Drawing attention to attitudes toward scientists: Changes in 10- to 13-year-old students as a result of a GeoCamp experience in New Zealand

Abstract

This paper reports on a two-week Earth Science programme, designed and delivered by the New Zealand Crown Research Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited (GNS Science) referred to as the GeoCamp. This initiative has offered 10- to 13-year-old students learning experiences outside the classroom in several regions throughout New Zealand. The programme discussed in this paper was held in the Wairarapa region in the south-east of the North Island. We examined 23 students’ attitudinal changes toward scientists and science. Data collection reported in this paper occurred on the first day of the programme and six months later, when students were asked to draw annotated diagrams of scientists. Our results indicate that students participating in the camp broadened their views of scientists from being stereotypically eccentric chemists in lab coats, to those being aligned with real-world scientists, i.e. not being eccentric, some being females, some working outdoors, and being collaborative. They also recognized that scientists engage in a diverse range of work, and suggested some specific problems that they would like to solve if they were to be scientists. We suggest that these results reveal affective learning outcomes of this Education Outside the Classroom (EOTC) approach.

Keywords:

• Attitudinal change
• draw-a-scientist
• outdoor learning
• immersion programme

Introduction

“You can talk about something, plan for something, and show them (students) photos, but nothing beats the real deal” (Ministry of Education [MoE], 2016, p.4). This extract from the EOTC [Education Outside the Classroom] Guidelines─Bringing the Curriculum Alive (2016) supports the view that education outside the classroom is inherently good and has a positive impact on student learning. The advantage of engaging directly with people, places and organizations from within students’ communities helps develop strong partnerships and gives greater relevance to student learning (MoE, 2016). The opportunity to experience expert practice in an authentic context, to encounter the noise, the smells and the visual impact resulting from that practice, is likely to provide an experience that is both well-informed and memorable (Dierking et al., 2003; MoE, 2011). A valid point noted in the EOTC Guidelines states “if students are to be confident in their own identities, learning should occur in places where that sense of identity is strong and can be developed” (MoE, 2016, p. 5). Most of us can recall, with some clarity, the visits we experienced away from the classroom decades earlier. Extensive research, particularly in the field of science education, endorses the view that novel, age-appropriate and engaging experiences outside the classroom positively influence the retention of student learning and their long-term achievement (Anderson et al., 2003; Falk & Dierking, 1997; Milne, 2015; Rennie & Johnston, 2004). Recent development in students’ learning suggests that affective aspects of learning, though not easily measurable, are just as important as skill and knowledge acquisition (National Academies of Sciences & Engineering & Medicine, 2018). For students to develop positive attitudes toward science and scientists, and, in some cases, to develop an interest in pursuing a future career in science, knowing scientists personally and/or being able to work with them is a strong contributing factor (Archer et al., 2015). In this paper, we document an EOTC programme designed to introduce Earth sciences to 10- to 13-year-old students, referred to as the GeoCamp. The programme was based on key affordances of EOTC, while creating opportunities for students to work with practising scientists/geologists. We used a “draw-a-scientist” activity supported by short annotations to chart students’ changes in attitude toward science before the programme and six months afterwards.

Purpose and learning goals

Learning is affective as much as it is cognitive. We spend effort in learning only when something interests us; and we persist in learning a challenging concept because we have a strong drive to develop a better understanding of the concept. Likewise, students choose to engage in science after the compulsory level of schooling, in their daily lives, or even in their career in the future because they think “science is for them”—an identity issue. Knowing scientists personally and/or having opportunities to work with scientists fosters this identity formation (Archer et al., 2015). Over time, students would also develop a more realistic view (cf. stereotypical view) of scientists, with this view supporting identity formation iteratively. We see that the GeoCamp, which spanned two weeks working intensively with scientists, may support students to develop a more realistic view and positive attitude toward science and scientists.

In this paper, we report our findings based on the research question of “To what extent did students change their attitude towards scientists as a result of their experience in this GeoCamp?” We used two data sources to answer the research question: (i) students’ drawings of a scientist on the first day of the programme and (ii) students’ drawings of and writing about scientists and the research processes they use six months after the programme had been completed.

Literature review

The premise on which this study is based contends that authentic, “real-world” and context-based educational experiences outside the classroom are fundamentally good and have a positive impact on student learning (Ballantyne & Packer, 2011; Milne, 2015). The innovation model described in this paper and first conceptualized by Nugent et al. (2012) used a theoretical framework derived from Kolb’s experiential learning model (1984) providing students with authentic experiences and studying the natural phenomena of their local region. The extended two-week time-frame during which 10- to 13-year-old students are guided by an experienced team of Earth scientists and immersed in their practice sets this programme apart from other EOTC experiences.

