Bayer Genç Bilim Elçileri - Ara Rapor

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS
BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS OCTOBER 2011 FEBRUARY 2012 MIDTERM REPORT
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
BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS MIDTERM REPORT
Project Name Project Partners Financial Supporter Implementation Period Reporting Period
Bayer Young Science Ambassadors (BYSA) Bayer Turk & Toplum Gnllleri Vakf (TOG) Bayer Turk 01.09.2011 30.05.2012 01.09.2011 29.02.2012
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.
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html . PISA measures scientific literacy across a continuum from basic literacy skills through high levels of knowledge of scientific concepts and examines students capacity to use their understanding of these concepts and to think scientifically about real-life problems. p. 13 in the executive summary
1
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, 7th and 8th grade 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 Council where 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.
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
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 science education Supporting the children and their learning process at primary schools (age between 10-12) The Main Objectives of the Pilot Project Accordingly, the main objective of the project is to improve the scientific literacy level of its target groups (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 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. 5
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 30th Dec 4th. Gender Distribution of the participants: Table 1: City / Gender Istanbul Ankara Izmir Kars Total Female 5 2 3 3 13 Male 1 4 3 3 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. 6
Table 2: Participation of BYSA City Istanbul Ankara Izmir Kars Total BYSA 16 22 23 15 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
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 skill for observation about the understanding of nature of science which is a part of scientific literacy. Accordingly, the main objective of the project is to improve the scientific literacy level of its target groups (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 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.
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 45. 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. 8
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 30 min 20 min 15 min 40 min 15 min 40 min 15 min 10 min 20 min 25 min
Activity DAY 1 Getting to know each other Science Bingo Exp 1: Do flowers drink water? Break Exp 2: Let's make a thermometer! Break Exp 3: Colors dancing in the milk! Break Energizer: Molecules Exp 4: Screaming balloons Closing session: Groups poster DAY 2
15 min 5 min 40 min 15 min 15 min 40 min 15 min 30 min 10 min
Continue to Exp 1: Do flowers drink water? Grouping Activity: Colorful Dots Exp 5: Is black really black? Break Energizer: Solar System Exp 6: Homemade Ice cream Break Exp 7: The chemical of red cabbage Crossword Puzzle Closing session: Writing a letter
30 min
What kind of a scientist would I like to be? 9
What children think and share:
10
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.
http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/colorful-carnations
11
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
Izmir
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
Scientific Literacy Training
Children learn the importance and effect of soap on cleaning and why we people wash our hands with soap.
3
http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/water-thermometer-sick-science
http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/milk-color-explosion
12
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.
TOG 19. Youth Council
Experiment 5: Is Black Really Black? Using a technique called chromatography, children find out exactly what 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
Istanbul
http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/product/screaming-balloon-kit
http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/is-black-black
13
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
Izmir
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
Ankara
http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/homemade-ice-cream-sick-science
http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/product/1552
14
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 30 th 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. 15
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.
16
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. 17
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.
18
MIDTERM EVALUATION REPORT

