.

Energizers are used to raise the level of attention and motivation.

For the safety of the children, while using hot water or scissors, young volunteers need to support

them.

Young science ambassadors are responsible for time management of the activities.


10/69


9

PROJECT ACTIVITIES

It takes 2 days to implement the whole program in the primary schools for each group of 16-20 children.

Table 4: The 2 days program

Duration Activity

DAY 1

30 min Getting to know each otherScience Bingo

20 min Exp 1: Do flowers drink water?

15 min Break

40 min Exp 2: Let's make a thermometer!

15 min Break

40 min Exp 3: Colors dancing in the milk!

15 min Break

10 min Energizer: Molecules

20 min Exp 4: Screaming balloons

25 min Closing session: Groups poster

DAY 2

15 min Continue to Exp 1: Do flowers drink water?

5 min Grouping Activity: Colorful Dots

40 min Exp 5: Is black really black?

15 min Break

15 min Energizer: Solar System

40 min Exp 6: Homemade Ice cream

15 min Break

30 min Exp 7: The chemical of red cabbage

10 min Crossword Puzzle

30 min

Closing session: Writing a letter

What kind of a scientist would I like to be?


11/69


10

What children think and share:


12/69


11

AIMS AND OUTPUTS OF EXPERIMENTS

Experiment 1:

Do Flowers Drink Water?

Istanbul Izmir

Children use 3 cups of water mixed with food coloring and 1 cup of plain water. Then they set the flowers in

the cups and observe the change.

With this experiment, children can discover for themselves how essential the functions of roots and stems are

to plant growth. As the colored water is absorbed, students are able to see how the water is absorbed into the

plant and amazed when the petals of the carnation change color.2

The children observe how important water is for all living things. Human beings need to take precautions in

order to use water in an efficient way such as through the reuse of wastewater or getting drinkable water out

of oceans.

2http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/colorful-carnations


13/69


12

Experiment 2:

Lets Make a Thermometer!

With this experiment, children are making a thermometer out

of water. They can measure temperature with this homemade

thermometer.

Water, like all substances, is comprised of molecules. In

water, an individual molecule has the chemical formula H2O,

dihydrogen monoxide. When water molecules are heated,

their bonds stretch out and expand and the opposite happens

when water is cooled. So, the water level in the straw rises

when the water is heated, it lowers when the water is cooled. 3

The children learn how the global climate change affects life on earth and why it is a problem if the earths

temperature gets warmer. Then they also learn that they can fix climate change with some small changes in

their own lives such as turning the lights off, eating home food, getting their parents to change their

consuming habits and reusing, recycling and reducing buying something which they really do not need to.

Experiment 3:

Colors Dancing in the Milk!

With this experiment children uncover the secrets of the

soap which is a great demonstration of what happens

when we combine dish soap and milk. They mix a little

milk, food coloring, and a drop of liquid soap.

Milk is mostly water but it also contains vitamins,

minerals, proteins, and tiny droplets of fat suspended in

solution. Fats and proteins are sensitive to changes in

the surrounding solution (the milk). The soap weakens

the chemical bonds that hold the proteins and fats in

solution. So the colors begin dancing in the milk.4

Children learn the importance and effect of soap on cleaning and why we people wash our hands with soap.

3http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/water-thermometer-sick-science

4http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/milk-color-explosion

Scientific Literacy Training

Izmir


14/69


13

Experiment 4:

Screaming Balloons

Children put a hexagon nut in the balloon and hold it with

both hands and make a swirling motion. Then they have

the screaming voice.

The unique shape of the hex nut vibrates the walls of the

balloon to produce a wonderfully screaming sound. They

try the same process with the circular pellet. This time

they do not get the screaming sound as there is no

vibration on the walls of the balloon. 5

With this experiment children observe both the sound and

motion.

Experiment 5:

Is Black Really Black?

Using a technique called chromatography, children find out exactlywhat makes up the color in the black pen.

Theres literally a rainbow of color hiding in just one black dot!

Children put black dots on filter paper; put a toy brush in the very

center of the filter paper. Then lay down the paper on a plastic glass

full of water. The burst of color that you see on the filter paper

proves that black is really a combination of colors.

This technique of color separation is actually

called chromatography, which was originally used to separate

different plant pigments. 6

5http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/product/screaming-balloon-kit

6http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/is-black-black

Istanbul

TOG 19. Youth Council


15/69


14

Experiment 6:

Homemade Ice-cream

Children are making ice-cream with cream, sugar,

crushed salt, vanilla and ice.

The science in making ice-cream is to lower the

freezing point of ice in order to freeze the cream. But

how?

Just like we use salt on icy roads in the winter, salt

mixed with ice in this case also causes the ice to melt.

When salt comes into contact with ice, the freezing

point of the ice is lowered. The lowering of the freezing

point depends on the amount of salt added. The more

salt added, the lower the temperature will be before the

salt- water solution freezes.7

Experiment 7:

The Chemical of Red Cabbage

Red Cabbage Jiffy Juice is an easy-to-use acid-base

indicator that measures pH. Children use Jiffy Juice to

make colorful solutions by adding common acids and

bases. It's an experiment that is safe and carefully

crafted from all food-grade material.

With this experiment children learn what is indicator,

acid and bas and they are able to find out what really

is the most acidic or basic product in our world.8

7http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/homemade-ice-cream-sick-science

8http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/product/1552

Izmir

Ankara


16/69


15

DETERMINATION OF TOG VOLUNTEERS

The project implementing cities were determined with the assistance of TOG Field Department and in

coordination with Project Partner. Field visits were realized by the Project Coordinator together with the Field

Coordinators to volunteer groups in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir and Kars.

SCIENTIFIC LITERACY TRAINING

Scientific Literacy Training, the main training of the Project, took place in Istanbul between Nov 30th

and

Dec 4th

2011. This is the training which the volunteers need to participate in order to gain knowledge and

skills before getting the Project started in their locality.

24 young TOG volunteers participated in the training from Istanbul, Izmir, Kars and Ankara.

The content of the training was composed of scientific literacy, working and communicating with children,

civil society in Turkey, volunteerism, meeting Project partner and the technical process of the Project.

Trainers were experts on the topics of scientific literacy, working with children, youth work and volunteerism.


