Category: Project Report

Abstract

Science Cafés are informal community gatherings that aim to facilitate the engagement of scientific researchers with the general public.  These events have been implemented worldwide in rural and urban settings.  This article evaluates two Science Café series, held in rural Iowa communities.  Evaluation of Science Cafés typically consists of participant surveys to measure satisfaction with the presenter, interest in the topic, or solicit topic suggestions for future events.  This paper presents results from a qualitative evaluation that aimed to better understand how the information presented at Science Cafés was shared with others in the community following the event.  Results suggest that participants share information in both formal and informal settings following a Science Café, especially those who self-identify as “champions” of an issue. This research suggests that future evaluations examine rural social networks to better understand the broader community impact of these events.

Introduction

Science Cafés are informal community gatherings that aim to facilitate the engagement of scientific researchers with the general public.  These events have been implemented worldwide in rural and urban settings. The University of Iowa’s Environmental Health Sciences Research Center (EHSRC) has hosted Science Cafés since 2013, mostly in rural communities in Iowa.  Evaluation of Science Cafés typically consists of participant surveys to measure satisfaction with the presenter and interest in the topic or to solicit topic suggestions for future events.  This paper presents results from a qualitative evaluation that aimed to better understand how the information presented at Science Cafés was shared with others in the community following the event.  

Background

Science Cafés are casual events designed to engage members of the public with science and scientists. These interactive gatherings can be in a coffee house, bar, library, or community space. They typically involve a presentation by one or more speakers with a scientific research background, followed by a group discussion and questions (NOVA Education, 2020). The bi-directional communication, in which audience members discuss the topic and pose questions, allows researchers to learn about public perceptions, concerns, and curiosity for their area of expertise. The community benefits from participation as they learn about science in their everyday lives and see the value of research and STEM (S. Ahmed, DeFino, Connors, Kissack, & Franco, 2014; S. M. Ahmed et al., 2017). Science Café events should emphasize “participation” over “popularization,” to better “demythologize science communication, bringing it out of the cathedra and into everyday life” (Bagnoli & Pacini, 2011). Science Café events are held across the globe and many are now recorded and posted online so that they are broadly accessible to the general public. 

The first Science Café was held in 1997 at a wine bar in Leeds, England and was modeled after the the French Cafés Philosophiques, forums held in cafés to discuss philosophical issues (Nielsen, Balling, Hope, & Nakamura, 2015). This format of gathering in a public space to socialize and discuss science has been adopted all over the world in a somewhat grassroots fashion (NOVA Education, 2020). A Science Café is one model of scientific communication with the public that encourages public participation and exploration of emerging issues in medicine, science, technology, the environment, and globalization. The global nature of the Science Café movement is “part of a wider participatory trend” that aims to engage the public with the processes of science (Nielsen et al., 2015, p. 15).  However, events are also “adapted to local contexts” to shape and define forms of interactions and dialogue between scientists and their immediate constituencies (Nielsen et al., 2015, p. 3).

Evaluation is a standard component of Science Café events, consisting primarily of participant satisfaction surveys (Einbinder, 2013).  Researchers have found that the events are effective at encouraging the discussion of scientific issues among members of the public (Navid & Einsiedel, 2012), including among youth (Hall, Foutz, & Mayhew, 2013; Mayhew & Hall, 2012).  The Clinical and Translational Science Institute of SE Wisconsin also evaluated the impact of attendees’ understanding of health and scientific information using a Likert scale assessment of participants’ reported level of confidence across a five-item instrument. They found that attending a Café increased participants’ confidence in health and scientific literacy (S. Ahmed et al., 2014).  In addition, Science Cafés are seen as a mechanism to improve the ability of scientists to communicate with the public by providing an opportunity to practice explaining scientific concepts to a general audience (Goldina & Weeks, 2014).  This is particularly important for those scientists who may see public engagement as “troublesome or time-consuming” (Mizumachi, Matsuda, Kano, Kawakami, & Kato, 2011).  One key challenge of evaluating Science Cafés, or other “dialogue events” aimed at increasing public engagement with science, is understanding the extent to which they increase individual participants’ knowledge about scientific concepts (Lehr et al., 2007). Furthermore, Science Café events may hold greater value as interactions that broadly improve relationships between scientists and society through accessible engagement, rather than serving merely as a mechanism to teach specific ideas, such as in formal scientific lectures or courses (Dijkstra, 2017).

Public Health in Rural Settings

In the US, rural communities disproportionately suffer from a number of adverse health outcomes, including higher rates of obesity and earlier mortality, as well as higher rates of smoking and lower physical activity than their urban counterparts (Garcia et al., 2017; Matthews et al., 2017). Further, recruiting and retaining health care personnel is difficult in rural areas (Asghari et al., 2019; Lafortune & Gustafson, 2019; Thill, Pettersen, & Erickson, 2019) In addition to addressing structural and geographic disparities in rural areas, the social context must also be considered when delivering effective public health interventions in these settings (Gilbert, Laroche, Wallace, Parker, & Curry, 2018).   Factors including demographic shifts due to immigration (Nelson & Marston, 2020), poverty (Thurlow, Dorosh, & Davis, 2019), and the necessary engagement of rural residents with extractive industries, such as agriculture or mining (Kulcsar, Selfa, & Bain, 2016), also contribute to health disparities and require interventions that take into account the social and cultural components unique to rural communities. 

There has long been an understanding that social networks may be associated with mortality risk (Berkman, 1986) and spread of disease (Bates, Trostle, Cevallos, Hubbard, & Eisenberg, 2007), but they may also provide a framework for behavioral interventions (Eng, 1993; Yun, Kang, Lim, Oh, & Son, 2010). In addition, social transmission of knowledge has been documented in relation to ethnobotanical knowledge (Lozada, Ladio, & Weigandt, 2006; Yates & Ramírez-Sosa, 2004) and agricultural practices and innovations (Flachs, 2017; Stone, 2004).  Despite this, evaluations of public health or science-related events do not regularly assess the potential for knowledge dissemination by participants following the event’s occurrence.  Our evaluation aimed to understand the potential for knowledge transmiss

Analysis

To evaluate the UE program, we employed a simple pre-post-intervention task. As previously stated, on the first day of the program we asked each student to draw a picture that reflected what they thought about when hearing the term “nature.” We created inventories according to items represented (Sanford, Staples, &. Snowman, 2017; Flowers, Carroll, Green, & Larson, 2015). We repeated this task on the last day of the program before the students were dismissed. Because of unforeseen time constraints (see Limitations, below), we provided students with just five minutes to complete the post-program drawings. We chose to employ this evaluation method after speaking with a school liaison, who expressed concern about the ability of these children to express their opinions in written form. This type of evaluation has been successfully employed with children through eighth grade (Sanford et al., 2017).

Using an emergent thematic coding analysis, researchers analyzed each drawing and developed codes to compare pre-program drawings to post-program drawings in order to determine whether the intervention changed perceptions of what “nature” means to the students. Because of the small sample size (n = 20), each researcher coded all drawings, and the group worked together to reach full agreement. To determine statistical significance, we used a chi-square analysis.

Research Setting

At the University of Iowa, the NIEHS-funded Core Center, the Environmental Health Sciences Research Center (EHSRC), and the Institute for Clinical and Translational Science (ICTS) have been organizing Science Cafés since 2013 in various small Iowa towns, most consistently focusing on two communities.  Community One, a town of 4,435 residents with a small liberal arts college, and Community Two, a slightly larger town, with 10,420 residents and an alternative business school. Both communities also have a robust agricultural economy that includes produce, livestock, and grain farmers.  The Science Café events involve one presenter, usually a researcher or faculty member from the University of Iowa, and the coordinating staff from the EHSRC.  The researcher delivers a presentation about 20–30 minutes in length, followed by questions from the audience and discussion.  There are no Powerpoint or other slide shows; however, in some cases the presenter may put together a handout that includes two or three slides or graphics with main points from the presentation.  Because the events are meant to allow considerable time for discussion and questions from the audience, there are no formal learning objectives or knowledge tests for participants. Most presentations reflect the environmental health focus of the EHSRC.  However, the standard evaluation questionnaire distributed after each event solicits suggestions for additional topics from the participants; these topics are then prioritized for future events.  Participant suggestions have led to presentations on topics such as wolf habitat in the Midwest, obesity, and healthy sleep habits.

The Science Café location in Community One is a local coffee shop in the center of town, while in Community Two it is the public library. Both of these venues have strong relationships with the EHSRC and support the events by posting flyers for upcoming Cafés. The library in Community Two includes the events on their programming calendar, sends out announcements via Listserv, and sometimes sends press releases to the local paper. The EHSRC regularly advertises in the local paper of Community One. The age of the attendees varies from college students to elder retirees, with retirees being the largest group of consistent participants. There is a core group of about eight participants in each community who attend all of the Cafés, while other attendees vary based on the topic. 