OCTOBER 2011 FEBRUARY 2012
Evaluator Erhan Okak Psychologist, MA
19
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) ................................................................................................................ 27 Aims 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 ANNEX 3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 63 ANNEX 4 ....................................................................................................................................................... 66 ANNEX 5 ....................................................................................................................................................... 67
20
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 (6 th, 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, Have curiosity about science and technology, 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, Understand and appreciate the value of science and technology.
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 volunteers became 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 where 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.
21
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. 22
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 responding enthusiastically. 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, questioning their 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.
23
Abbreviations BYSAP SLT EEF EQ 1 EQ 2 PLL Bayer Young Science Ambassadors Project Scientific Literacy Training Exchange of Experiences Form Evaluation Questionnaire 1 Evaluation Questionnaire 2 Perceived Levels of Learning
24
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 science education 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).
Accordingly, the main objective of the project is to improve the scientific literacy level of its target groups (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, 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. 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.
25
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 the BYSAP 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 SLT focusing 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 of the 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 share their 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.
26
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.
27
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 and to 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.
28
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 terms of 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 Figure 1).
Program Design
Pre-test
Daily evaluation sessions (with participants)
Daily evaluation meetings (with trainers) Post-test
Day 1
Day 3
End of the training
Day 2
Day 4
Day 5 Day 6
Final Evaluation Meeting (with trainers, coordinatar and consultant
Beginning of the training
EVALUATION PLAN
Figure 1: Evaluation Plan for SLT
29
Evaluation Questionnaire 1: The SLT Evaluation Questionnaire 1 (EQ 1, see Annex -1) was developed to measure changes in knowledge, skills and opinions of the participants quantitatively, by the evaluator with the contribution of the training team. The EQ 1 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 pretest 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 Questionnaire 2: The SLT Evaluation Questionnaire 2 (EQ 2, 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 provided the 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.
30
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 Graphic 1 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.
Graphic 1: EQ-1 mean scores for participants
In addition, in Graphic 2, mean scores for each item were demonstrated. Although differences between pretest and revised pre-test mean scores could be noticed these differences are not statistically significant as seen in Table - 2.
Graphic 2: Mean scores for EQ 1 items
31
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Pre-test, Post-test and Revised Pre-test Scores
Mean Pre-test Post-test Revised Pre-test 7,50 8,64 6,98
Std. Deviation ,748 ,399 1,46
N 20 20 20
Moreover, while Bonferroni Post Hoc Test revealed 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 Table 2.
Table 2: 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 Upper Bound Bound -1,539 -,745 -,304 1,329 ,745 1,539 ,777 2,532 -1,329 ,304 -2,532 -,777
Post-test -1,142* ,151 R.pre-test ,512 ,311 Pre-test 1,142* ,151 Post-test R.pre-test 1,654* ,334 Pre-test -,512 ,311 R.pre-test Post-test -1,654* ,334 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 Pre-test
,000 ,348 ,000 ,000 ,348 ,000
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 Test was conducted to assess the difference between revised pre-test and post-test scores, for each item of EQ-1. The results were shown in Table 3 below.
32

Table 3: Mean scores for revised pre-test and post-test, and p values for Wilcoxon tests, EQ-1
No Items 1 2* 3* 4* 5* 6 7* 8* 9* 10 11* 12 13* 14* 15* 16* 17* 18* 19* 20* 21 22 23* 24 25 26* 27* 28* 29* 30* 31* 32* 33* 34* 35* 36* 37* 38 39* 40* 41 42* 43* 44 45 46 47 48* 49 50* 51* 52* 53* All individuals aged between 0-18 are children. I know the aims of TOG. Volunteerism has diverse definitions. I know what "rights based work" with children means. I know how to express what I mean to a child. Scientific methods provide absolute proofs. I know the mechanisms for participating in decision making processes in TOG. Volunteerism is a way of civic participation. I know the developmental characteristics of children aged between 7-14. The child is an individual with rights. I know the essential values of working with children. Only highly educated scientists understand science. I can focus children's attention to a specific issue during the workshops. I know how TOG functions. I know the difference among volunteerism, helpfulness and charity. It can be fun to work in a science lab. I can manage an approach appropriate to the children's developmental characteristics. While facilitating a workshop with children process is more important than the product. I know the principles of TOG. I may not make big discoveries but studying science can be fun. There is no imagination in science. I can inform people about TOG's aims. I know what active participation means. Every child is different than the other. Scientific methods can answer all the questions. A child is an individual, for whom an environment which allows his/her active participation must be created. I can think of myself in children's state and conditions while working with them. I can specify the source of a problem during the workshops. I know what kind of opportunities TOG provides for young people (e.g. scholarships, counseling, internship, EVS, etc.). aware of what I mean. I can debate on volunteerism being Every single child develops with his/her distinctive developmental phase. Electronic devices are indeed the examples of valuable products of science I know what children centered approach refers to. Most people can understand science. I know about the activities of TOG. I can create an environment which suits the needs of children I work with. I know what may cause communication failures while working with children. Scientists do not have enough time for their families or for fun. I can inform people about how TOG functions. I can solve a presenting problem while working with children. Scientific knowledge includes subjectivity. I can inform people about the principles of TOG. I know the impact of active participation. All children have equal opportunity to participate in the workshops and no discrimination is allowed for any reason. Scientific study is boring. There is no cultural diversity in scientific knowledge. Each child has different abilities and aptitudes. I know how to act if any problem occurs during the workshops with children. It might be very difficult for me to do scientific studies. I can inform people about TOG's activities. I can create an environment in which the children can easily share their thoughts and feelings. Imagination and creativity are important in the formation of scientific knowledge. Each child has a unique way of expressing him/herself. r. Pretest 6,25 7,55 7,35 5,10 6,20 4,95 6,25 7,80 6,25 9,30 6,95 7,95 6,30 7,26 7,30 7,20 6,95 7,11 7,50 7,35 6,65 7,90 7,75 9,15 5,50 8,25 8,10 6,10 7,00 7,70 8,15 4,40 6,05 6,25 7,75 6,40 6,45 7,50 7,65 6,55 3,80 7,05 7,60 9,15 8,70 4,45 9,45 6,15 6,85 7,80 6,50 7,68 8,15 posttest 7,90 9,55 9,70 8,75 8,75 4,75 8,35 9,25 8,85 9,50 9,25 8,50 8,95 9,65 9,45 9,25 9,25 9,32 9,70 9,55 7,30 9,20 9,45 9,85 6,20 9,70 9,55 8,80 9,55 9,45 9,80 2,90 9,05 8,30 9,70 9,25 9,35 7,00 9,80 8,80 5,35 9,30 9,65 9,90 8,95 4,65 9,95 9,10 6,85 9,65 9,20 9,53 9,45 p values ,115 ,002 ,006 ,000 ,001 ,670 ,005 ,009 ,002 ,786 ,002 ,570 ,001 ,003 ,001 ,007 ,000 ,005 ,005 ,003 ,501 ,049 ,002 ,066 ,132 ,007 ,003 ,001 ,002 ,004 ,008 ,005 ,000 ,001 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,476 ,001 ,001 ,054 ,001 ,003 ,068 ,611 ,937 ,180 ,000 ,943 ,001 ,000 ,008 ,028
33