17/69


16

PRESS CONFERENCE

In order to announce the starting of the BYSA Project, Project partner Bayer Turk organized a press

conference on December 20th

2011.

Bayer Turk CEO Axel Hamann and TOG CEO Kerim Paker attended the conference and gave a speech.

Following them, Project Coordinator zge Snmez shared the aims and objectives of the BYSA Project in

details. The press conference took place in several publication organs and online media in Turkey.


18/69


17

SCIENCE WORKSHOP

Gaziantep, a city located in the south-east of Turkey, was chosen to host TOGs 19th Youth Council. This

council was organized by Gaziantep TOG Youth Organization. From Thursday the 2nd of February until

Sunday, the 5th of February, 300 young people, chosen taking into account to the gender equality, were

reunited to celebrate this important event of the foundation.

The TOG volunteers that were selected to participate at the council were representing the 94 TOGs

University Clubs spread all around Turkey.

The second day, ten different workshops were led by the volunteers.

Young Science Ambassadors have ran a Science Workshop with 32 participants. 3 experiments were carried

out and the project was presented. Local TOG Youth groups from various cities which are interested in

implementing the BYSA project next year shared their contact information with the project coordinator.

The participants were extremely impressed by the science workshop that they were all curious about the

project for the remainder of the council.


19/69


18

PROJECT TEAM

zge Snmez , Project Coordinator: Responsible for coordinating the whole Project team and Project

activities such as budgeting, coordinating local groups, reporting and sustainability.

Emel Uysal, Project Consultant: Responsible for the content of the Project.

Erhan Okak, Project Monitoring and Evaluating Expert: Responsible for monitoring and evaluating the

impact of the Project.

Jlide Erdoan , Head of Project Department: Responsible for supervising the Project Coordinator and

sustainability of the project.


20/69


19

MIDTERM EVALUATION REPORT

OCTOBER 2011FEBRUARY 2012

Evaluator

Erhan Okak

Psychologist, MA


21/69


20

Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................... 21

Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................... 24

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 25

Aims and Scope of the Project ...................................................................................................................... 25

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan and Data Collection Instruments .................................................. 26

Process Evaluation............................................................................................................................................. 27

Scientific Literacy Training (SLT) ................................................................................................................ 27Aims and Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 27

Setting and Demographics ......................................................................................................................... 28

Methodology and Assessment Tools ......................................................................................................... 29

Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 31

Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 36

Workshops ..................................................................................................................................................... 39

Exchange of Experiences .......................................................................................................................... 39

Field Visits and Evaluation Workshops with the Project Groups ............................................................. 43

Letters and Posters ..................................................................................................................................... 47

Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 52

ANNEX -1 ......................................................................................................................................................... 55

ANNEX - 2 ........................................................................................................................................................ 58

ANNEX3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 63

ANNEX4 ....................................................................................................................................................... 66

ANNEX5 ....................................................................................................................................................... 67


22/69


21

Executive Summary

The main purpose of the midterm evaluation was to assess the effectiveness of the Bayer Young Science

Ambassadors Project (BYSAP) so far to improve the implementation of it. Both quantitative and qualitative

research methods were employed in this evaluation. An additional purpose was to present the evaluation plan

and data collection instruments.

The main objective of BYSAP is to improve the scientific literacy level of its target groups (6th, 7

thand 8

th

grade primary school students and young community volunteers ) by providing space for them to;

Get motivated to learn about and understand the nature,


Try to understand the interrelations between science, technology, society and environment,

Get willing to question, reason and understand the happenings and facts in nature,

Question their prejudices about science and scientists,


Two major activities were developed and implemented to reach these objectives; Scientific Literacy Training

(SLT) and Science Workshops for Children. As a result of their participation in SLT, young volunteersbecame the facilitators and implemented the workshops in four pilot cities. (Young Science Ambassadors).

Between Oct 2011 and Feb 2012,

Project team was built up by the project coordinator.Project Content was prepared and booklets for young science ambassadors and for children were written

by the project consultant.

Tools for monitoring and evaluation of the project were designed by the external expert.

24 Young TOG volunteers participated in the Scientific Literacy Training that took place in Istanbul.

24 young science ambassadors shared their knowledge and experiences with the other volunteers in their

local communities in order to expand the project team and reach more primary school children.

In total, 76 young science ambassadors reached 275 children until the end of Feb 2012.

A Press Conference was organized by Bayer Turkey with the attendance of TOG and young science

ambassadors in Dec 2012.

A Science Workshop was carried out by 8 young science ambassadors at TOG 19. Youth Council whereapproximately 300 young volunteers participated.

Field visits to local project groups were done by project team.

A Semi-structured Evaluation Meeting organized by project team with 10 young science ambassadors.


23/69


22

A combination of different methods, including questionnaires and evaluation forms, direct field visits,

evaluation workshops and observation were used. The following is a summary of the findings and the main

conclusions by the evaluator.

24 young science ambassadors (aged between 17 - 25);

Learned about the characteristics of scientific knowledge.

Reflected on their prejudices on scientific knowledge and practice.

Got willing to question, reason and understand the happenings and facts in nature.

Experienced the activities (experiments) of the workshops they would facilitate in the primary schools.Understood the objectives of the workshop activities.

Gained knowledge about the implementation steps of the workshop activities.

Got familiar with the Facilitators Booklet they would use during the project.Learned the developmental characteristics of children,

Did case studies on communication with children and improved their communication skills

Learned children centered approach.

Got to know TOG, and its principles better than they did before.

Learned basic concepts of volunteerism and relations among them, and could debate on volunteerism being

aware of what they meant.

Children (aged between 10 - 12) who participated in the workshops;

Had fun doing experiments. (Most frequent respond).

Got excited and motivated about doing experiments and being scientists.

Showed gratitude to the facilitators for the activities and the day.

Got more curious about science and technology.

Learned something new through the workshop.

Began to like science more and to see the fun in it.

Began to imagine themselves as scientists.

Began to question the happenings and facts around them.Got willing to disseminate what they had learned.

According to the SLT and workshop results, it is clear that vast majority of project objectives were achieved

so far. However, there were opportunities to improve results. Key recommendations were as follows.

For SLT (Scientific Literacy Training)

Spending two days instead of one for experiments.