This paper presents a novel evaluation of the EHSRC Science Cafés by examining the extent to which participants share what they learned with others. Rather than simply assessing how satisfied or interested participants were in the topic, or assessing individual knowledge, this evaluation seeks to better understand how information travels through communities and social networks, recognizing the importance of social networks as described above, and the implications for broader scientific literacy and environmental health literacy. Given the rural context of the EHSRC Science Cafés, this paper reflects on the implications of knowledge sharing in the rural landscape. 

Methods

In the spring of 2019, the EHSRC Community Engagement Core (CEC) staff added several questions to the standard written evaluation that is administered after each Science Café.  In addition to asking participants about how far they traveled for the Science Café, how they learned about the event, examples of what they learned during the Café, and to rate their level of satisfaction with the content, participants were asked, “Do you plan to share this information with friends, family, or others?  If so, how will you share?”  The evaluation also asked if we could follow up with a phone interview in the future.  These additional questions were posed at all six Science Café events in spring 2019. The project description was submitted to the University of Iowa’s Institutional Review Board, where it was deemed not to fit the criteria for human subjects’ research. This work was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, P30 ES005605.

A 13-question instrument was designed for use via Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) system.  Science Café participants who had indicated their willingness to be interviewed provided their phone numbers on the evaluations and were contacted within two weeks of the Science Café event.  The interview reminded participants of their response to the original question, “Do you plan to share this information with friends, family, or others? If so, how will you share?” and asked whether they had in fact shared information from the Science Café and with whom and how they shared it.  In addition, participants were asked to describe any other instances when they shared information from any Science Café and who in their communities they felt would most benefit from attending Science Café events.

Interviews were conducted by trained interviewers at the Iowa Social Science Research Center on the campus of the University of Iowa.  The CATI system allows for interviews to be transcribed as they are conducted. Following the interviews, written transcriptions were provided to the research team for analysis.  

The interview transcripts were coded using both deductive and inductive approaches.  The research team read the transcripts and developed an initial set of deductive codes based on the categories of people with whom information was shared:  friends/family, social group, professional contacts.  A second round of inductive coding generated novel codes from the data and illuminated concepts specific to the population and conditions under which information was shared (e.g. agricultural occupations or cancer survivor) (Legard, Keegan, & Ward, 2003).   

Research

Science Café Attendance

In spring 2019, attendance at the Science Cafés ranged from eight to 31 participants (see Table 1).  Travel to the events ranged from less than one mile up to 35 miles (one attendee in Community One) with most attendees traveling one mile or less to attend. This suggests the audience for Science Cafés is mostly local residents.  In both communities, the highest proportion of attendees report that they are “retired” or “semi-retired”: 38% (n= 12) in Community One and 32% (n= 14) in Community Two.  Other occupations identified include farmer, educator, student, medical professional, and self-employed person.

Results from Written Evaluations

Over the course of three Science Cafés in Community One, we received 32 evaluations from a total of 66 participants.  In Community Two, we received 44 evaluations from 73 participants.  In this paper, we have combined all evaluation results to present the results across both communities.  

In response to the question “Do you plan to share this information with friends, family or others?” 56 respondents indicated “yes,” nine indicated “no,” and 11 did not respond to the question.  The majority of respondents (33) who said “yes,” indicated that they would do so through conversations with family or friends.  Others also indicated social media (two), email (six), and by sharing “notes” (five).  Four indicated they would share through a community group or organization (see Figure 1).  

The written evaluation also included a question asking for examples of something the participants learned.  Among the responses to this open-ended question were some very specific items, such as “how to count pollen + p2.5-p10 measurements + pollen fragments” following a presentation on air pollution, to more general statements or perceptions of the content.  Following a presentation on Iowa agriculture, one participant wrote, “I loved being reminded that conventional ag and diversified small ag are a venn [sic] diagram and have things in common” and another wrote, “intersection of local and global ag in formal and informal ways.” After a presentation on air quality, someone responded: “I learned about air control.” 

Results from Interviews

Over the course of the spring 2019 Science Café events, 26 indicated on their evaluation form that they were willing to be interviewed. Of those, we were able to contact and interview 18 individuals, ten women and eight men.  Given the relatively narrow focus of the interview guide, this number should be sufficient to reach saturation, the point at which no new themes emerge from the data (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006).

Consistent with the responses in the initial evaluations, most participants shared information in conversations with family or friends:

• I have a friend that I get together with once a week and we chat. We were at lunch and I talked about how Iowa is one of the worst states for cancer. We are also the best research state for cancer, I was kind of bragging on us. (Participant #4)
• I talked about it by word of mouth to a ton of people (Participant #8)
• The bottom line for the lecture after going through many ideas is that the future is solar, and I had a friend who asked me about it and I told him that. (Participant #17)
• I have a friend in Cedar Rapids that I have shared the information with (Participant #15)

Others indicated that they shared information strategically with family or friends who might be particularly interested in it or benefit from it.  In some cases, the information was directed at someone who lacked knowledge about the topic: “It was a casual conversation with a friend we were talking about. She’s new to being in a rural area which brought up the different types of agriculture with which she wasn’t familiar with and I was able to share” (Participant #10). 

Conversely, information was shared with people who had very specific knowledge of the topic, such as in the case of a cancer survivor or someone remediating mold in a home:

• I shared some points with my mother who is a cancer survivor (Participant #13)
• We were cleaning a house because it was dusty and the new occupants, one of them, has a dust allergy, and I said I was just at the Science Café on air quality and the question was “What is one thing we can do ourselves on air quality?” and the teacher said basement mold and the person I was talking to said the moldy basement was a bigger issue than the dust and I was able to confirm what they said with the advice of an expert. (Participant #26)

Others noted that the topic was relevant to their professional life and so they discussed it with colleagues in a professional capacity.  In this context, student status is considered a professional setting:

• I brought it up in class and told them what it was about. (Participant #8)
• Since I’m a farmer I’ll sometimes relate something that came out of there to someone else in the same profession. (Participant #11)
• Friends who are water quality testers like me, we all agreed that we need to be referencing data and all of us generally agreed that this ups the game of water quality of Iowa and is the proof that we need to show that we have to turn things around. (Participant #16)
• Finally, a couple of respondents referenced formal social or community groups that they shared information with:  
• [with] the breakfast club…I told it to my husband, my friends at the book club, and several other people. (Participant #5)
• I work with the local Sierra Club so it was an interesting background to have. (Participant #21)

In some cases, respondents referenced their own reputations or positions within the community, indicating that the Science Café information provided additional weight or legitimacy to areas of concern that they have been known to discuss:

• Informally as always. They’re used to me talking about local ag at this point. (Participant #14)
• It was about agriculture and I am a farmer so it is my life. (Participant #9)
• I talk about it in my community and how we can implement it in our community. I also talk about compost and trash a lot so I might be a little excited about it. (Participant #14)

Most respondents indicated that they shared information verbally or through casual conversations.  A few, however, noted that they shared information via written notes, video, or online mechanisms:

• I take notes and I give the whole thing to my husband and my friends. (Participant #5)
• Well that is odd that you called because just an hour ago I was talking to someone about it. The fellow had a graphic on the information. It turns out the 5,000 pigs put out the sewage amount of 20,000 people. I’m going to take the map that he showed and make it a poster size and put it around town so that people see it because they need to. (Participant #20)
• A friend put a video that I made up on a forum. I didn’t spread it but she did. (Participant #20)

Discussion

These results shed light on the diversity of social settings and groups that individuals in small rural communities may encounter and engage with.  One challenge of conducting community outreach or participatory research in rural communities is that low populations make it difficult to generate impactful numbers of participants or attendees at events.  However, responses indicated a wide number of settings, both formal and informal, in which information was shared.  These included book clubs, breakfast clubs, the local Sierra Club chapter, and with family members, fellow students, and colleagues.  In some cases, participants sought out individuals who they knew would be interested in the information (e.g., a parent who is a cancer survivor). In other cases, interview respondents indicated that they were asked about the event, or the topic came up, and they had information to share.  

Notably, the content gleaned from Science Café events provided legitimacy and evidence for several participants in their interactions, particularly in formal settings such as the workplace or a community organization.  For example, content from a water quality event generated a longer discussion among community water testers about the importance of good data and evidence in water quality discussions.  In other contexts, such as cancer-related research, the Science Café material provided information about resources in Iowa, allowing the participant to “brag” about research productivity in the state.  Knowledge sharing among social networks can be an important conduit for information transmission, particularly in rural areas (Burch, 2007; Mtega et al., 2013).  Even relatively small events like these Science Cafés can enhance knowledge in formal settings, broadening the initial reach of the event and informing professional networks as well as informal social groups.