54* 55 56* I know which precautions to I can take for an adverse situation not to occur while facilitating the workshops. Scientists have to work very hard. I have the skills necessary for facilitating the workshops. 6,35 4,65 6,65 9,05 4,30 9,25 ,001 ,528 ,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.
Graphic 3: 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
34
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 the participants; the technical conditions were quite well except for meals.
In Graphic 6, 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
35
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 3 above). 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, make connections 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 EQ 2 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. 36
3 out of 15 Scientific Literacy items showed statistically significant difference. Participants began to think that science 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 Observation Moderating 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, learned basic concepts of volunteerism and relations among them, and could debate on volunteerism being aware of what they meant. 37
We looked at the answers of the participants to the open-ended questions in the EQ -2 and outputs of the evaluation 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 was participants 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 following sessions. 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 motivation, 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. 38
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 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 Annex 3). The other equally important function of EEFs was to provide qualitative data for process evaluation.
39
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. 40
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.
41
Evaluation of the workshops Facilitators were asked to evaluate the workshop based on its objectives (Do you think the workshop enabled children (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 the implementation process). 42
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
43
(-) Difference between the facilitators who participated in the SLT and who didnt. Facilitators who participated in 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.
44
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.
45
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 responding enthusiastically. 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.
46
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 Annex 5 for an example).
47
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 analysis.
In Graphic 7, the overall distribution of the 97 responses were presented. (These should better be considered as the preliminary findings. A more refined categorization will be made in the final evaluation).
Graphic 7: Overall Distribution of Childrens Responses to the Letter
Graphic 7 showed that children had fun, got curios and highly motivated for being a scientist as a result; consistent with the findings of posters. Childrens interest in science had the 4 th highest percentage. It was a significant indicator together with motivation for being a scientist. Furthermore, childrens will to disseminate what they had learned was an important indicator that suggested internalized impact of the workshops on children. In other words, they liked it and they wanted to share it with others (their friends, parents, brothers and sisters, etc.).
48
Examples of childrens responses were;
We played games and had fun, The experiments were very enjoyable. (Fun)
We loved you very much., I am proud to meet you and spend time with you., It was a great day., It's a great chance to learn all of these at this age. (Gratification and Gratitude)
I want to learn how it is made., I want to find out how many countries there are in the world. , I want to do more experiments and research more., I want to learn everything in detail. , I want to understand how the internet connection works or how we send SMS via cell phones (Curiosity)
I would like to build a submarine., I want to invent a flying car and a machine that changes my clothes., I want to invent a time machine., I want to invent a flying car and bring an alien out of space. , I want to discover alternative ways of flying., I want to invent glasses which clean itself. (Creativity)
I learned lot of things doing these experiments.
One who researches acquires information and learns new things., One finds out what he/she looks for by science. (Science as a tool to learn)
I want to be a professor when I grow up., I really want to do experiments, research and be a scientist., I want to be a scientist when I grow up. (Motivation for being a scientist)
I want to do experiments and play games with children when I grow up because I liked the experiments we did today very much., I want to be well-informed and intelligent like you. (Facilitators as role models)
I am going to invent a drink called limola, which is made of lemon and carnage, I would like to invent glasses which make me see everything., If I were a scientist I would like to travel around the word like an Explorer., I want to invent glasses which clean itself. (Discovery/Invention)
49
I want to do the experiment screaming balloons with everyone., I want to build a lab in Somali and do experiments with the children over there., I would to teach my students about colors., I want to teach experiments and games about science. (Dissemination of what was learned)
An additional finding that should be emphasized was the using of the word bilim insan instead of bilim adam. In Turkish, bilim adam refers to a male scientist. Using bilim adam causes and is a sign of gender discrimination. All children, except one, used bilim insan to refer to scientists in their letters.
We also wondered if there were differences between children according to their classes. In Graphic 8, the distribution of responses were demonstrated based on this variable.
Graphic 8: Distribution of Childrens Responses to the Letter Based on their Classes
Motivation for becoming a scientist, Curiosity, Creativity, Fun, Facilitators as role models, Gratitude/Gratification and Dissemination of what was learned were the categories that showed difference between 4th and 5th grade children. These differences might be considered as guidelines to determine the results expected from different age groups, by the project coordinator and facilitators.
However, rankings of the categories demonstrated significant similarities. Curiosity and Having Fun were among the top three of both groups suggesting that both groups enjoyed and thought science is more fun than they thought it was and got more curious as a result of the workshops (see Table 3 for the rankings).
50
BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS Table 3: Rankings of the percentage distributions of responses based on classes
Category Curiosity Interest in Science Fun Gratitude/Gratification Creativity Motivation for being a Facilitators scientist as role models Names of Experiments Learned new things Discovery/Invention Appreciation of Science Disseminate what was Teamwork learned
% of 11,32% responses, 11,32% 4th grade 9,43% 9,43% 9,43% 9,43% 9,43% 7,55% 7,55% 5,66% 3,77% 3,77% 1,89%
Category Motivation for being a Curiosity scientist Fun Learned new things Disseminate what was Names learnedof Experiments Creativity Interest in Science Facilitators as role Discovery/Invention models Gratitude/Gratification Teamwork Appreciation of Science
% of 27,27% responses, 18,18% 5th grade 13,64% 9,09% 9,09% 4,55% 4,55% 4,55% 4,55% 4,55% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
Posters and Letters yielded the results below:
Children did really enjoy doing experiments and playing games. (Most frequent statements). They were excited and motivated. They were grateful to the facilitators for the activities and the day. They recalled and depicted almost all of the experiments they did during the workshop on posters. They learned something new through the workshop. Their perception of science began to chance in the desired direction. They began to like science more and see the fun in it. They began to imagine themselves as scientists.
51
Conclusions and Recommendations