Planning 90 minutes sessions as if they take 75 minutes in order to spend more time for debriefing.

Reviewing the sessions on Communication with Children.


24/69


23

Making agreement with the participants which creates the setting for the training at the beginning to

reduce delays in the mornings.

Reducing the lunch break to 1 hour.Sending participants some material such as a story, flyer, article, etc. to make them curious about the

training.

Providing a free afternoon in the training program.

Adding a session to the program about giving and receiving feedback.

For Workshops and Facilitation

Preparing an agreement together with children at the beginning of the workshops to ease classroom

management and encourage the children to further contribute to workshops (Agreement could be written

on a poster and signed by all the participants and facilitators).Giving more positive and clear instructions for the experiments.

Positively reinforcing childrens questions and contributions by approving them, and respondingenthusiastically.

Paying particular attention to the debriefing questions.

Using small group classroom setup for making experiments.

Having one facilitator for each small group.

Using u-shaped classroom setup for debriefing and allow more time.

Studying the Facilitators Booklet more carefully.Making preparation meetings before the workshops, sharing roles and tasks more accurately.

Making evaluation after the workshops and give feedback to each other.

Making two experiments a day instead of three or four to provide more time for communicating and

connecting with children, and debriefing.

General Recommendations

Conducting two SLTs to ensure all the young volunteers participate in the training, not %60 percent of

them, to ensure that they all have equal opportunities to develop competencies necessary for facilitating

the workshops.

Providing study visits for young volunteers to interact and learn from each other.

Organizing periodic consultation meetings to support young science ambassadors in terms of working

with children, and/or providing supervision.

Trying to understand the interrelations between science, technology, society and environment, questioningtheir own prejudices about science and scientists, and understanding and appreciating the value of science

and technology were seemed as difficult-to-reach objectives for these workshops so far, considering their

duration and context. Therefore, long term implementation (for example, a six-week program instead of

two days) was needed for such objectives to be realized.

This midterm evaluation showed that BYSAP was planned and implemented up until now, in a way that led to

(1) an increased curiosity and interest in science; scientific knowledge and practice, (2) significant change in

perception of science, scientific practice and scientists in its target groups.


25/69


24

Abbreviations

BYSAP Bayer Young Science Ambassadors Project

SLT Scientific Literacy Training

EEF Exchange of Experiences Form

EQ1 Evaluation Questionnaire1EQ2 Evaluation Questionnaire2PLL Perceived Levels of Learning


26/69


25

Introduction

There are two main objectives of this report. One is to present the evaluation plan in relation with the project,

particularly its aims and scope .The other is to make a process evaluation by assessing the data gathered

between October 2011 and February 2012.

Aims and Scope of the Project

The overall aim of the Bayer Young Science Ambassadors-Scientific Literacy Project (BYSAP) is;


Supporting the children and their learning process at primary schools (aged between 10-12)

by creating the scientific literacy amongst Young Community Volunteers (aged between 17-25).


(6th, 7th and 8th grade primary school students and young community volunteers ) by providing space for them

to;

Get motivated to learn about and understand the nature,






For the purpose of reaching these objectives two major interrelated activities were developed for the project.

First was the Scientific Literacy Training (SLT). This non-formal training course was designed for the young

volunteers, who came from 4 different TOG Youth Organizations, focusing on attitudes towards children,

scientific literacy, voluntary work and facilitation skills. Second were the Workshops developed to provide

children a learning environment for expressing their creativity and curiosity, gaining ability to discuss and

research by experiencing enjoyable experiments. The workshops were facilitated by the young volunteers, the

participants of SLT.


27/69


26

In addition, the expected outcomes of the project were as follows:

A unique non-formal training module on scientific literacy (SLT)24 young community volunteers as the Science Ambassadors (SLT participants)900 scientific literate children in 4 primary schools (workshop participants)

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan and Data Collection Instruments

The evaluation plan of theBYSAP was designed to assess the objectives and the project activities mentioned

above.

The activities and the process of the BYSAP were studied focusing on two major areas and the interception of

both.

Evaluation of the Scientific Literacy Training and its effects on its participants (young

community volunteers).

Monitoring and Evaluation of the two-day workshops (basically consisting of experiments)facilitated by the SLT participants in the primary schools with children.

Observations by the evaluator during the training, preparation and evaluation meetings with the training team

and two evaluation questionnaires developed specifically for the training were the data collection instruments

for the SLT. Furthermore, three other instruments were designed in order to assess the effects of the SLTfocusing on the implementation process of the workshops. These were the field visits, semi-structured

evaluation meetings with the facilitators and Exchange of Experiences Form (EEF) (by which the facilitators

share their experiences with each other, the project coordinator and the evaluator).

Four basic instruments were designed for the assessment of the workshops and its effects on the primary

school students (aged between 10-12).

A.Monthly Activity Reports: The technical reports, including information such as the number ofthe workshops organized, number of the children participated in these workshops, number of

the facilitators, etc. and which were prepared monthly by the facilitator groups. These reports

are being collected by the project coordinator and used for the midterm report of the project.

B.Exchange of Experiences Form for the Facilitators: The forms by which the facilitators sharetheir own experience and reflections on the workshops; program, teamwork, children,

technicalities, etc. and suggestions for further workshops.

C. Posters: Posters designed by the children at the end of the first day of the workshops.D.Letters: The letters written by the children at the end of the second day of the workshops as

an answer to the theme question What kind of a scientist do I want to be?; depicting their

image of a scientist.

9

9 All of the instruments are detailed in the relevant sections of this report.


28/69


27

Process Evaluation

In this section, results based on the data collected until this period of the project will be presented; including

the SLT evaluation, outputs of the evaluation workshops carried out with the project group in Istanbul,

preliminary analysis of the EEFs, posters and letters.

Scientific Literacy Training (SLT)

Aims and Objectives

The SLT basically aimed at enabling participants to reflect on their understanding of science, scientific

knowledge, scientific practices and to develop curiosity about science; and also developing participants

competencies necessary for facilitating the workshops they implemented during the project with children.

