Researchers continue to be interested in the ways that people successfully pursue science education throughout their lifetimes, especially as adults. Focusing on an adult population requires understanding how adults assimilate new information. In particular, science-based museums, or science centers, comprise a large portion of most adults' exposure to science and technology, regardless of their nationality.
This article's authors explore the relationship between science centers and adults' level of science and technology literacy in countries around the world. In particular, the authors address the lack of research on science centers' ability to successfully engage and educate adults. In the past, studies have assessed adults' science and technology literacy through knowledge-based testing, but this study's authors also assessed other educational outcomes, including identity and curiosity.
To implement this approach, the authors designed a study spanning 13 countries and 17 communities, resulting in 6,089 participants drawn from a representative sample of each community. The surveys used a variety of indicators to assess the ways in which adult experiences at science centers might connect to educational outcomes related to science and technology. Those metrics included: science and technology knowledge; interest in science and technology; identifying oneself as confident in science and technology; creativity and problem solving; and participation in science- and technology-related jobs, vocations, hobbies, and leisure experiences.
The surveys also addressed free-choice learning, a primary component of adults' experiences in science centers, as most adults voluntarily visit these educational spaces. Free-choice learning is a lifelong, informal pursuit of an education on topics and in settings of the learner's own choosing. The free-choice aspect of adults' science-center visits makes it challenging to have rigorous control variables in such a study.
To address the complexity and variability of science learning and science-center experiences, the authors implemented an epidemiological research approach with quantitative surveys as the primary data collection method. Although the science of epidemiology examines the distribution and incidence of disease, the methods that epidemiologists use to design their studies are applicable to any social science inquiry that faces validity issues due to a large number of complex, interconnected factors. These types of studies reveal patterns across varied demographics, rather than across individuals. This approach makes sense in the context of science centers, where visitors representing innumerable demographics have different levels of exposure to exhibits and other forms of informal education.
The research instrument was a paper-and-pencil survey designed for the comprehension level of a 14-year-old. The questions related to the aforementioned outcome variables, including knowledge and understanding, interest, and confidence in science and technology, as well as participation in science- and technology-related leisure activities, hobbies, and vocations. The researchers distributed the survey in 13 countries, as they recognized the importance of ensuring that the survey was culturally relevant; as such, they modified language and took into consideration input from the local science centers.
On the survey, 44% of respondents reported that they had previously visited a science center. Participants with higher levels of education reported they had visited science centers more frequently; in general, more frequent science center visits correlated with stronger outcomes. The researchers suggested, then, that level of exposure was relevant to the overall effect of the institutions. For example, more visits correlated with increased curiosity and interest.
The authors noted that a limitation of this study and its findings was the possibility of self-selection bias, which is unavoidable in free-choice learning environments such as science centers. The authors note that, while this likely influenced some of the observed correlations, it is not the primary driver of positive correlations.
After accounting for self-selection bias, the findings indicate that science center visitation had positive impacts on science literacy, regardless of factors such as education, interests, previous experiences, and income. The authors conclude by noting that there are likely significant positive correlations between adults' visits to science centers and (1) science and technology knowledge and understanding, (2) interest and curiosity in science and technology, (3) participation in science and technology activities, and (4) confidence and identification with science and technology.
The Bottom Line
Although much of the focus on science education is on youth and families, finding ways to support science literacy for adults continues to be a critical need worldwide. Science centers can be important resources for doing so, as they provide opportunities for adults to continue engaging in science-and-technology ideas throughout their lives. Active, relevant, and changing programs and exhibits are avenues to attract new, as well as returning, adult visitors, who benefit from gains in a range of science- and technology-related outcomes, including knowledge, interest, engagement, and confidence.