The assessment of the projects performance was evaluated as described above. According to the midterm evaluation results BYSAP met or been planning to meet the key objectives presented in the project documents. This is largely due to the effective project management team that is executing the project plus a well-designed and specified project plan.
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 Council where 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.
24 young volunteers from 4 different TOG Youth Organizations participated in the Scientific Literacy Training; the main training in the project. In this training, young volunteers (Young Science Ambassadors) reflected on their understanding of science, scientific knowledge and practice, and developed curiosity about science. Moreover, they developed competencies necessary for facilitating the workshops they implemented during the project with children. In other words, young science ambassadors;
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. 52
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. In addition, results of Exchange of Experiences Forms, field visits and evaluation workshop indicated that facilitators needed more support in communicating with children and classroom management. They also needed to read and study the Facilitators Book more carefully.
76 young science ambassadors and 275 children joined the project between Sep 2011 - Feb 2012 in four cities. Each project group started the workshops at distinct times since getting the legal permissions from Directorates of Education took different durations in each city.
Results of Posters and Letters demonstrated the effects of the workshops on children. Children 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. They began to imagine themselves as scientists. Began to question the happenings and facts around them. Got willing to disseminate what they had learned.
Trying to understand the interrelations between science, technology, society and environment, questioning their 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. A long term implementation (for example, a six-week program instead of two days) was needed for such objectives to be realized.
As a result of this midterm evaluation the following recommendations were made to improve the implementation strategy and to strengthen the impact of the project. Recommendations are grouped under three main headings; SLT, Workshops and General Recommendations).
53
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. 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 for participants. Adding a session to the program about giving and receiving feedback.
Workshops and Facilitation 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). Giving more positive and clear instructions for the experiments. Positively reinforcing childrens questions and contributions by approving them, and responding enthusiastically. 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 and allow more time for debriefing. 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 Conducting two SLTs to ensure all the young volunteers participate in the training, not %60 percent of them, to ensure that they all have competencies necessary for facilitating the workshops. Providing field visits for young volunteers to interact and learn from each other. Organizing periodic meetings to support young volunteers in terms of working with children and/or providing supervision. Conclusively, based on the data gathered so far, this midterm evaluation showed that BYSAP was planned and implemented 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.
54
Form No: _________
ANNEX -1
BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS SCIENTIFIC LITERACY TRAINING