Therefore, the SLT was specifically designed to provide a learning environment for the participants,

To learn about the characteristics of scientific knowledge,

To reflect on their prejudices on scientific knowledge and research,To enable them to reconstruct their mental representations of scientists and scientific studies,

To get willing to question, reason and understand the happenings and facts in nature,

To experience the activities (experiments) of the workshops that they would facilitate in the primary

schools,

To understand the objectives of the workshop activities,

To gain knowledge about the implementation steps of the workshop activities,

To get familiar with the Facilitators Booklet they would use during the project,To understand the developmental characteristics of children,

To do case studies on communication with children, and improve their communication skills,

To acquire children centered approach, which promotes the right of the children to choose, make

connections and communicate; and also allows freedom for the children to think, experience, explore,question and search for answers.

In addition to the aforementioned objectives, there were two other major themes included in the training for

enabling the participants to understand the conceptual framework, and the setting voluntary work needed

during the project stands on. First was the concept of volunteerism. And the second was Community

Volunteers Foundation (TOG) itself; its aims, principles, organizational structure, activities, projects and the

opportunities it offers to young volunteers. The specific objectives related to these themes were included in

the training evaluation as well.


29/69


28

Setting and Demographics

The Scientific Literacy Training took place on 30th

November to 4th

December 2011, in Istanbul with the

participation of 24 young volunteers from 4 different TOG Youth Organizations, training team including

project consultant, project coordinator, head of the projects department and the evaluator.

Representatives of Bayer Turkey visited the training to give information about Bayer, particularly its

corporate social responsibility strategy and explain where the BYSAP stands in this strategy. They also shared

their expectations from the project and the young volunteers.

The training is developed and implemented by 5 trainers who are experienced in volunteering, civil society,

human rights, cohabitation, scientific literacy, working with children, non-formal training and

experiential learning methodology. Three preparatory meetings were held prior to the training by the training

team.

The evaluator participated in the preparatory meetings to observe and work with the training team for the

specific objectives of the training and the sessions. He also fully participated in the training to make

observations, to apply the evaluation forms, to facilitate the Evaluation Session at the end of the program andto take part in the daily and final evaluation meetings with the training team.

24 young volunteers participated in the training of which 54% were women and 46% were men. The mean age

of the participants was 21,50 2,12. The youngest participant was 18 years old, and the oldest was 25 years

old.

None of the participants had Scientific Literacy training before but 35% of them reported that they had

training with the theme Working with Children before this training.

The participants reported 19 different fields of study as their majors and only 21% of them were majored in

natural sciences.


30/69


29

Methodology and Assessment Tools

The evaluator got involved at every stage of the training process, from the beginning (program design) to the

end (post-training evaluation meeting), to make a versatile and meaningful assessment. A variety of data

collection methods (quantitative and qualitative) were used in order to minimize the weakness of any single

approach. With this intention, both the data gathered from the participants and feedback from the trainers had

been used for assessment.

The evaluation plan for the training involves the assessment of the significant changes in participants in termsof knowledge, skills and opinions specific to the training objectives, observation of the sessions and

participant observations of the evaluation meetings the trainers held at the end of each day (see Figure1).

Figure1: Evaluation Plan for SLT

Program

Design

Daily evaluationmeetings (with

trainers)

Day 3Day 1

End of the

training

Daily evaluationsessions (withparticipants)Pre-test

Post-test

Day 5Day 4Day 2

Day 6

Final Evaluation

Meeting (with

trainers,coordinatar and

consultantBeginning of the

training

EVALUATION PLAN


31/69


30

Evaluation Questionnaire1: The SLT Evaluation Questionnaire1 (EQ1, see Annex -1) was developedto measure changes in knowledge, skills and opinions of the participants quantitatively, by the evaluator with

the contribution of the training team. The EQ1 had 56 items based on the specific objectives of the training

sessions. The participants were required to respond to the items on a ten point Likert scale from Dont know

at all/Cant do at all/Strongly disagree to Know completely/Can do completely/Strongly agree (see Annex

1). The questionnaire was applied twice, once at the beginning and once at the end of the training as pre-

test and post-test. Participants were asked to fill in the column A during pre -test and columns B and C

during post-test (representing pre-test, post-test and revised pre-test scores, respectively). For the column C

participants reassessed their pre-test scores after the training.

Evaluation Questionnaire2: The SLT Evaluation Questionnaire 2 (EQ2, see Annex - 2) was basically a

reactionnaire form which was developed to get feedback from the participants about overall structure and

themes covered in the training, the trainers, technical conditions, etc. It also included a few open ended

questions related with the aims of the training and some Likert scale items which could only be assessed after

the training. Besides providing qualitative data for the evaluator EQ 2 served the team of trainers during the

final evaluation meeting as a tool for evaluating the training.

Daily Evaluation Sessions (with participants): These were the sessions where the participants shared their

experiences about the program, expressed their feelings, heard how others had experienced that same part of

the program and came up with suggestions and ideas to improve the program. These sessions also providedthe team of trainers an effective means for staying in touch with the way the group of participants developed

and identifying any problems and challenges that needed intervention.

Daily Evaluation Meetings (with trainers): The meetings trainers held at the end of each day where they

evaluated the sessions, participants reactions, the training team and make modifications on the program if

necessary. The evaluator participated in these meetings mostly as an observer and made suggestions if needed.

Final Evaluation Meeting (with trainers, coordinator and consultant): Meeting held with the participation of

trainers, coordinator, consultant and evaluator shortly after the training where overall structure and elements

of the training program were evaluated and necessary future modifications were discussed.


32/69


31

Results

In this section, findings derived from the EQ -1 and EQ 2 will be presented, respectively (4 of the

participants EQ-1 were excluded since they were not completed as needed).

In Graphic1 pre-test (A), post-test (B) and revised pre-test (C) scores of the participants were presented.

One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the A, B, C scores. The results indicated

that there was a statistically significant difference across these three scores. Wilks Lambda = .23, F(2,18), p

< .001. The means and standard deviations were presented in Table 1. In other words, generally speaking,

the training had the desired effect on the participants in terms of its objectives.

Graphic1: EQ-1 mean scores for participants

In addition, in Graphic2, mean scores for each item were demonstrated. Although differences between pre-

test and revised pre-test mean scores could be noticed these differences are not statistically significant as seen

in Table - 2.