In addition, several participants indicated that they are known for being interested in a topic, as evidenced by comments such as “I talk about composting and trash a lot” and “They’re used to me talking about local ag” as well as “I am a farmer, so it’s my life.” The literature related to program development in sustainable food systems suggests that many new endeavors are initiated by “champions” who engage with the community and promote their cause (Bagdonis, Hinrichs, & Schafft, 2008).  Likewise, other evaluation strategies have examined the qualities of people who support initiatives in quality improvement (Demes et al., 2020). Recognizing that these highly engaged “champions” may participate in other events, gleaning information and resources to pass along in other settings, is a potentially new way to think about how content from a Science Café event might reach additional community members.  Future evaluations in these communities could include social network analysis or mapping to better understand the social and professional channels through which information may be distributed (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).

While most participants shared information verbally by reporting that they described the content of the Science Café to others, some developed additional materials or used other media.  One participant stated that they took written notes, which they shared, and another described developing posters and videos for distribution. This was an unexpected product and suggests there may be additional opportunities to engage with Science Café participants to co-develop products or materials related to the events’ content.  Providing content in a way that participants can reproduce and share, such as an electronic version of the standard handout or graphics, could further encourage participants to develop follow-up materials after the event.

In this small study, respondents’ diverse reports of what they learned, in conjunction with the wide array of approaches to sharing information, suggest that Science Cafés may serve as more than simply sites where the public learns about scientific concepts. Among participants in this study, some were inspired or reminded about the intersections between systems (such as conventional and alternative agriculture), some became excited about, and advocates for, cutting-edge cancer research in their communities, or they used the content to champion projects in local organizations.  When viewed from this perspective, Science Cafés have a great deal of potential to improve the relationships between scientists and society. This study contributes a new approach for evaluating Science Café events.  Future research could link pre-determined learning objectives with an evaluation of how those objectives are communicated more broadly.

Conclusion

This study suggests that evaluating small events in rural communities can benefit from learning not only who attends and their levels of satisfaction, but also how they may recount and communicate the information they learn with their social and professional networks.  Recognizing that participants may be leaders in local groups, champions for causes, or may glean information that is particularly relevant for a friend or family member can help organizers develop programming that can be tailored to and/or shared in a variety of media.  In addition, being attentive to those who are motivated to develop additional outputs, such as posters or video, can help organizers expand the reach of what is otherwise a relatively small event.  Understanding how science may be communicated via social networks can assist in developing programs with the potential to have a broad community impact, beyond the setting of one individual event.

About the Authors

Jacqueline Curnick is the Program Coordinator of the Environmental Health Sciences Research Center Community Engagement Core at the University of Iowa. She holds a Master of Sustainable Development Practice with a focus in environmental communication. 

 

Brandi Janssen is a Clinical Associate Professor of Occupational and Environmental Health at the University of Iowa. She directs Iowa’s center for Agricultural Safety and Health (I-CASH) and the Community Engagement Core for the Environmental Health Sciences Research Center (EHSRC).

References

Ahmed, S., DeFino, M. C., Connors, E. R., Kissack, A., & Franco, Z. (2014). Science cafés: Engaging scientists and community through health and science dialogue. Clinical and Translational Science, 7(3), 196–200. doi:10.1111/cts.12153

Ahmed, S. M., DeFino, M., Connors, E., Visotcky, A., Kissack, A., & Franco, Z. (2017). Science cafés: Transforming citizens to scientific citizens—What influences participants’ perceived change in health and scientific literacy? Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 1(2), 129–134. doi:10.1017/cts.2016.24

Asghari, S., Kirkland, M. C., Blackmore, J., Boyd, S. E., Farrell, A., Rourke, J., . . . Walczak, A. (2019). A systematic review of reviews: Recruitment and retention of rural family physicians. Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine, 25(1), 20–30. 

Bagdonis, J. M., Hinrichs, C. C., & Schafft, K. A. (2008). The emergence and framing of farm-to-school initiatives: Civic engagement, health and local agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values, 26(1–2), 107–119. doi:10.1007/s10460-008-9173-6

Bagnoli, F., & Pacini, G. (2011). Sipping science in a café. Procedia Computer Science, 7, 194–196. 

Bates, S. J., Trostle, J., Cevallos, W. T., Hubbard, A., & Eisenberg, J. N. (2007). Relating diarrheal disease to social networks and the geographic configuration of communities in rural Ecuador. American Journal of Epidemiology, 166(9), 1088–1095. 

Berkman, L. F. (1986). Social networks, support, and health: Taking the next step forward. American Journal of Epidemiology, 123(4), 559–562. 

Burch, S. (2007). Knowledge sharing for rural development: Challenges, experiences and methods. Quito: Agencia Latinoamericana de Información (Latin American Information Agency). Retrieved from https://www.alainet.org/sites/default/files/tss%20ingles.pdf

Demes, J. A. E., Nickerson, N., Farand, L., Montekio, V. B., Torres, P., Dube, J. G., . . . Jasmin, E. R. (2020). What are the characteristics of the champion that influence the implementation of quality improvement programs? Evaluation and Program Planning, 80, 101795. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101795

Dijkstra, A. (2017). Analysing Dutch science cafés to better understand the science-society relationship. Journal of Science Communication, 16(1), A03. 

Einbinder, A. (2013). Understanding the popular Science Café experience using the excellent judges framework. ILR, 6. 

Eng, E. (1993). The Save our Sisters Project. A social network strategy for reaching rural black women. Cancer, 72(S3), 1071-1077. 

Flachs, A. (2017). “Show Farmers”: Transformation and performance in Telangana, India. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment, 39(1), 2–34. doi:10.1111/cuag.12085

Garcia, M., Faul, M., Massetti, G., Thomas, C. C., Hong, Y., Bauer, U. E., & Iademarco, M. F. (2017). Reducing potentially excess deaths from the five leading causes of death in the rural United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 66(2), 1–7. 

Gilbert, P. A., Laroche, H. H., Wallace, R. B., Parker, E. A., & Curry, S. J. (2018). Extending work on rural health disparities: A commentary on Matthews and colleagues’ report. The Journal of Rural Health, 34(2), 119–121. doi:10.1111/jrh.12241

Goldina, A., & Weeks, O. I. (2014). Science Café course: An innovative means of improving communication skills of undergraduate biology majors. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 15(1), 13–17. 

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. doi:10.1177/1525822×05279903

Hall, M. K., Foutz, S., & Mayhew, M. A. (2013). Design and impacts of a youth-directed Café Scientifique program. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 3(2), 175–198. doi:10.1080/21548455.2012.715780

Kulcsar, L. J., Selfa, T., & Bain, C. M. (2016). Privileged access and rural vulnerabilities: Examining social and environmental exploitation in bioenergy development in the American Midwest. Journal of Rural Studies, 47, 291–299. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.01.008

Lafortune, C., & Gustafson, J. (2019). Interventions to improve recruitment and retention of physicians in rural and remote Canada: A systematic review. University of Western Ontario Medical Journal 88(1). 

Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2003). In-depth interviews. In J. Richie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 139–168). London: Sage Publishing.

Lehr, J. L., McCallie, E., Davies, S. R., Caron, B. R., Gammon, B., & Duensing, S. (2007). The value of “dialogue events” as sites of learning: An exploration of research and evaluation frameworks. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1467–1487. 

Lozada, M., Ladio, A., & Weigandt, M. (2006). Cultural transmission of ethnobotanical knowledge in a rural community of northwestern Patagonia, Argentina. Economic Botany, 60(4), 374–385. 

Matthews, K. A., Croft, J. B., Liu, Y., Lu, H., Kanny, D., Wheaton, A. G., . . . Holt, J. B. (2017). Health-related behaviors by urban-rural county classification—United States, 2013. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 66(5), 1. 

Mayhew, M. A., & Hall, M. K. (2012). Science communication in a Café Scientifique for high school teens. Science Communication, 34(4), 546–554. doi:10.1177/1075547012444790

Mizumachi, E., Matsuda, K., Kano, K., Kawakami, M., & Kato, K. (2011). Scientists’ attitudes toward a dialogue with the public: A study using “science cafes.” Journal of Science Communication, 10(4), A02. 

Mtega, W. P., Dulle, F., Benard, R., Mtega, W., Dulle, F., & Benard, R. (2013). Understanding the knowledge sharing process among rural communities in Tanzania: A review of selected studies. Knowledge Management and E-Learning: An International Journal, 5(2), 205–217.

Navid, E. L., & Einsiedel, E. F. (2012). Synthetic biology in the Science Café: What have we learned about public engagement? Journal of Science Communication, 11(4), A02. 

Nelson, K. A., & Marston, C. (2020). Refugee migration histories in a meatpacking town: Blurring the line between primary and secondary migration. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 21(1), 77–91. 

Nielsen, K. H., Balling, G., Hope, T., & Nakamura, M. (2015). Sipping science: The interpretative flexibility of science cafés in Denmark and Japan. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 9(1), 1–21.