In selecting a focus for an EOTC experience, a sensory-rich environment that is novel to students and includes the opportunity to work alongside experts from that field of study will enhance students’ engagement in activities (D’Angelo et al., 2009; Dierking et al., 2003). The New Zealand MoE (2016) advocates EOTC experiences occurring within students’ own communities where there will be a stronger sense of identity and where engagement with real people, places and organizations will offer greater relevance to their lives. McPhail (2020) explores this notion further and advocates for students participating in genuine “real-world” projects—a concept integral to the GeoCamp programme, where the students identify, investigate and present science-based issues of personal interest. Together these strategies are known to support the long-term retention of student learning (Dierking et al., 2003; Milne, 2015; Moreland et al., 2005).

Other factors that contribute to the effectiveness of EOTC programmes have been identified by Moreland et al. (2005) and Milne (2015). These studies drew on the Contextual Model of Learning, which consists of three overlapping contexts, the personal, the socio-cultural and the physical elements of an experience away from the classroom (Falk & Dierking, 2000). Of particular relevance in the GeoCamp is the socio-cultural context, which includes within-group socio-cultural mediation and facilitated mediation by others, and the physical context, which includes advance organizers and orientation, design, and reinforcing events and experiences after a visit (Falk, 2004). A two-week long programme allowed ample time for facilitated mediation with experts and to reinforce events and experiences after each visit. Facilitated mediation advocates that students as well as their teachers should work alongside experts (Falk, 2004). A teacher’s role during an EOTC visit should not be viewed as merely “crowd control,” but rather as an opportunity to experience the visit in the same way the students experience it, and be better positioned to respond to queries and to follow-up with meaningful tasks and activities after the camp.

As in any educational experience, thorough, well-considered planning is key. There is good evidence that the inclusion of planned pre-, during, and after-visit activities will significantly enhance students’ experiences and their learning (Milne, 2015; Moreland et al., 2005; Tofield et al., 2003). It is well known that the acquisition of language is central to a child’s development and, whilst it initially has a social function, it rapidly begins to serve an intellectual function (Krause et al., 2003). Accordingly, the introduction of context-specific language prior to an EOTC visit is fundamental to students’ engagement with the context and the learning that is to take place. Being aware of the language associated with a visit is likely to generate greater student confidence, including a willingness to contribute ideas and to ask questions. With scaffolding provided after the visit, for example, drawing pictures of the visit, identifying construction procedures that may have been observed, and revisiting the conceptual goals of the visit, misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the students’ experiences may be alleviated and new understandings developed further.

Three specific considerations of the GeoCamp involved students’ ability to observe, to interpret their observations and find solutions to problems, and to predict geological changes that may occur in the future. Besides these cognitive outcomes, it was expected that students working with scientists in the field would also enhance their attitude toward science and scientists (Nugent et al., 2012). There are three key aspects of attitudes toward science. They are (i) students’ interest in science, (ii) their confidence in participating in science-based activities, and (iii) whether they value science and science knowledge to inform decision-making in their everyday lives (Mullis et al., 2020). These three aspects are important because they point to whether students are likely to engage in science in their education/schooling, their future career and in their daily lives now and in the future (Osborne et al., 2003). Archer et al. (2015) found that students’ engagement in science also depends on whether they have opportunities to work or interact with scientists. In this connection, programmes that involve scientists working with students are likely to contribute to students’ engagement in science both in the short-term (in schooling) and longer-term (in choosing their careers). Therefore, we were interested in identifying changes in students’ views about scientists before and after they participated in the GeoCamp.

The analysis used in this project considered studies carried out by Meade and Metraux (1957), Chambers (1983), Finson et al. (1995), and Farland-Smith (2012). The research by Meade and Metraux (1957) required students to write an essay about their views of a scientist, and resulting data indicated that the stereotypical view of the scientist portrayed by students was generally as a crazy man blowing up things in a lab, or as a laboratory scientist—a middle-aged Caucasian man with a beard, dressed in a white lab coat, mixing chemicals. Chambers (1983) developed the DAST [Draw-a-scientist-test] model in which students were asked to draw a picture of a scientist. Each drawing was analyzed in terms of seven categories: the inclusion of a lab coat, eyeglasses, facial hair, scientific instruments or equipment, symbols of knowledge, technology, or relevant captions. Since then, Farland and McComas (2007) and Farland-Smith (2012) analyzed data from two revised versions of the Chambers (1983) version of DAST, (i.e. the Modified-Draw-a-Scientist-Test [mDAST] and the analysis tool Draw-a-Scientist-Checklist [DAST-C]) (Finson et al., 1995). The mDAST provided further verbal prompts in order to obtain more information from the students. These included what a scientist looks like, where scientists work and what scientists do (Farland-Smith, 2012). The DAST-C was a detailed rubric, which aimed to provide greater reliability and validity of analysis. Interestingly, Farland-Smith argued that the stereotypical views resulting from the original DAST tests compared with the more recent mDAST, despite the inclusion of verbal prompts, tended to remain relatively unchanged. Therefore, the question challenging the GNS team of scientists was to confirm whether the programme they had designed would change students’ perceptions, and whether students would appreciate that the science community is increasingly diverse and is accessible to anyone with a desire to become a member.