Graphic2: Mean scores for EQ1 items


33/69


32

Table1: Descriptive Statistics for Pre-test, Post-test and Revised Pre-test Scores

Mean Std. Deviation N

Pre-test 7,50 ,748 20

Post-test 8,64 ,399 20

Revised Pre-test 6,98 1,46 20

Moreover, whileBonferroni Post Hoc Testrevealed that post-test was statistically significantly different form

post-test and revised pre-test there was no significant difference between pre-test and revised pre-test. The

results were shown in Table2.

Table2: Descriptive Statistics for Pre-test, Post-test and Revised Pre-test Scores

(I) factor1 (J)

factor1

Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std. Error Sig.a 95% Confidence

Interval for Differencea

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Pre-test Post-test -1,142* ,151 ,000 -1,539 -,745

R.pre-test ,512 ,311 ,348 -,304 1,329

Post-test Pre-test 1,142* ,151 ,000 ,745 1,539

R.pre-test 1,654* ,334 ,000 ,777 2,532

R.pre-test Pre-test -,512 ,311 ,348 -1,329 ,304

Post-test -1,654* ,334 ,000 -2,532 -,777

Based on estimated marginal means

*. The mean difference is significant at the ,05 level.

a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

R.pre-test: Revised pre-test

Given that there was no significant difference between pre-test and revised pre-test scores, in the following

phase of analysis Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Signed Ranks Testwas conducted to assess the difference between

revised pre-test and post-test scores, for each item of EQ-1. The results were shown in Table3 below.


34/69


33

Table3: Mean scores for revised pre-test and post-test, and p values for Wilcoxon tests, EQ-1

No Items r. Pre-test post-test p values

1 All individuals aged between 0-18 are children. 6,25 7,90 ,115

2* I know the aims of TOG. 7,55 9,55 ,002

3* Volunteerism has diverse definitions. 7,35 9,70 ,006

4* I know what "rights based work" with children means. 5,10 8,75 ,000

5* I know how to express what I mean to a child. 6,20 8,75 ,001

6 Scientific methods provide absolute proofs. 4,95 4,75 ,670

7* I know the mechanisms for participating in decision making processes in TOG. 6,25 8,35 ,005

8* Volunteerism is a way of civic participation. 7,80 9,25 ,009

9* I know the developmental characteristics of children aged between 7-14. 6,25 8,85 ,002

10 The child is an individual with rights. 9,30 9,50 ,786

11* I know the essential values of working with children. 6,95 9,25 ,002

12 Only highly educated scientists understand science. 7,95 8,50 ,570

13* I can focus children's attention to a specific issue during the workshops. 6,30 8,95 ,001

14* I know how TOG functions. 7,26 9,65 ,003

15* I know the difference among volunteerism, helpfulness and charity. 7,30 9,45 ,001

16* It can be fun to work in a science lab. 7,20 9,25 ,007

17* I can manage an approach appropriate to the children's developmental characteristics. 6,95 9,25 ,000

18* While facilitating a workshop with children process is more important than the product. 7,11 9,32 ,005

19* I know the principles of TOG. 7,50 9,70 ,005

20* I may not make big discoveries but studying science can be fun. 7,35 9,55 ,003

21 There is no imagination in science. 6,65 7,30 ,501

22 I can inform people about TOG's aims. 7,90 9,20 ,049

23* I know what active participation means. 7,75 9,45 ,002

24 Every child is different than the other. 9,15 9,85 ,066

25 Scientific methods can answer all the questions. 5,50 6,20 ,132

26* A child is an individual, for whom an environment which allows his/her active participation

must be created.

8,25 9,70 ,007

27* I can think of myself in children's state and conditions while working with them. 8,10 9,55 ,003

28* I can specify the source of a problem during the workshops. 6,10 8,80 ,001

29* I know what kind of opportunities TOG provides for young people (e.g. scholarships, 7,00 9,55 ,002

30* I can debate on volunteerism being aware of what I mean. 7,70 9,45 ,004

31* Every single child develops with his/her distinctive developmental phase. 8,15 9,80 ,008

32* Electronic devices are indeed the examples of valuable products of science 4,40 2,90 ,005

33* I know what children centered approach refers to. 6,05 9,05 ,000

34* Most people can understand science. 6,25 8,30 ,001

35* I know about the activities of TOG. 7,75 9,70 ,002

36* I can create an environment which suits the needs of children I work with. 6,40 9,25 ,000

37* I know what may cause communication failures while working with children. 6,45 9,35 ,000

38 Scientists do not have enough time for their families or for fun. 7,50 7,00 ,47639* I can inform people about how TOG functions. 7,65 9,80 ,001

40* I can solve a presenting problem while working with children. 6,55 8,80 ,001

41 Scientific knowledge includes subjectivity. 3,80 5,35 ,054

42* I can inform people about the principles of TOG. 7,05 9,30 ,001

43* I know the impact of active participation. 7,60 9,65 ,003

44 All children have equal opportunity to participate in the workshops and no discrimination is 9,15 9,90 ,068

45 Scientific study is boring. 8,70 8,95 ,611

46 There is no cultural diversity in scientific knowledge. 4,45 4,65 ,937

47 Each child has different abilities and aptitudes. 9,45 9,95 ,180

48* I know how to act if any problem occurs during the workshops with children. 6,15 9,10 ,000

49 It might be very difficult for me to do scientific studies. 6,85 6,85 ,943

50* I can inform people about TOG's activities. 7,80 9,65 ,001

51* I can create an environment in which the children can easily share their thoughts and feelings. 6,50 9,20 ,00052* Imagination and creativity are important in the formation of scientific knowledge. 7,68 9,53 ,008

53* Each child has a unique way of expressing him/herself. 8,15 9,45 ,028


35/69


34

54* I know which precautions to I can take for an adverse situation not to occur while facilitating the 6,35 9,05 ,001

55 Scientists have to work very hard. 4,65 4,30 ,528

56* I have the skills necessary for facilitating the workshops. 6,65 9,25 ,000*The mean difference is significant at the 0,05 level

The Wilcoxon Test revealed statistically significant increase in post-test scores except items 1, 6, 10, 12, 21,

22, 24, 25, 38, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49 and 55 (red-painted items) . Difference in item 41 was almost significant.

These results will be discussed in the next section.

In Graphics 3 and 4 participants Perceived Levels of Learning (PLL) were presented. In the EQ-2, the

participants were required to asses to what extent they thought they had learned from each session of the

training course on a five point Likert scale from Learned nothing to Learned a lot. Perceived Levels of

Learning refers to the mean scores of these self-assessments.