NOVA Education.  (2020). Science Cafés 101. Retrieved from www.sciencecafes.org

Stone, G. D. (2004). Biotechnology and the political ecology of information in India. Human Organization, 63(2), 127–140. 

Thill, N., Pettersen, L., & Erickson, A. (2019). A reality tour in rural and public health nursing. Online Journal of Rural Nursing & Health Care, 19(1). 

Thurlow, J., Dorosh, P., & Davis, B. (2019). Demographic change, agriculture, and rural poverty. In C. Campanhola & S. Pandey (Eds.), Sustainable food and agriculture: An integrated approach (pp. 31–53). London: Academic Press.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. In M. Granovetter (Gen. Ed.), Structural analysis in the social sciences: Vol. 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yates, S., & Ramírez-Sosa, C. R. (2004). Ethnobotanical knowledge of Brosimum alicastrum (Moraceae) among urban and rural El  Salvadorian adolescents. Economic Botany, 58(1), 72–77. 

Yun, E. H., Kang, Y. H., Lim, M. K., Oh, J.-K., & Son, J. M. (2010). The role of social support and social networks in smoking behavior among middle and older aged people in rural areas of South Korea: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 78. 

 

Appendix A

Science Café Evaluation Questions

1. Name

2. Profession

3. Email

4. Are you already on the mailing list? 

5. Are you willing to be contacted via phone for a brief interview? If so, please list phone number.

6. How did you learn about the event? 

• Email from school/professor
• Flyer
• Newspaper
• Email list from EHSRC
• Other (please describe)

7. Please rate the following as excellent, good, fair, or poor: 

• Presentation
• Group discussion

8. Examples of something you learned: 

9. Do you plan to share this information with friends, family, or others? If so, how will you share?

10. Are there any topics you would like to learn about in a future Science Café?

11. Do you have any suggestions for how we can improve the Science Café?

Appendix B

Phone Interview Questions

Hello, may I speak with (first name, last name)? This is __ calling from the University of Iowa, and you are being contacted because you had previously indicated at a recent Science Café event that you were willing to be interviewed. 

On the evaluation form at the most recent Science Café you attended, we asked you:   Do you plan to share this information with friends, family, or others? If so, how will you share?

You responded:  SOME FORM OF YES 

1. Why did you indicate you would share information? For example, it was interesting, relevant, important, you had someone in mind, etc. 

2. Did you discuss the information you learned at the Science Café in person, by email, or by telephone with anyone? Answer options: Yes, No, I don’t know/remember, Refused (If no, go to question 6)

3. How many people?

4. Can you describe that interaction or discussion?

5. What was the outcome of the interaction? For example, did the person indicate interest, say they learned something new, disagree or take issue with the information?

6. (If answered no to question 2) Why have you not talked about the Science Café with anyone? For example, you didn’t think of it, it wasn’t important information, you are not comfortable sharing, etc. 

7. (If answered no to question 2) Do you think you’ll talk about it in the future?

FOR ALL: Now I’d like to ask you about the Science Cafés in general.

8. About how many Science Café events have you attended?

9. Have you ever talked about past Science Café content with friends, coworkers, or family members following the event? Answer options: Yes, No, I don’t know/remember, Refused (If no, go to question 12) 

10. Can you tell me about or describe a conversation you’ve had with friends, coworkers, or family members about a Science Café? 

11. Do you think the information you shared was new to the person or people you spoke with?

12. (If answered no to question 9) Why have you not talked about the Science Café with anyone? For example, you didn’t think of it, it wasn’t important information, you are not comfortable sharing, etc. 

13. Who in your community would most benefit from the information shared during Science Café events?

On the evaluation form at the most recent Science Café you attended, we asked you:   Do you plan to share this information with friends, family, or others? If so, how will you share?

You responded:  SOME FORM OF NO

1. Why did you indicate you would not share the information? For example, not interesting, relevant, important, no one to share with, etc. 

2. Did you discuss the information you learned at the Science Café with anyone? Answer options: Yes, No, I don’t know/remember, Refused (If no, go to question 8)

3. How many people?

4. Can you describe that interaction/discussion?

5. Did you communicate about the Science Café by email  or telephone with anyone?

6. Can you describe that interaction?

7. What was the outcome of the interaction? Did the person indicate interest, say they learned something new, disagree or take issue with the information? (Go to question 9)

8. (If answered no to question 2) Why have you not talked about the Science Café? For example, didn’t think of it, wasn’t important information, not comfortable sharing. 

9. Do you think you’ll talk about it in the future?

FOR ALL: Now I’d like to ask you about the Science Cafés in general.

10. About how many Science Café events have you attended?

11. Have you ever talked about past Science Café content with friends, coworkers, or family members following the event? (If no, go to question 14) 

12.  Can you tell me about or describe a conversation you’ve had with friends, coworkers, or family members about a Science Café?

13. Do you think the information you shared was new to the person or people you spoke with? (Go to question 15) 

14. (If answered no to question 11) Why have you not talked about the Science Café? For example, didn’t think of it, wasn’t important information, not comfortable sharing. 

15. Who in your community would most benefit from the information shared during Science Café events?

For those who responded:  UNSURE OR BLANK

Intro language—they are being called because they indicated at a recent Science Café event that they were willing to be interviewed.

You recently attended a Science Café presentation, 

1. Did you discuss the information you learned at the science cafe with anyone? (If no, go to question 7) 

2. How many people?

3. Can you describe that interaction/discussion?

4. Did you communicate about the Science Café by email or telephone with anyone?

5. Can you describe that interaction?

6. What was the outcome of the interaction? Did the person indicate interest, say they learned something new, disagree or take issue with the information? (Go to question 8) 

7. (If answered no to question 1) Why have you not talked about the Science Café? For example, didn’t think of it, wasn’t important information, not comfortable sharing. 

8. Do you think you’ll talk about it in the future?

FOR ALL: Now I’d like to ask you about the Science Cafés in general.

9. About how many Science Café events have you attended?

10. Have you ever talked about past Science Café content with friends, coworkers, or family members following the event? (If no, go to question 13) 

11.  Can you tell me about/describe a conversation you’ve had with friends, coworkers, or family members about a Science Café? 

12. Do you think the information you shared was new to the person or people you spoke with? (Go to question 14) 

13. (If answered no to question 10) Why have you not talked about the Science Café? For example, didn’t think of it, wasn’t important information, not comfortable sharing. 

14. Who in your community would most benefit from the information shared during Science Café events?

 

Download the article

Download (PDF, 3.81MB)

 

Abstract

This project report highlights a simple yet effective outreach lab benefiting the community partner, specifically the Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) youth program and Saint Mary’s College students in a general science course. Building on a partnership focused on reciprocity, a portable lab experiment (Mattson Microscale Gas Chemistry lab) was proposed.  Given the pandemic, the major challenge was working through how to incorporate the community engagement without being physically present at APC.  To address this, the Saint Mary’s students created an instructional video to be viewed in advance of the activity as a replacement for the formal lab handout, which allowed us to participate without being onsite.  With the lab chemicals and materials delivered in advance, APC staff did a pilot run to facilitate a more successful joint lab. When both populations (APC youth and SMC students) met through a Zoom meeting, the lab resulted in a successful experiment and a shared learning experience.  This lab experience raised everyone’s spirits even during the pandemic.  In this report, the two authors provide reflections on the student gains and wish to emphasize that civic learning can still occur even in a pandemic. 

Introduction

Can one really do a community outreach chemistry lab during a pandemic?  How can college students be truly involved and engaged performing outreach when their classes are taught remotely?  Can a community partner feel supported when colleges keep pressing onward in the midst of the pandemic?

The students in a Saint Mary’s College environmental science course and their stalwart community partner, the Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) ventured together to answer the three questions above and continue a partnership where reciprocity has always been a focal point.  The Urban Environmental Issues (UrbanE) course had previously done educational outreach lab work with APC, but because of the pandemic, it needed to be done remotely.   This project report discusses their shared laboratory experience.   

The UrbanE class studies environmental chemistry issues and investigates the redevelopment of Alameda Point, the former Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS).  Since Alameda NAS became a Superfund site in 1999, the course content was regularly aligned with clean-up activities. Several course labs have followed site characterization and clean-up methods (X-ray fluorescence soil screening and a thermal reaction, which mimics how in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) is used to clean up the groundwater onsite) (Bachofer, 2010).  Beyond utilizing Alameda Point as a study site, the community engagement aspects of the course have involved some direct service for a community partner, the Alameda Point Collaborative.  APC provides services to the homeless on the former Alameda NAS, assisting them with housing, job training, and social services to empower individuals who were formerly homeless.  In the past, students have performed educational outreach experiments for the APC youth.   This past year, an educational outreach project with APC teens was selected as appropriate in a pandemic.  