30 November 4 December 2011, ISTANBUL
EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE - I This form is developed in order to evaluate the training; to figure out the extent to which the training objectives are met. Your contributions will help us to further develop the training. Thank you in advance for your sincere responses. No names needed.
Your Age: ____________
Your Gender: _____________
Your major: _______________________
- Please asses the items using the scale below and write down your scores in the columns next to the items.
1. Dont know at all/Cant do at all/Strongly disagree........................... 10.Know completely/Can do completely/Strongly agree A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 All individuals aged between 0-18 are children. I know the aims of TOG. Volunteerism has diverse definitions. I know what rights based work with children means. I know how to express what I mean to a child. Scientific methods provide absolute proofs. I know the mechanisms for participating in decision making processes in TOG. Volunteerism is a way of civic participation. I know the developmental characteristics of children aged between 7-14. The child is an individual with rights. I know the essential values of working with children. Only highly educated scientists understand science. I can focus childrens attention to a specific issue during the workshops. I know how TOG functions. I know the difference among volunteerism, helpfulness and charity. It can be fun to work in a science lab. I can manage an approach appropriate to the childrens developmental characteristics. 18 While facilitating a workshop with children process is more important than the product. 55 B C
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
I know the principles of TOG. I may not make big discoveries but studying science can be fun. There is no imagination in science. I can inform people about TOGs aims. I know what active participation means. Every child is different than the other. Scientific methods can answer all the questions. A child is an individual, for whom an environment which allows his/her active I can think of myself created. participation must be in childrens state and conditions while working with them. I can specify the source of a problem during the workshops. I know what kind of opportunities TOG provides for young people (e.g. I can debate counseling, internship, EVS, etc.). scholarships,on volunteerism being aware of what I mean. Every single child develops with his/her distinctive developmental phase. Electronic devices are indeed the examples of valuable products of science I know what children centered approach refers to. Most people can understand science. I know about the activities of TOG. I can create an environment which suits the needs of children I work with. I know what may cause communication failures while working with children. Scientists do not have enough time for their families or for fun. I can inform people about how TOG functions. I can solve a presenting problem while working with children. Scientific knowledge includes subjectivity. I can inform people about the principles of TOG. I know the impact of active participation. All children have equal opportunity to participate in the workshops and no Scientific study is boring. discrimination is allowed for any reason. There is no cultural diversity in scientific knowledge. Each child has different abilities and aptitudes. I know how to act if any problems occur during the workshops with children. It might be very difficult for me to do scientific studies. I can inform people about TOGs activities. I can create an environment in which the children can easily share their thoughts Imagination and creativity are important in the formation of scientific and feelings. Each child knowledge.has a unique way of expressing him/herself. I know which precautions to I can take for an adverse situation not to occur while Scientists have to work very facilitating the workshops. hard. I have the skills necessary for facilitating the workshops.
57. Have you ever participated in a training with the theme Scientific Literacy before? Yes No
If yes; please write the name(s) and duration(s) of the training(s):
56
58. Have you ever participated in a training with the theme Working with Children before? Yes No If yes; please write the name(s) and duration(s) of the training(s):
59. Please use this field (and the back page) to add any other comments that you would like.
Thank you for your participation Erhan Okak
57
ANNEX - 2
BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS SCIENTIFIC LITERACY TRAINING
30 November 4 December 2011, ISTANBUL
EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE - II 1. Please evaluate the sessions of the training in the table below, reflecting on how much you learned in each session.
Welcome Evening Project Introduction, Expectations Civil Society and TOG Volunteerism Child and Child Development TOG Principles Communication with Children Attitudes Towards Children Bayer - Our Stakeholder Scientific Literacy I Scientific Literacy 2 Activities Day Do flowers drink water? Let's build a thermometer Colors dancing in the milk The Screaming Balloons Is black really black? Homemade Ice Cream 58
Chemistry of Red Cabbage Open Chair Who are We? Hereafter Daily Evaluation Sessions
Use this space if you have any comments for the sessions.
1. Please evaluate the technical conditions.
Information about the training given before by the organizers Transportation Accommodation Meals Meeting Hall
Use this space if you have any comments for technical conditions.
59
2. Could you draw a symbol representing your experience through the training?
3. Please evaluate overall structure and flow of the program?
4. Please write your comments about the trainers.
5. What are your expectations from your peers, trainers and TOG after the training?
60
6. Please evaluate your own contribution and contribution of the participants to the training? Participants Contribution: Your Contribution:
7. Do you feel ready enough to facilitate the workshops?
8. Please evaluate the items below. At the end of this training;
I can explain how each experiment will be implemented I know how I can use the Facilitators' Booklet I know the implementation steps of the experiments I will facilitate I know the objectives of the experiments I will facilitate during the workshops
61
9. Do you have any skills you acquired or improved during the training? If so, please share them briefly.
10. Do you have any opinions/attitudes that changed during the training? If so, please share them briefly.
11. Please share anything you would like to add.
THANKS!!
62
ANNEX 3
BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS PROJECT EXCHANGE OF EXPERIENCES FORM for the FACILITATORS
Workshop Info Me: Which activity?: My team: Duration of the activity: Date, School, City:
Me (your feelings, opinion, contributions, what you have gained, your dissatisfactions and your satisfactions before, during and after the activity, etc.)
Teamwork and Distribution of Tasks (number of team members, how did you share the tasks, how do you evaluate the work/activity, what were the positive and negative sides?)
63
Technical Conditions (materials, hall where the workshop took place, logistics, heat, etc.)
Program (which activities did you perform, the ones that went well, ones did not go so well and ones went poorly, etc.)
Participants (children) (their contribution to the workshop, their motivation, group dynamics, your observations based on workshop objectives, etc.)
Relations with the school officials
Your suggestions for the forthcoming workshops
How do you evaluate/assess this workshop on the basis of promoting (1) childrens knowledge on the nature of science, (2) their curiosity and interest on the scientific and technologic events/ facts/phenomena and (3) their will for understanding, questioning, and reasoning?
64
Anything you would like to share besides the former titles/headings
Thank you for your contribution!!
65
ANNEX 4
Sample poster
66
ANNEX 5
Sample Letter
67
LINKS
Bayer Young Science Ambassadors http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bayer-Gen%C3%A7-Bilim-El%C3%A7ileri/227630993982853
Bayer Turk http://www.bayer.com.tr Toplum Gnllleri Vakf http://www.tog.org.tr
68