Graphic3: Participants Perceived Levels of Learning

The overall PLL mean score was 4,55 out of 5. Minimum score was 3,71 and maximum score was 4,96. These

results clearly indicated that the participants thought that they had learned a lot in the training.

Graphic - 4: Perceived Levels of Learning for Sessions


36/69


35

Minimum PLL mean for sessions was 4,04 (Child and Child Development) and maximum mean was 4,96(Colors Dancing in the Milk experiment).

Mean scores for the technical conditions of the training according to the participants were as follows

Graphic - 5: Technical Conditions

Participants overall mean score for technical conditions is 4,33. This score indicated that, in the eyes of theparticipants; the technical conditions were quite well except for meals.

In Graphic6, the mean scores for the items that could not be assessed prior to the training were presented.

These items were used additionally to assess to what extent the participants thought they could facilitate the

workshops with children.

Graphic - 6: Mean Scores for the Post-Training Items


37/69


36

Conclusions and Recommendations

There were three main objectives of the Scientific Literacy Training. First was enabling participants to reflect

on their understanding of science, scientific knowledge, scientific practices and to develop curiosity about

science. The other two, both acquisition of children centered approach and experiencing the experiments and

their implementation procedures, were about developing participants competencies necessary for facilitating

the workshops they would implement with children during the project.

The results presented in the previous section indicated that the training had reached its overall objectives. In

addition, evaluating the specific learning objectives of training in detail provided opportunities both to

understand the extent to which the training created a change in participants in terms of its expected outcomes

and make suggestions for the following SLTs.

In line with the objectives, the training had three main themes, namely Scientific Literacy, Working with

Children and Experiments. Communication with Children, Who is the Child? and Rights Based

Approach were the subthemes of Working with Children. Volunteerism, TOG and its principles were

additional training themes. Discussions of the objectives were categorized under these headings.

All the items under Communication with Children showed statistically significant difference (see Table 3above). Half of the items under Rights Based Approach and Who is the Child? showed no significance (5

items out of 11). However, 4 of these statistically insignificant items had very high levels of pre-test scores

(e.g. 9,30/10). These results suggested that participants had gained knowledge, acquired skills and attitudes

necessary for working with children. In other words, participants;

- understood the developmental characteristics of children more,- did case studies on communication with children and improved their communication skills,-

acquired basics of children centered approach, which promotes the right of the children to choose, makeconnections and communicate; and also allows freedom for the children to think, experience, explore,

question and search for answers.

Nevertheless our observations on the field and the outputs of EEFs and Evaluation Workshops suggested that

facilitators needed more support in communicating with children and classroom management, especially in

cases of conflicts.

Again, all three items under Workshop Activities (Experiments) were found statistically significant.

Moreover, items in the EQ2 related with the experiments and facilitation of them (see Graphic 6, page 8)

were scored quite high. This indicated that participants learned the objectives and implementation phases of

experiments sufficiently. Notwithstanding, field observations revealed that participants needed to further read

and study the Facilitators Book.


38/69


37

3 out of 15 Scientific Literacy items showed statistically significant difference. Participants began to think thatscience could be understood by everyone not just by scientists. Moreover, they began to see science as more

enjoyable and fun than they did before training. Their opinions such as Scientific methods provide absolute

proofs," Scientific methods can answer all the questions," There is no cultural diversity in scientific

knowledge," Scientists have to work very hard," It might be very difficult for me to do scientific studies

remained the same after the training. Furthermore, their ideas about the place and function of imagination in

science were controversial. On one hand, they began to think that imagination and creativity were important in

the formation of scientific knowledge and on the other hand no significant change was observed on the idea

that there was no place for imagination in science.

These results contradicted with the results of EQ 2. Participants were required to share the skills they

acquired and opinions that changed during the training in the EQ - 2. Their responses were presented below,

from most frequent to least.

Skills

How to approach to children

Communication

Being patient

ObservationModerating experiments

Versatile thinking

Opinions and attitudes

I will observe and examine the things around me more.

Teamwork increases efficiency.

I broke my prejudices against natural sciences.

There is nothing to be afraid of science.

I can be a scientist.Everyone can do science.

My belief that science is absolute has changed.

There is subjectivity in science

Opinions that changed with the effect of the training provided evidence for the improvement of participants

view of science.

All but one of the items under Volunteerism, TOG and its principles were found statistically significantly

different. This suggested that participants knew TOG and its principles better than they did before, learnedbasic concepts of volunteerism and relations among them, and could debate on volunteerism being aware of

what they meant.


39/69


38

We looked at the answers of the participants to the open-ended questions in the EQ -2 and outputs of theevaluation meeting held with trainers, project coordinator and consultant at the end of the training to evaluate

the training process.

Participants were satisfied with the technical conditions except for the meals (Graphic 5). The training hall

not having windows wasparticipants only negative feedback about technical conditions.

The participants reported that the structure of the training was well-prepared and also flexible to the needs of

the participants and their learning process. The best feature of the programs overall structure was the sessions

being concordant and complementary with each other. Every session was linked with prior and followingsessions. Participants reported that not only they didnt get bored but had fun during the training. At the same

time, they thought that it was an intensive program, and they got tired occasionally. Few participants

suggested to increase duration of the training and not to make sessions after dinner. They also asked for more

sessions on approach to and communication with children, and more time to explore Istanbul.

Very good, well up in their subject, well-prepared, coherent with each other, sincere, supportive, patient,understanding and attentive were the adjectives and expressions that participants used as they evaluated the

trainers.

Participants were asked whether they felt like being a facilitator in the project at the end of the training.

21 of 24 participants responded as Yes. 3 of them responded Yes, but I need support. This indicated that

they were confident enough to facilitate the workshops.

The most frequent post-training expectation of the participants was staying in touch and sharing experiences.

Peer support, technical and moral support from the coordinator, support for improving communication with

children and wish to disseminate the project were other expectations. These sort of expectations showed that

participants were highly motivated at the end of the training.

Additionally, visit of Bayer Turks representatives increased participants mo tivation, and their faith in the

success of the project.