Educational outreach projects have been a part of many previous course iterations.  The outreach labs have ranged from inviting APC youth to Saint Mary’s College to do an experiment, implementing a chemistry lab for the local middle school, and learning the chemistry of garden nutrient kits.  These outreach projects were typically done in Alameda. Thus, planning to share a lab experience with the APC teens was somewhat routine, yet this year’s challenge was to do this lab remotely.

The Alameda Point Collaborative claimed, restored, and reinvigorated the base housing and facilities including one building initially used as a Native American health clinic, which was repurposed as a teen center. The central mission of the APC Teen Center is to inform, inspire, and educate the local youth to become productive members of their community and world.  Due to the pandemic, the Teen Center itself took on new role as a remote learning hub for the APC teens.  The center needed a full Wi-Fi upgrade and a new fence surrounding the building to provide some privacy and safety, and all the sinks, toilets, and dispensers were changed to be hands-free along with added temperature detectors so that the APC teens could have a COVID-safe instructional space.

Outreach Lab Methodology

Pre-planning  

Professor Bachofer and Mr. Cass discussed several laboratory experiments that might be sufficiently portable and educational during the summer of 2020.  To give the UrbanE students a vested interest in the outreach, there were a few Mattson gas generation labs as options.  The UrbanE students were encouraged to select a gas generation lab similar to their first lab preparing carbon dioxide.  The oxygen gas generation lab had a fun aspect of testing the oxygen gas with a smoldering splint (think lighting something on fire, safely) and it was selected.  

The oxygen gas generation lab was designed for students ranging from middle school to college.  The instructional materials are freely available via the Mattson Microscale Gas Generation website (Mattson, 2019).  This resource has three introductory gas labs to prepare either carbon dioxide, oxygen, or hydrogen. The procedure for gas generation and equipment to prepare each gas are nearly identical, except for the reagents.  The oxygen gas generation used only hydrogen peroxide, H2O2, as a reactant and potassium iodide, KI, as a catalyst.  The reaction time required to generate a full syringe of oxygen gas was approximately 10 minutes.  This gas was transferred into a test tube and upon adding a smoldering splint, reignition occurred.  

Professor Bachofer had previously used this lab with visiting middle school students on educational field trips to the College, so it was known to be very safe.  As the lab equipment and consumables were affordable and easily transportable, APC needed to only provide a safe working space and access to water for syringe work.  This implementation built on previous educational labs, so again the only real challenges were the restrictions imposed to keep everyone safe from the corona virus. 

UrbanE Student Preparation

The UrbanE students performed a gas generation lab as one of their labs.  Three lab periods were devoted to delivering the outreach lab to the APC teens.  Specifically, the UrbanE students’ carbon dioxide gas generation lab gave them hands-on experience. The UrbanE students generated CO2 gas following procedures from the Mattson website (Mattson, 2019).  During the two planning lab periods, the UrbanE students were asked to recall what was most helpful for them when they did the lab remotely.  This reflection activity led them to propose that a video be created, along with a one-page instructional sheet replacing the formal lab handout that they had used.  Two sets of students agreed to be filmed doing a setup and generating oxygen gas, one student edited the videos, and another few students revised a bulleted set of directions.  They were confident that this would provide multiple instructional tools to make the lab a success.  In the meantime, Professor Bachofer and Mr. Cass worked on the final logistics—how long these two groups would meet and the exact date and time (the lab would last approximately one hour and the course class time matched the Teen Center’s workday).  Cass and Bachofer also planned a discussion for the APC teens on what college is like, and Cass coordinated a starter set of questions.  This would prepare both groups of students to have a discussion. 

This outreach lab was aligned with productive educational civic engagement aspects outlined by W. Robert Midden (2018).   Elvin Aleman and his coworkers also noted that undergraduates exhibit significant gains in learning when planning educational service-learning projects designed to inspire the next generation of scientists (Godinez Castellanos et al., 2021).  Remote hands-on instruction has become a more critical tool during the past year, and many straightforward lab experiences can be instructional and fully portable as noted by Jodye Selco (2020).  All of these authors have indicated that faculty can easily provide guidance to undergraduates, and that implementation of hands-on and civic engagement activities empowers all students (Midden, 2018; Godinez Castellanos et al., 2021; Selco, 2020).    

Unfortunately, there was not time to request formal institutional review board approval of this project, which means that this article cannot include any student response data.  The results and conclusion sections will have only the authors’ reflections and insights on the effectiveness of this activity. 

Results

After the delivery of individualized laboratory materials, Mr. Cass and other APC staff performed a pilot run using the UrbanE students’ video to guide them.  This preparation gave them intimate knowledge of the experiment and made the joint lab day a tremendous success.

The APC teens did the experiment a total of three times, twice on the day of the joint Zoom session, plus another time approximately a week later.   The experiment was considered a success when the iodide catalyst caused the hydrogen peroxide to decompose forming the oxygen gas.  The APC teens, however, evaluated the experiment as a success only if one reignited a smoldering splint in the oxygen gas, generating a burst of flames!  With that definition, there was only 50% success on the first trial, yet on second trial, there was 100% success.  Only one detrimental incident occurred when the glass test tube broke and one APC teen got a minor cut.  The successful demonstration of oxygen gas reactivity with a smoldering splint overshadowed this minor incident, and all students gained from the shared lab experience.

When all were on the Zoom call, a further dialogue began during the second trial’s 10-minute gas generation time.  Mr. Cass asked the UrbanE students about the challenges of going to college and learning under COVID conditions.  This discussion was instructional as the UrbanE students shared their thoughts about college in general and their learning in a pandemic.   It gave the APC teens some idea how college could still be accomplished in a pandemic.  This outreach lab was so successful that two groups arranged for a subsequent shared meeting so that the UrbanE and APC teens could share thoughts on the challenges of recycling various materials, providing a second linkage to their course content.    

There were two big successes from this outreach lab.  The APC teens noted that the UrbanE student videos did help them do the experiments and come away with some renewed confidence that doing science, specifically chemistry, was possible.  The UrbanE students recognized that they could use their new knowledge to positively impact others.

Co-Instructor Reflections

Mr. Cass’s Reflection 

In my case, there was a personal reason why this experimental format was beneficial, besides all of the obvious educational reasons. During my interview for Teen Center coordinator, in December 2018, I was playing basketball with some of the APC teens who also happened to be present during the experiment. We chatted while we played and when I asked “What do you guys want to be when you grow up?” one of the students responded to me that he wanted to be a chemist when he grew up. On the day of our experiment, that student reminded me of our conversation in 2018 and how the opportunity to try the experiment firsthand was satisfying. 

Recently, I asked what they remembered about the experiment. I was surprised to find that they were able to give me the step-by-step instructions and they remembered a lot about why and how the experiment worked.  They noted that they hadn’t read the instructions initially, but to finally see the splint ignite was great. In fact, the syringe lab was really interesting and was worth doing over with them.  They also commented that the experiment could teach students something deeper than just chemistry: that you can fail at something over and over again but if you keep doing it, eventually you’ll get it right.  

Prof. Bachofer’s Reflection

The impact of this educational outreach lab was quite remarkable.  The UrbanE students came away from the hour-long Zoom session impressed and exhilarated that the APC teens had conducted a very successful experiment. The student reflections were filled with positive thoughts and nearly all began with a note that they were initially unsure that we could accomplish this outreach.  The students were graded on their contributions to both the outreach lab and discussion.  Marque Cass’s most impactful question was, “What are you as Saint Mary’s UrbanE students likely to take away from this course?”  This prompted many students to remark in their reflections that they would be more committed to helping their communities in the future.  Again, the reciprocity of this educational outreach was apparent.

The community engagement made this environmental science course more meaningful for the Saint Mary’s UrbanE students, and it truly heartened the faculty member in these exhausting times.  The major takeaway is that educational outreach can be done in a pandemic and it will truly enrich you and your community.   

Key Points to Ensure Success

• The college and the community partner were committed to listen and to make plans that would benefit each other.
• The planning was done in advance and follow-up through emails ensured the project progressed on schedule.
• The instructor and the supervisor aligned their work expectations to benefit both student groups.
• The lab experiment yielded an easily observable reaction.  The lab materials were also very affordable.
• The students were empowered to do tasks connected to the educational content of their courses and recognized that each community was a significant contributor.

Acknowledgement

At Saint Mary’s College, this Urban Environmental Issues course serves as a general education science course with an integrated community engagement component.  It assists students to fulfill two core curriculum requirements with one course.  Via CILSA (Catholic Institute for LaSallian Action), the institution supports faculty and community partners in their efforts to organize and implement the latter curricular objective.  This does not eliminate the work that is required to implement it. However, CILSA does assist with the administrative challenges (MOUs), helps to maintain more durable college/community organization partnerships, and provides the faculty with additional training on effective implementation.  