Bayer Genç Bilim Elçileri - Ara Rapor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bayer Genç Bilim Elçileri - Ara Rapor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS MIDTERM REPORT

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

The aims of the BYSA Project;

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

Implementation Area stanbul, Ankara, zmir and Kars

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

Project Partners Ministry of Education Bayer Turk TOG Vakf

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

15 min 5 min 40 min 15 min 15 min 40 min 15 min 30 min 10 min

What kind of a scientist would I like to be? 9

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

What children think and share:

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

AIMS AND OUTPUTS OF EXPERIMENTS

Experiment 1: Do Flowers Drink Water?

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

Experiment 3: Colors Dancing in the Milk!

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

TOG 19. Youth Council

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

SCIENTIFIC LITERACY TRAINING

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

MIDTERM EVALUATION REPORT

Evaluator Erhan Okak Psychologist, MA

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

Between Oct 2011 and Feb 2012,

Project team was built up by the project coordinator.

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

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

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

Aims and Scope of the Project

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

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

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

Scientific Literacy Training (SLT) Aims and Objectives

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

Methodology and Assessment Tools

Daily evaluation sessions (with participants)

Daily evaluation meetings (with trainers) Post-test

End of the training

Beginning of the training

Figure 1: Evaluation Plan for SLT

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

Graphic 1: EQ-1 mean scores for participants

Graphic 2: Mean scores for EQ 1 items

BAYER YOUNG SCIENCE AMBASSADORS

Mean Pre-test Post-test Revised Pre-test 7,50 8,64 6,98

Std. Deviation ,748 ,399 1,46

,000 ,348 ,000 ,000 ,348 ,000