The DAST-C analysis tool was identified as being particularly useful in establishing the views held by the GeoCamp participants. It identified four categories: (i) who is doing science, (ii) what is the location, (iii) what is the activity, and (iv) what tools are represented. Based on these, this study identified eight sub-categories: the clothing of the scientist, the setting, equipment that would establish the type of scientist the student had drawn, appearance (i.e. is it conventional or unconventional), additional text or captions, and the two additional sub-categories added in this study, demeanor or facial expressions, and the dimensions or drawing skills of the student to establish whether or not these had an impact on the descriptions presented by the student. No prompts were provided in the initial task, but the second task, which involved completing a paper template, included simple instructions and two written prompts. These additions were intended to encourage students to draw more than one scientist, to describe a process that would help them to solve science-based problems, and to give an opinion on whether being a scientist would be interesting and if so what they would like to find out. It was anticipated this would provide the team with students’ enduring understandings of science and scientists, their attitude toward science and scientists, and also the broader goals, outlined in “Study Participants and Settings,” of their understanding of the practice of science.

Studies that examined students’ perception of scientists through drawing found that many students tended to have negative or stereotypical views of scientists. For example, scientists were often drawn as men with unusual hairstyles (compared with the reality where many scientists are females), working alone (whereas scientists work as a community), working indoors with glassware (whereas many scientists work outdoors) (e.g. Miller et al., 2018). With stereotypical views, it would be a challenge for students to identify themselves as future scientists or science-related persons.

Study participants and settings

GNS Science is a provider of geoscience research and consultancy services but, as part of their public-good objectives, offer hands-on, “in the field” educational programmes for intermediate and junior high school students (GNS Science, 2020). These programmes are referred to as GeoCamps (discussed in the next section). They have been organized throughout New Zealand in areas of particular geological interest, and are the focus of active research programmes. In this study, the selected region was the Wairarapa which is situated toward the bottom end of the North Island. This region offered good opportunities for Earth Science investigations (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Map of New Zealand showing the Wairarapa region and Castlepoint. (a) Discussing the formation of shell cliffs at Castlepoint; (b) Understanding topography through models built with sand; (c) Discussing sea level rise at Castlepoint beach; (d) Testing salinity at Mangapakeha mud volcanoes (source of the map: Free Stencil Gallery, available at https://www.pinterest.nz/pin/598345500509821821/).

Study participants

Once the region had been confirmed, six local schools were invited to select six students to participate in the camp. The schools that were selected included two rural primary schools (Years 1 − 8 or five-year-olds to 12-year-olds), one urban middle school (Years 7 − 8), two urban high schools including one Catholic school, and a privately funded primary school (Years 1 − 8). One primary school and the private school drew students from a high socioeconomic community, and the remaining schools drew students from low to middle socioeconomic communities. The ethnicity of students in each school, excluding the private school, was approximately 60% European descent, 30% Māori, and 10% Pacific and Asian descent. The private school students were predominantly of European heritage, with 9% who identified as Māori.

The invitation to participate in the GeoCamp programme was also extended to one teacher from each school to accompany their students. Unfortunately, one school withdrew from the programme due to the supervising teacher sustaining an injury, and another school enrolled four students into the programme, rather than six. Accordingly, the Wairarapa programme consisted of five teachers and a total of 28 enrolled students who were to gain experience working collaboratively with a new peer group for the duration of the programme, and in a new physical environment. The thinking behind the selection of participants was to target students who would be most advantaged by the experience. The interpretation of this was left to the participating schools based on what they knew of the students and their families.