About the Authors 

Steven Bachofer teaches chemistry and environmental science at Saint Mary’s College and has worked with the Alameda Point Collaborative for more than 15 years through his affiliation with the SENCER project. He has also co-authored a SENCER model course with Phylis Martinelli, addressing the redevelopment of a Superfund site (NAS Alameda).  

Marque Cass has been in the field of education since before his graduation from UC-Davis, where he earned a BS in Community and Regional Development with an emphasis in Organization and Management. Since January 2019, he has been the youth program coordinator for Alameda Point Collaborative, doing mentoring and advocacy work for formerly homeless families. More recently, he has been elected a community partner liaison with Saint Mary’s College, working to help create stronger networks between organizations.

References

Bachofer, S. J. (2010). Studying the redevelopment of a Superfund site:  An integrated general science curriculum paying added dividends.  In R. Sheardy (Ed.), Science education and civic engagement: The SENCER Approach, 117–133. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. 

Godinez Castellanos, J. L., León, A., Reed, C., Lo, J. Y., Ayson, P., Garfield, J., . . . Alemán, E. A. (2021). Chemistry in our community: Strategies and logistics implemented to provide hands-on activities to K–12 students, teachers and families.  Journal of Chemical Education, 98(4), 1266–1274. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/bk-2010-1037.ch008  

Mattson, Bruce. (2019). Microscale gas chemistry. Omaha, NE: Creighton University. Retrieved from http://mattson.creighton.edu/Microscale_Gas_Chemistry.html  

Midden W. R. (2018). Teaching chemistry with civic engagement: Non-science majors enjoy chemistry when the they learn by doing research that provides benefits to the local community.  In R. Sheardy and C. Maguire (Eds.), Citizens first! Democracy, social responsibility, and chemistry, 1–31. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. 

Selco, J. (2020). Using hands-on chemistry experiments while teaching online. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9): 2617–2623.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00424 

Download the article

Download (PDF, 845KB)

Abstract

This study examines farming practices across regions as funds of knowledge that may be integrated into K–12 curricula and instruction. Funds of knowledge, as conceptualized by Moll, Amanti, Neff, and González (1992), include the knowledge students bring from their families and home communities to the classroom, and serve as resources to enhance curricular relevancy, concept and skill development, learner and family engagement, and a positive learning environment. Funds of knowledge include home language use, family values and traditions, caregiving practices, family roles and responsibilities, and professional knowledge, among other factors identified by González, Moll, and Amanti (2005). This qualitative study interviews four participants with U.S. and international farming experience to invite reflection on practices across cultures and regions. Constant comparative analyses of interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) highlight ways culture and farming are connected and present farming practices as important funds of knowledge. This inquiry offers valuable implications for elementary curricula and instruction. 

Introduction

This study examines farming practices as funds of knowledge that may be integrated into K–12 curricula and instruction. Funds of knowledge, as conceptualized by Moll, Amanti, Neff, and González (1992), include the knowledge students bring from their families and home communities to the classroom, and serve as resources to enhance curricular relevancy, concept and skill development, learner and family engagement, and a positive learning environment. Funds of knowledge include home language use, family values and traditions, caregiving practices, family roles and responsibilities, and professional knowledge, among other factors identified by González, Moll, and Amanti (2005). This research has sought to develop theory and practical approaches for educators to learn about the funds of knowledge of language learner families, and all learner families, in their school communities and to “re-present them on the bases of the knowledge, resources, and strengths they possess, thus challenging deficit orientations that are so dominant, in particular, in the education of working-class children” (Moll, 2019, p. 131). Collaborations among teachers, parents, and students are needed. 

Historically, U.S. public schools have not acknowledged the “strategic and cultural resources” or “funds of knowledge” that U.S.-Mexican multilingual learners have brought to the classroom from their home environments (Velez-Ibenez & Greenburg, 1992). Research offers creative approaches for integrating learner funds of knowledge into curricula and instruction. Alvarez (2018) invited bilingual first graders to author autobiographical stories sharing about life in a town on the Mexican-American border. Stories demonstrated self-perceptions as adding to family well-being. Humanizing pedagogies have drawn on students’ politicized funds of knowledge to support critical thinking, literacy skills, and political participation in achieving social equity for all by connecting their lived experiences to school curricula (Gallo & Link, 2015). This study builds on previous research demonstrating family farming experience as valuable student knowledge to engage in elementary science classrooms (e.g., Harper, 2016). Moll (2019) includes farming as one of the careers in the primary and secondary sectors of the economy that learners may bring to the classroom from marginalized working-class homes, and he encourages educators to create opportunity for learners of all backgrounds, including farming families, to “display, elaborate, and share” their experiences as a learning resource and rich knowledge base (p. 131).

Need for the Research

In Fall 2017, 10.1% of students in U.S. public school K–12 classrooms were identified as English Language Learners (ELLs), an increase from 8.1% in 2000 (U.S. Department of Education, 2017–18). These statistics also reflect the population of ELLs in a sample Midwest county, indicating that diversity of student populations exists not only on the borders and coasts, but is integral to the nation. In the Bartholomew County School Corporation in South Central Indiana, of approximately 1,200 students, just over 10% of the K–12 school population identified as English Language Learners (ELLs) (Johannesen, 2019). Of multilingual families in the U.S., about 77% reported speaking Spanish at home, with other common home languages including Arabic, Chinese, and Vietnamese (Bialik, Scheller, & Walker, 2018). Migrant language learning families make up a significant percentage of U.S. agricultural workers. In an article on immigration and farming, Kurn (2018) reflected that “immigrants are deeply involved in this complex journey from seed to plate … an indelible part of rural America, contributing to the economic and cultural fabric of these communities” (para. 2). Farmworkers Justice found that around 70–80% of farmworkers are immigrants, while the United States Department of Agricultural (USDA) found that 60% of all agricultural workers are immigrants (Kurn, 2018, para. 4). The above statistics demonstrate the need to prepare teachers and teacher candidates to support ELLs, farming and migrant families in U.S. schools. Classrooms need curricula and instruction that affirm and engage student backgrounds and knowledge as resources for all in the classroom, including farming knowledge. Moreover, teacher preparation programs need to prepare teacher candidates with curricular resources and instructional capacities for this.

Purpose

This study seeks to “re-present” (Moll, 2019, p. 131) farming knowledge across cultures and regions as funds of knowledge. To do this, the study examines connections between culture and farming practices, including similarities and differences across the U.S. and international regions. This study further considers how these farming practices as funds of knowledge may be integrated into elementary curricula and instruction and in teacher preparation contexts seeking to prepare teachers to support multicultural, multilingual learners. A model lesson plan (Appendix A), developed in a teacher preparation course for integrating funds of knowledge into curricula and instruction, is shared.

Methods

This qualitative study engaged constant comparative analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) to examine similarities and differences across farming practices and consider how culture and farming shape one another, from the perspectives of participants who have farming experience in the U.S. and in one or more international regions. Collected data included 30–45-minute interviews with four participants identified through a purposive selection process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) that involved asking the county’s soil and water conservation district for suggested participants. The first three participants were identified through this route. The fourth participant was identified by inviting volunteers through a social media outreach posted by one of the two researchers conducting the study. All four participants were selected to participate in the study because they had farming knowledge and experience in a U.S. region and in an international region culturally, ecologically, and politically distinct from their own. In the interviews participants were asked to consider how culture shapes and is shaped by farming practices in the U.S. and in international regions where they farmed. The interview protocol is included in Appendix B. Constant comparative analysis was used to identify themes and sub-themes that emerged from the interview data; the themes were not predetermined. This analysis process involved recording participants’ responses to each of the five interview questions, then coding responses focused on the U.S. context or the international context, to identify similarities and differences. The next layer of analysis involved reviewing this chart for key themes that emerged, including theme-based comparisons the participants made about the U.S. and international contexts in which they farmed. Finally, thematic findings were considered for how farming practices as regionally and culturally distinct funds of knowledge might inform and be integrated into K–12 curricula and instruction, and how this integration might play a role in supporting multicultural, multilingual learners and in meeting Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Teacher Preparation Standards.

Findings: Farming Practices as Funds of Knowledge

The findings from this qualitative study build on previous research by suggesting that culture shapes and is shaped by farming practices, and demonstrate specific ways in which U.S. farming practices contrast with farming practices in international settings. Analyses of participant interviews resulted in findings highlighting the following themes: automated vs. manual labor, individual vs. social farming, climate impact on food cultivation, institutionalized vs. personalized practices, and the politics of land ownership. Each of these themes highlights how farming involves funds of knowledge embedded in the communities and cultures of practice.

