IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0084035.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Neuroscientists’ Classroom Visits Positively Impact Student Attitudes

Author

Listed:
  • Janet L Fitzakerley
  • Michael L Michlin
  • John Paton
  • Janet M Dubinsky

Abstract

The primary recommendation of the 2010 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report on K-12 education was to inspire more students so that they are motivated to study science. Scientists’ visits to classrooms are intended to inspire learners and increase their interest in science, but verifications of this impact are largely qualitative. Our primary goal was to evaluate the impact of a longstanding Brain Awareness classroom visit program focused on increasing learners understanding of their own brains. Educational psychologists have established that neuroscience training sessions can improve academic performance and shift attitudes of students from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset. Our secondary goal was to determine whether short interactive Brain Awareness scientist-in-the-classroom sessions could similarly alter learners’ perceptions of their own potential to learn. Teacher and student surveys were administered in 4th-6th grade classrooms throughout Minnesota either before or after one-hour Brain Awareness sessions that engaged students in activities related to brain function. Teachers rated the Brain Awareness program as very valuable and said that the visits stimulated students’ interest in the brain and in science. Student surveys probed general attitudes towards science and their knowledge of neuroscience concepts (particularly the ability of the brain to change). Significant favorable improvements were found on 10 of 18 survey statements. Factor analyses of 4805 responses demonstrated that Brain Awareness presentations increased positive attitudes toward science and improved agreement with statements related to growth mindset. Overall effect sizes were small, consistent with the short length of the presentations. Thus, the impact of Brain Awareness presentations was positive and proportional to the efforts expended, demonstrating that short, scientist-in-the-classroom visits can make a positive contribution to primary school students’ attitudes toward science and learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Janet L Fitzakerley & Michael L Michlin & John Paton & Janet M Dubinsky, 2013. "Neuroscientists’ Classroom Visits Positively Impact Student Attitudes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0084035
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084035
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084035&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0084035?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pablo Jensen & Jean-Baptiste Rouquier & Pablo Kreimer & Yves Croissant, 2008. "Scientists who engage with society perform better academically," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(7), pages 527-541, August.
    2. Elaine Howard Ecklund & Sarah A James & Anne E Lincoln, 2012. "How Academic Biologists and Physicists View Science Outreach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-5, May.
    3. Tabernero, Carmen & Wood, Robert E., 1999. "Implicit Theories versus the Social Construal of Ability in Self-Regulation and Performance on a Complex Task," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 104-127, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emily L Howell & Julia Nepper & Dominique Brossard & Michael A Xenos & Dietram A Scheufele, 2019. "Engagement present and future: Graduate student and faculty perceptions of social media and the role of the public in science engagement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Dewettinck, K. & Buyens, D., 2006. "Linking behavioral control to frontline employee commitment and performance: a test of two alternative explanations using motivation theories," Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School Working Paper Series 2006-13, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School.
    3. Weilong Bi & Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2020. "“Beauty” premium for social scientists but “unattractiveness” premium for natural scientists in the public speaking market," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Craig R McClain, 2017. "Practices and promises of Facebook for science outreach: Becoming a “Nerd of Trust”," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-9, June.
    5. Desai, Naman & Jain, Shailendra Pratap & Jain, Shalini & Tripathy, Arindam, 2020. "The impact of implicit theories of personality malleability on opportunistic financial reporting," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 258-265.
    6. Alana Kluczkovski & Joanne Cook & Helen F. Downie & Alison Fletcher & Lauryn McLoughlin & Andrew Markwick & Sarah L. Bridle & Christian J. Reynolds & Ximena Schmidt Rivera & Wayne Martindale & Angelin, 2020. "Interacting with Members of the Public to Discuss the Impact of Food Choices on Climate Change—Experiences from Two UK Public Engagement Events," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, March.
    7. Abdulla Abdulaziz Al-Subaie & Mohd. Nishat Faisal & Belaid Aouni & Faisal Talib, 2021. "A Strategic Framework for Transformational Leadership Development in Megaprojects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-21, March.
    8. Takashi Yamauchi, 2018. "Modeling Mindsets with Kalman Filter," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-18, October.
    9. Meredith Nash & Hanne E F Nielsen & Justine Shaw & Matt King & Mary-Anne Lea & Narissa Bax, 2019. "“Antarctica just has this hero factor…”: Gendered barriers to Australian Antarctic research and remote fieldwork," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-22, January.
    10. D’Este, Pablo & Robinson-García, Nicolás, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    11. Lin Zhang & Gunnar Sivertsen & Huiying Du & Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8861-8886, November.
    12. Abhay S. D. Rajput & Sangeeta Sharma, 2022. "Top Indian scientists as public communicators: a survey of their perceptions, attitudes and communication behaviors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3167-3192, June.
    13. Zingoni, Matt & Byron, Kris, 2017. "How beliefs about the self influence perceptions of negative feedback and subsequent effort and learning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 50-62.
    14. Jarrett E K Byrnes & Jai Ranganathan & Barbara L E Walker & Zen Faulkes, 2014. "To Crowdfund Research, Scientists Must Build an Audience for Their Work," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-29, December.
    15. Zhang, Lin & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Du, Huiying & HUANG, Ying & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," SocArXiv 9n347, Center for Open Science.
    16. Lee, Saerom & Bolton, Lisa E., 2020. "Mixed signals? Decoding luxury consumption in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 331-345.
    17. Cao, Renmeng & Geng, Yu & Xu, Xiaoke & Wang, Xianwen, 2022. "How does duplicate tweeting boost social media exposure to scholarly articles?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    18. Kanfer, Ruth & Chen, Gilad, 2016. "Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 6-19.
    19. Jovana Janinovic & Sanja Pekovic & Dijana Vuckovic & Stevo Popovic & Rajka Djokovic & Mirjana Pejiæ Bach, 2020. "Innovative strategies for creating and assessing research quality and societal impact in social sciences and humanities," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 18(4), pages 449-458.
    20. Kroll, Henning & Hansmeier, Hendrik & Hufnagl, Miriam, 2022. "Productive interactions in basic research an enquiry into impact pathways at the DESY synchrotron," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0084035. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.