Following topics and recommendations came to the fore in the post-training evaluation meeting with the

training team. These outcomes would be meaningful to consider when designing the next SLT.

-

Spending two days instead of one for experiments.- Planning 90 minutes sessions as if they take 75 minutes in order to spend more time for debriefing.- Reviewing the sessions titled Communication with Children.


40/69


39

- Making agreement with the participants which creates the setting for the training at the beginning toreduce delays in the mornings.

- Reducing the lunch break to 1 hour.- Sending participants some material such as a story, flyer, article, etc. to make them curious about the

training.

- Providing a free afternoon for participants.- Adding a session to the program about giving and receiving feedback.- Having all the young volunteers participate in the training, not %60 percent of them.

Summing up, results of both EQ 1 and EQ - 2 confirmed that the training served its purposes. However, it

would be useful to revise and restructure the sessions on Communicating with Children and Scientific

Literacy for strengthening the impact of the training

Workshops

Between September 2011 and February 2012, 76 young volunteers and 275 children joined the project in four

cities; Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara and Kars (see BYSAP Midterm Report for further information). Since obtaining

the legal permissions from Directorates of Education took distict durations in each city, each project group

started implementing the workshops at different times.

Four data collection instruments were developed to conduct process evaluation of the project. Exchange of

Experiences Form (EEF), Field Visits - Evaluation Workshops, Posters children made and Letters children

wrote. EEFs and Field Visits Evaluation Workshops also provided additional qualitative data for the

assessment of Scientific Literacy Training (SLT).

Exchange of Experiences

As the project was implemented by four different youth organizations (project teams) in four cities it was

important for the facilitators to be in contact and share their experiences. This was also the facilitators

expectation at the end of SLT. Apart from the e-mail and Facebook groups, where the facilitators exchanged

information, pictures, and videos of ongoing activities and related material, Exchange of Experiences Form

(EEF) was developed as a more structured way of exchanging information among the project groups and

facilitators (see Annex3). The other equally important function of EEFs was to provide qualitative data for

process evaluation.


41/69


40

By filling out these forms, the facilitators shared their own experience and reflections on the workshops,

concentrating on their personal experience, program, teamwork, children, school officials, technical

conditions, workshop objectives and suggestions for further workshops.

A summary of data from 12 EEFs was presented below.

Personal Experience

Facilitators felt anxious before their initial workshops. Their level of this kind of performance anxiety was

quite natural and tended to decrease as they participated in more than one workshop.

Teamwork

Facilitators reported an overall satisfaction about the teamwork during the project. The most compelling

evidence was the task-sharing. In most of the workshops they shared their roles and tasks by taking personal

choices into consideration. Frequently, they assisted each other and felt as a team as a consequence during the

workshops. In some few cases, especially when there were only one member who participated in the SLT and

no preparation meeting was held, facilitators had difficulty in working as a team.

Furthermore, as the facilitators got more experienced, felt less anxious and took enough time for proper

preparation they shared their tasks in a more detailed and structured way, determining sub-categories for the

tasks (such as preparation of materials, moderation of experiments, paying attention to childrens needs and

classroom management ) and began to learn from each other

Program

They could do all of the experiments and all worked well unless they had difficulty in finding some materials

such as white carnation, hot water, ice, etc. According to the facilitators, icebreakers, energizers and games

used during the workshops played an important role in motivating and ensuring the children participate in the

workshop

Homemade Ice Cream and Colors Dancing in the Milk were facilitators most favorite experiments.


42/69


41

Children (their contribution, motivation, interest, group dynamic, observed improvements)

First of all, facilitators stated that children were quite exited, motivated and active during the workshops. They

liked the experiments and enjoyed the workshops. Secondly, facilitators observed that children were really

appreciative of their efforts if they cared enough and valued them. Most of the time they wanted to participate

again the week after.

Moreover, children responded well when facilitators encouraged children to cooperate as they tended to work

individually.

On the other hand, some facilitators felt helpless when children who had previous experience with some

particular experiments got bored and distracted against all their efforts.

School Officials

Principles and/or teachers were very helpful and supportive according to facilitators. They felt really

welcomed. They had no unpleasant interactions with the officials. On only one occasion a teacher came in to

see what was happening and gave instructions to children, which was stated as intrusive by facilitators.

Technical Conditions

Facilitators thought all the technical conditions were fine except some complaints about the classroom being

cold.

In one of the schools, the school lab was used for the first time. Facilitators felt happy to contribute to labs

functioning. However, the setup of the lab was not suitable for small groups work.


43/69


42

Evaluation of the workshops

Facilitators were asked to evaluate the workshop based on its objectives (Do you think the workshop enabledchildren (1) to have an opinion about the nature of science, (2) to get more curious about science, (3) to get

more willing to learn, question and reason?). They responses could be categorized under three headings;

curiosity, changes in perception of science and increased interest in science. Some of the responses

were quoted below.

Yes, it really gets the children excited and motivated about science. They began to ask why and how

questions.

They ask questions and comment on the experiments.

Their interest in science increases especially when we use examples from daily life during the discussions.

I think the children will share what we did here when they get home.

They said that they would use the booklets and do the experiments at home.

The children who participated earlier workshops had told their friends about the experiments and they got

interested and wondered about the experiments.

I think they like science more than before.

They saw that science was more fun than they thought it was.

They realized that doing experiments and science was not that hard.

Suggestions for Following Workshops

When asked to make suggestions for the following workshops facilitators gave the following answers.

It really gets exhausting at the end of the day, especially if the number of participants is high. Therefore, pay

attention to number of the participants.

Talk with the principal about number of the participants and parental permission letters.

Parents who wish to participate in the workshop cause distraction for both the group and their own children.

Find an appropriate way to keep them out of the classroom.

Some of the children found some experiments simple, such as Do flowers drink water? and got distracted.

More complicated, alternative experiments may be added to the workshop program.

Book, TV shows and movie suggestions can be made for children.

(See the section below for recommendations built up in the evaluation workshop for improving theimplementation process).


44/69


43

Field Visits and Evaluation Workshops with the Project Groups

Two field visits were implemented by the project coordinator, project consultant and the evaluator in two

primary schools, in Istanbul to make observations and collect data which was essential for the evaluation

workshop. Observations were held under the headings Practice/Process, Content of the workshops and

Communication with Children.