Automated vs. Manual Labor

Across interviews, participants emphasized distinctions observed in automated farming in the U.S. and manual farming practices in international developing regions, specifically the Philippines, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador. One participant reflected on the necessity to be well versed in technology to farm in the U.S.: “Here in the U.S. we are so reliant on technology and the data it gives us” (Peru-Ecuador-U.S. Farming Participant). She noted the similar use of automated practices in Canada, the Netherlands, and England. In contrast, she reflected on practices in Ecuador, where farming was “super hands-on” and where farmers had the opportunity to obtain technology, “but they choose not to, and would rather have their cows they know personally, and 20 cows they milk every day” and yet “here in the U.S. we might have 10,000 cows on a big farm” (Peru-Ecuador-U.S. Farming Participant). 

Individual vs. Social Farming

Another theme that surfaced across interviews is the noted distinction between individual and social farming practices. The participant with experience in the Philippines described farming there as a social enterprise that brought together family and community members. In contrast, he reflected that much of the farming that took place in the U.S. tended to be individually experienced. He noted that in the Philippines, there were “family groups working together in the gardens and fields” and that farming was “part of their social life, so there was a connection there with the culture” that “happens a lot less in the farms here” because “we are just more spread out” (Philippines-U.S. Farming Participant). Another participant, who had farming experience in Bolivia, reflected on his family’s difficult transition to farming abroad but said that their intentional development of friendships resulted in their “farm not walking away on them,” or having items taken. This farmer described his transformation in discovering the importance of community to support one another. He emphasized near the end of the interview, “Get to know your neighbors and the services they can offer for free. That is priceless” (Bolivia-U.S. Farmer Participant), and he encouraged this practice across professional fields and across international regions—in the U.S. as much as in Bolivia.

Climate Impact on Food Cultivation

Only one participant emphasized the importance of climate in shaping agriculture and the kinds of foods that can be cultivated, and thus the kinds of foods that are enjoyed most often by the local culture. This farmer referenced his experience in the Philippines to highlight that “where we live determines the climate and what is possible to grow” (Philippines-U.S. Farming Participant). This then influences the kinds of foods that are enjoyed at family and community gatherings, holidays, and other cultural celebrations.

Institutionalized vs. Personalized Practices

All participants described distinctions between institutionalized farming practices in the U.S. and more personalized farming practices in international regions, particularly the Philippines, Peru, and Ecuador. The participant with experience in Ecuador and Peru described the value farmers hold there for knowing “each cow, personally,” in contrast to her experience in the U.S. She reflected, “In America we are taught Go big and do what makes it easier, but in Peru [the focus is] take care of yourself, take care of the land, take care of others” (Peru-Ecuador-U.S. Farming Participant). She said that in Peru there are more “diverse, small field” crops and that farmers “care more about their native plants and what they can grow well,” but in the U.S., there are “mass farming or commercial farms that plant all the same crop … 100 acres of potatoes and they are exported” (Ecuador-Peru Farming Participant). This participant felt there was more “pride in what [Ecuadorians and Peruvians] grow because they know it is feeding their neighbors and the community,” while in America, it just seems more of an industry” (Peru-Ecuador-U.S. Farming Participant). This participant referenced her observations of farming practices in Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom that minimized “Go big or go home” practices putting smaller farms out of business. For example, a quota system in Canada requires farmers to purchase rights to the amount of milk a farm will produce—aside from the cost involved in producing that milk. Thus, bigger farms have greater incentive to veer from large-scale farm development. This middle ground seemed ideal to her, as Ecuador’s system led to underproduction of milk for the people, yet America’s big farm efficiency led to 100 family farms closing their doors in one year. One of the participants with experience in Bolivia emphasized the political challenges they faced in accessing the resources they needed to sustain their living situation. He felt similar challenges will be faced in the U.S. if big business farming pushes out smaller farms, leading to lease farming, and minimizing a farmer’s ability to understand and respect the land being cultivated. Likewise, another participant noted that most U.S. farm families are “looking for the next generation to farm that same ground,” so it is “critical to preserve that land, so their kids and grandkids can make a living from the land” (Philippines-U.S. Farming Participant). Without personal connection to the land, the process of land ownership can become complex, both financially and politically driven.

The Politics of Land Ownership

The two participants with farming experience in Bolivia continued to emphasize throughout the joint 1.5-hour interview the complex politics involved in land ownership in Bolivia and increasingly in the U.S. One of these participants reflected on observing land permit applications being stacked in one pile for those with “the right connections” and in another pile for those without such connections. He relayed the fear expressed by American Mennonite farmers in Bolivia when a new political leader entered office, and the negative consequences this would have for their ability to access the resources needed to farm and make any profit on their produce. This participant reflected, “governments and institutions are just a way for whoever has control to have legitimacy to look the other way on the people who they want to get ahead” (Bolivia-U.S. Farming Participant). The same farmer expressed concern over the rising trend in big business farming in the U.S., leading to land rentals and pushing smaller generational family farms out of business.

Discussion and Implications

This study offers insights into important connections between culture and farming practices, and demonstrates ways that farming practices are funds of knowledge integral to communities and their cultures. These findings are important for teachers seeking to support multicultural, multilingual learners who may immigrate to a new region and bring a farming background with them, and learners who might gain new knowledge from classmates with a farming background. This study recognizes farming practices as meaningful funds of knowledge that learners and their families may bring to K–12 classrooms, as emphasized by Harper (2016). This study also recognizes that student familiarity with farming will vary based on the family, school, district, and region, and teachers will need to adjust accordingly. More broadly, this study builds connections across local and international cultures to promote glocalization as a valuable societal aim for K–12 schools and society, as supported by Patel and Lynch’s research (2013). This study reveals specific connections across culture and farming practices regarding the use of automated vs. manual labor, individual vs. social farming, the impact of climate on food cultivation, institutionalized vs. personalized farming, and the politics of land ownership.

Implications for Elementary Curricula and Instruction

This study demonstrates ways culture and farming shape one another and reveals farming practices as a significant fund of knowledge that students and their families may bring to a classroom and to a school community. Understanding similarities and differences across regional farming practices can support teachers in integrating this knowledge into curricula and instruction. Moreover, foundational understandings about agriculture connect to important climate-related content. The following themes from this study align with content covered in the Next Generation Science Standards, particularly Interdependent Relationships in Ecosystems: Environmental Impacts on Organisms taught in Grade 1, 2, and 3; Weather and Climate in Kindergarten and Grade 3; Earth and Space Systems in Grade 1, 2, 4 and 5; and Structure and Function in Grade 1 and Variation in Grade 3. For example, climate impact on cultivation addresses NGSS 3-ESS2-2: Obtain and combine information to describe climates in different regions of the world, and 3-LS4-3: Construct an argument with evidence that in a particular habitat some organisms can survive well, some survive less well, and some cannot survive at all. Examination of institutionalized and personalized farming practices and the use of land meets NGSS 4-ESS3-2: Generate and compare multiple solutions to reduce the impacts of natural Earth processes on humans, and 5-ESS3-1: Obtain and combine information about ways individual communities use science ideas to protect the Earth’s resources and environment. The following themes address topics covered by the National Council for the Social Studies Standards, including Culture; People, Places, and Environments; Science, Technology, and Society; Global Connections; Civic Ideals and Practices. The potential thematic connections to these standards are many, and we encourage educators to explore them in depth.

Automated vs. Manual Labor

Teachers might guide elementary students in examining both the values and limitations of automated and manual farming practices in the U.S. and in one or more international regions. Such instruction might draw on this study by asking students to debate the pros and cons of using automated farming equipment for different types of farming work such as harvesting crops and milking cows, and to consider how their own values interact with the cultural values of the regions where these farming practices are implemented. One group of students might be asked to learn about and argue for the cultural value of knowing every cow, as in some smaller farms, while another group may be asked to learn about and argue for the business value of producing high volumes of milk in big farms.

Individual vs. Social Farming and Climate Impact

Teachers might partner with the community by inviting parents, older siblings or students, instructional aides, or other members of local multicultural, multilingual communities to visit their classroom and share about their own or their family member’s experiences with social farming practices in international regions. This sharing might articulate the benefits of farming together to feed the local community, as well as nutritional benefits and traditional celebrations that are based around specific locally cultivated crops. The speaker might also share any challenges navigated in a family unit and/or local community when members are farming together. Related to culturally cherished foods, the teacher might guide students to research the climate of different regions, how this shapes the kinds of foods grown there, and specific dishes and recipes that become integral to cultural gatherings, holidays, and traditions.

Institutionalized vs. Personalized Practices and Land Politics

Teachers might connect two themes of this study, by helping students examine how institutionalized and more personalized approaches to farming shape and are shaped by the politics of land ownership. Student groups might each take a country and examine how the national and local policies of land ownership shape attitudes toward the land and the practices therein. They might also examine how local farmers and their farming needs and practices influence (or not) local and national policies on land use and ownership. As students compare similarities and differences across regions, the teacher will need to guide students to continually contextualize farming and policy practices with broader local and national cultural influences. Students can be guided to view and understand this new information as funds of knowledge they may use to support their own local and global understandings.

Implications for Teacher Preparation

This study offers valuable implications for institutions of teacher preparation, and suggests that the integration of farming knowledge as funds of knowledge into teacher preparation coursework is valuable for multicultural, multilingual classrooms. Both local and international learners and their families benefit from connecting with and learning about local and international farming knowledge and practices. Such knowledge is a window for introducing complex cultural, ecological, and political topics, including automated vs. manual labor, individual vs. social farming, climate impact on food cultivation, institutionalized vs. personalized practices, and the politics of land ownership. Preparing teachers to integrate farming knowledge as culturally shaped funds of knowledge into curricula and instruction supports teacher candidates in meeting the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) Elementary Teacher Preparation Standards, particularly using knowledge of diverse families and communities to plan inclusive learning experiences that build on learners’ strengths and address needs (Standard 1b); integrating cross-cutting concepts in the content area of science (Standard 2c); differentiating plans to meet the needs of diverse learners (Standard 3d); supporting student motivation and engagement through culturally relevant and interesting content (Standard 3f); and collaborating with peers and other professionals to create developmentally meaningful learning experiences for all (Standard 5a). 

Preparing teachers to integrate funds of knowledge into curricula and instruction also supports teacher candidates in meeting TESOL PreK–12 Teacher Preparation Standards, including guiding students to engage in discourse across the content areas (Standard 1a); planning for culturally and linguistically relevant, supportive environments (Standard 3a); utilizing relevant materials and resources to support learning (Standard 3e); and collaborating with the broader community as a resource to support student learning (Standard 5a). A model lesson plan, Farming Practices as Funds of Knowledge for Multilingual Learners, is provided in Appendix A. Local and international farming practices as funds of knowledge serve as a window to better understand students’ diverse backgrounds. It is important to prepare teachers to engage this important form of cultural knowledge to affirm and learn from diverse learners. 

About the Authors 

Laura B. Liu, Ed.D. is an assistant professor and Coordinator of the English as a New Language (ENL) Program in the Division of Education at Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus (IUPUC). Her research and teaching include the integration of civic science and funds of knowledge into elementary and teacher education curricula and instruction.

Taylor Russell is an elementary teacher and earned her Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education at Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus (IUPUC), with a dual license in teaching English as a New Language (ENL).

References

Alvarez, A. (2018). Drawn and written funds of knowledge: A window into emerging bilingual children’s experiences and social interpretations through their written narratives and drawings. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 18(1), 97–128.

Bialik, K., Scheller, A., & Walker, K. (2018, October 18). 6 facts about English Language Learners in U.S. public schools. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/25/6-facts-about-english-language-learners-in-u-s-public-schools/

Gallo, S., & Link, H. (2015). “Diles la verdad”: Deportation policies, politicized funds of knowledge, and schooling in middle childhood. Special Issue Dissolving Boundaries: Understanding Undocumented Students’ Educational Experiences for Harvard Educational Review, 85(3), 357–382.

García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21^st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harper, S. G. (2016). Keystone characteristics that support cultural resilience in Karen refugee parents. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 1029–1060.

Johannesen, K. (2019, January 26). BCSC superintendent outlines legislative priorities. The Republic. Retrieved from http://www.therepublic.com/2019/01/27/bcsc_superintendent_outlines_legislative_priorities/

Kurn, J. (2018, August 24). Immigration and the food system. Cambridge, MA: Farm Aid. Retrieved from: https://www.farmaid.org/blog/fact-sheet/immigration-and-the-food-system/

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4^th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Milway, K. S. (2010). The good garden: How one family went from hunger to having enough. Toronto, ON: Kids Can Press.

Moll, L. C. (2019). Elaborating funds of knowledge: Community oriented practices in international contexts. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 68, 130–138.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.

NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies: Introduction. (n.d.). Silver Spring, MD: National Council for Social Studies. Retrieved from https://www.socialstudies.org/standards/national-curriculum-standards-social-studies-introduction

Patel, F., & Lynch, H. (2013). Glocalization as an alternative to internationalization in higher education: Embedding positive glocal learning perspectives. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(2), 223–230.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

TESOL International Association (TESOL). (2019). Standards for initial TESOL Pre-K–12 teacher preparation programs. Alexandria, VA: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Local Education Agency Universe Survey, 2017–18. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp

Vélez-Ibáñez, C. G., & Greenberg, J. B. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican households. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 23(4), 313-335.  

Appendix A

Lesson Plan: Farming Practices as Funds of Knowledge for Multilingual Learners

Teaching Context

Grade Level(s): 5th   
Number of Students: 20–25  
Multilingual Learners: 50–75%

Lesson Planning

Indiana Science Standard 5.ESS.3:
Investigate ways individual U.S. communities protect the Earth’s resources and environment.

Learning Outcome:
Students will COMPARE how communities in three regions practice sustainable farming.

Indiana Social Studies Standard 5.2.8, Roles of Citizens:
Describe group and individual actions that illustrate civic virtues, such as civility, cooperation, respect, and responsible participation. 

Learning Outcome:
Students will DESCRIBE sustainable farming practices in three regions as funds of knowledge. 

WIDA ELD Standard 3 and WIDA ELD Standard 5:
English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content areas of Science and Social Studies

Language Objectives:
Students will IDENTIFY and DESCRIBE similarities and differences in sustainable farming practices as funds of knowledge in Honduras, Guatemala, and the U.S. (Indiana).

Lesson Instruction

Lesson Introduction: 

Share with the class three pictures of sustainable farming practices, in Honduras, Guatemala, and the U.S. Ask if anyone knows or can guess what sustainable farming, means. Repeat student ideas in English and Spanish and write ideas in both languages on the board. Provide a definition for sustainable farming in English and Spanish. Explain that sustainable farming is important for all countries as everyone needs access to sustainable, nutritious food. Note the class will learn about sustainable farming practices in three different countries today: Honduras, Guatemala, and the U.S.—Columbus, Indiana! Introduce the book, The Good Garden: How One Family Went from Hunger to Having Enough (Milway, 2010). Ask the class to examine the title and picture on the front cover to predict what the book may be about. Explain the book is about one family’s work in Honduras to begin sustainable farming practices, by creating a garden to provide sustainable food security for local families. 

Learning Activities: 

Pass out the Venn Diagram graphic organizer.

I DO: Model for students how to complete the Honduras section. Read The Good Garden in English, with Spanish translation by the instructional aide. Complete this sentence frame on the board: “In Honduras, sustainable farming can include ____ and ____.”

WE DO: Invite the instructional aide to share in English and Spanish about sustainable farming practices on her grandparents’ farm in Guatemala. As a class, complete this sentence frame on the board: “In Guatemala, sustainable farming can include ____ and ____.”

YOU DO: Play video a local farmer in Columbus, Indiana created about sustainable farming practices that many farmers use in Indiana. Invite students to pair-share and complete this sentence frame by speaking and writing, in English OR another language: “In Columbus, Indiana, sustainable farming can include _____ and _____.”

Lesson Conclusion: 

Invite pairs to verbally respond to the following questions: What are similarities across the sustainable farming practices in Honduras, Guatemala, and Indiana? What are differences? Students will be invited to use their Venn Diagrams and the following sentence frames to respond: “One similarity in sustainable farming practices across the three regions is ______.” and “One similarity in sustainable farming practices across the three regions is ______.” Ask students how these practices relate to the concept, funds of knowledge, shared in the previous lesson. Conclude that the sustainable farming practices discussed today are funds of knowledge of the cultures and families within those regions, including their agricultural, environmental, and professional knowledge.

Appendix B

Interview Questions: Farming Practices as Funds of Knowledge

Interview Introduction: 

We are conducting this interview as part of a study to learn more about farming practices as funds of knowledge and how these may be integrated into K–12 classroom curricula and instruction. Dr. Luis Moll, from the University of Arizona, studied and describes  funds of knowledge as the knowledge that students bring from their families and homes to the classroom, which can be used to teach concepts and skills in the classroom curricula. Dr. Harper of the University of Georgia encourages reciprocal construction of classroom knowledge in which families’ farming practices are engaged as valuable  funds of knowledge in science. 

Funds of knowledge can include a variety of understandings, such as cultural traditions, values, beliefs, languages, professional skills, farming practices, recipe nutrition, etc.

Interview Questions:

1. Explain any farming practices that are valuable to your culture and may represent  funds of knowledge within your culture.

2. Explain any views toward the ecology and the land that are important in your culture and may represent  funds of knowledgewithin your culture.

3. Do you feel your culture and farming practices are connected? Explain your response.

4. Do you feel your culture may shape farming practices in your region of origin? Explain.

Download the article

Download (PDF, 567KB)