With the data gathered with these field visits it became possible to monitor the ongoing implementation

process, improve some of the practices and build up practical recommendations for the facilitators.

With those in hand, a semi-structured evaluation workshop was held with the participation of 10 volunteers

from Istanbul project team, project coordinator, consultant and evaluator for the purpose of;

Providing a space for the facilitators to share their experiences with each other and reflect on their work,

Emphasizing the positive aspects of their works and hereby increasing the motivation of facilitators,

Identifying areas for improvement and

Collecting data for process evaluation.

In the evaluation workshop the participants were asked to reflect, brainstorm and write down on posters,

what went good and what went bad during the workshops focusing on teamwork, program and

experiments, relations with the school officials, children, classroom management/communication with

children and technical conditions; working in small groups. The outputs were summarized below combined

with our observations.

Teamwork

(+)

Task-sharing - they are generally satisfied with the way they shared their tasks for the workshops

Having a preparation meeting before the workshop day

Making evaluation after the workshop


45/69


44

(-)

Difference between the facilitators who participated in the SLT and who didnt. Facilitators who participatedin the SLT were expected to take more responsibility and guide other team members.

The facilitators felt that the teamwork they had was satisfying and functional for the overall course of the

workshops. Consistently, our observations suggests that in so far as the facilitators had a preparation meeting,

shared their tasks before the workshop day and study the Facilitators Booklet they felt more confident and

competent during the workshops.

Program and experiments

(+)

Energizers and games performed between the experiments really helped the children to get together and get

motivated.

Facilitators had the chance to perform all the experiments in the program.

(-)

Experiment materials that could not be found, such as ice, hot water, carnation, caused some trouble in the

sequence of the program.

The carnations are hard to find and expensive.

Difficulty in having the children to solve the puzzle in the program.

Difficulty in answering some of the childrens questions related to the content of the experiments.

Sometimes it really got exhausting towards the end of the day since they tried to do all the experiments in the

program.

Observations during the field visits revealed that the facilitators focused on the execution of the experiments

and classroom management more than the debriefing sections where they were required to create a discussion,

and encourage the children to ask questions and reflect on the related concepts and themes.


46/69


45

Relations with the school officials

Both project groups reported that the school officials showed great interest in the project, they were helpful

most of the time and happy that the workshops took place in their schools.

Children

(+)

Interested in the project, motivated to do experiments, curious, creative

Sincere, respectful and happy to join the workshop

(-)

Had difficulty in teamwork; cooperate and tended to participate individually (selfishness, jealousy, fighting).

Their wish to participate in the workshop again caused some trouble (Facilitators had a conflict between not

turning down the previous participants and having new children to participate).

Classroom management/communication with children

Observations indicated that facilitators used the words and phrases such as we, friends, together as they

spoke to children during the workshops which where the indicators of an inclusive and child centered

approach. Although they tended to lose their temper and raise their voice to draw attention when they got too

exhausted because of the noise children created they were aware of this behavior most of the time and try to

readjust the way they communicated.

They also tried to include all of the children in the course even if the children wanted to behave individually

and not cooperate or tended stay out of the team.

In line with what was observed, facilitators reported that they had some troubles when the children inclined to

quarrel, fight or get distracted. This occurred especially with u-shaped classroom setup. Classroom setup

adjusted in groups of 4-5 tables as suggested in the Facilitators Booklet allowed easier cooperative learning

for the children.


47/69


46

Areas for improvement and Recommendations

In the light of observations during the field visits and outputs of evaluation workshop, participants, including

project coordinator, consultant and evaluator, identified areas for improvement and built up recommendations

for the next phase of the project. Those were as follows:

i. Preparing an agreement together with children at the beginning of the workshops to ease classroom

management and encourage the children to participate in workshops more (Agreement could be written on a

poster and signed by all the participants and facilitators).

ii. Giving more positive and clear instructions for the experiments

iii. Positively reinforcing childrens questions and contributions by approving them and respondingenthusiastically.

iv. Paying particular attention to the debriefing questions.

v. Using small group classroom setup for making experiments.

vi. Having one facilitator for each small group.

vii. Using u-shaped classroom setup and allow more time for debriefing.

viii. Studying the Facilitators Booklet more carefully.

ix. Making preparation meetings before the workshops, share roles and tasks more accurately.

x. Making evaluation after the workshops and give feedback to each other.

xi. Making two experiments a day instead of three or four to provide more time for communicating and

connecting with children, and debriefing.

In addition, verbal feedback of the facilitators and our observations suggested that weekends were more

appropriate for the workshops since the schools are more silent and calmer than the weekdays. It provided

more space and concentration both for the facilitators and the children.


48/69


47

Letters and Posters

Letters and Posters were the two instruments developed to collect data from the participants of workshops; the

children.

At the end of the first day of the workshops, children were instructed by the facilitators to prepare a poster in

small groups and then present it to other participants as a team (see Annex 4 for an example). The purpose

of the posters was twofold. First, it provided a tool for children to recall experiences they had during the day

and share them with each other. Second, it provided qualitative data for evaluation, which supports the data

collected by the letters.

Some examples of childrens statements were presented below.

It was a very nice and funny day. We did experiments, played games and became scientists here.

I cant wait to come tomorrow.

I thank to our entire elder sisters and brothers for coming here and helping us.

All of us are scientists. We are young scientists.

Science is great., Science is fun.

I like science a lot; we learned a lot of things today.

Science is a part of someones life.

Science is making new contributions to the world.

Science is discovering new things.

Science is inventing new things that people can use.

In addition to the aforementioned purposes of the posters it was observed that preparing and presenting

posters in small groups helped children to experience more cooperation and team work.

The main question asked with the letter was What kind of a scientist do you want to be?. Children were

required to write a letter which described the kind of scientist they would like to be, what they would want to

do and search as a scientist and why they chose those subjects (see Annex5 for an example).


49/69


48

71 letters were gathered so far from 4th

and 5th

grade students. 35 of them were selected randomly for analysis.

Childrens responses were gathered under 13 categories based on the objectives of the workshops. Some of

the categories were predefined and some emerged through the an

Bayer Genç Bilim Elçileri - Ara Rapor

Documents

Transcript of Bayer Genç Bilim Elçileri - Ara Rapor