Settings

As mentioned previously, the site visits described in this paper were located within the Wairarapa region. Most of these were familiar to the students, and this was expected to evoke a strong sense of community and identity (Ministry of Education, 2016) ensuring relevance to, and connectivity with the experiences (Semmens et al., 2021). The first site visit was to Mangapari Stream and Pigeon Bush fault scarp, one of New Zealand’s largest active fault lines; the second visit was to Lake Wairarapa, the largest wetland in the southern North Island; and the third was to Castlepoint beach and the Mangapakeha mud volcanoes─a fascinating phenomenon occurring in parts of New Zealand where hot water and mud are forced upwards through a geological fault or fissure (Figure 1). Each of these visits was selected for its high interest and significance in the region.

Materials and implementation

GeoCamp was first conceptualized by a group of scientists from GNS Science, drawing on the experiences of Dr Richard Levy and a team of American scientists, who examined the impact of a science-based Summer Camp for pre-service teachers in Nebraska, USA (Nugent et al., 2012). The overall findings of this study showed that incorporating direct field experiences into a pre-service teachers’ programme can have a positive effect on student science learning and attitudes. Compared with the traditional in-class programme, other factors that impacted the success of this study included students carrying out authentic scientific investigations, the specific teaching of science content, and incorporating activities aimed at developing students’ understanding of the nature of science (Nugent et al., 2012). These findings formed the basis of the New Zealand-based GeoCamp programme.

Theories of experiential learning provided the pedagogical base upon which the GeoCamp programme was conceived. Brief, but focused, teaching blocks occurred before and after each field trip during which students’ observations and experiences were explored and further developed (see Table 1). At key points, this direct approach was deemed important (Nugent et al., 2012) to enable specific science content knowledge to be presented by the GNS team.

Table 1. The GeoCamp two-week timetable.

Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4	Day 5
Mihi whakatau (a Māori greeting) Meet and greet activities Draw a scientist Observations vs interpretations Document observations focus─Every rock tells a story Briefing for field trip No. 1	Field trip No.1: Mangapari Stream (past environments from fossils) Pigeon Bush (fault scarp, earthquakes)	Recap field trip No 1 Start ice experiment Draw a graph Measure the unseen Demonstrate tools we will use for salinity/ lake measurements Briefing for field trip No. 2	Field trip No. 2: Lake Wairarapa Draw and observe Lake and ecology measurements Sediment core sampling	Recap field trip No. 2 Core sampling Sample processing Lake water quality wrap up Briefing for field trips No. 3 and 4
Day 6	Day 7	Day 8	Day 9 & Day 10	Day 11
Field trip No. 3: Castlepoint Beach Observe & sketch Create models and mapping Sea level measurements Field trip No. 4: Mud volcanoes at Mangapakeha Observe mud volcanoes Measure temperature and gas	Recap field trips No. 3 and 4 Carbon cycle activities Change on different time scales Time scale demonstration Mitigation and adaptation	Activity Wrap up Expo brainstorm Expo preparation	Expo preparation	Saturday morning expo for parents, family and friends

The overarching goal for students participating in the GeoCamp was to provide an extended opportunity to experience Earth Science in the field with practising scientists. The successful provision of this would provide a valuable link with the real-world practice of the scientist, and “on the spot” support of the Vygotskian “knowledgeable other” (1994). It was intended to instill a greater enthusiasm for science, to highlight a curriculum area that students may wish to continue through their senior years, and for some, possibly opening up a new career pathway (Kitts, 2009). The GNS team expected that at the completion of the programme, students should be able to accomplish a set of cognitive and affective outcomes. The cognitive outcomes are as follows:

• conceptualize and practise science as a process of careful observation and asking questions about those observations;

• draw on their understandings of the processes used by scientists working in the field, in order to interpret their own observations and find solutions to problems;

• develop geological thinking in which the world we presently see and experience was different in the past, and to predict how it will be different in the future based on geological archives.

Throughout the programme, four or five scientists were in attendance each day including one female scientist, with the ratio of scientists being 1:7 or 1:8. This ratio enabled small group discussions and close interactions between students and scientists to take place, valuable student/scientist relationships to be developed, as well as illustrating that scientists come from a range of different backgrounds, different ethnicities, and had varying fields of interest and specialization. The skill set that each scientist offered and the academic discussions and disagreements that were typical of their everyday work life all painted an authentic picture for the students of what it would be like to be an Earth scientist.

Programme

The theme of the Wairarapa GeoCamp was “Environmental Change” and three day trips during the two-week programme were offered including five sites of interest. See Table 1 for further details. Students attended the camp on a daily basis and the Masterton Rural Education Activities Programme center [the REAP Center] provided the venue where students and scientists assembled each day. This venue is where the students and the GNS team prepared for, and later reviewed, each of the field trips. A further three days were provided at the end of the second week for students to plan a group presentation that was to be exhibited on the final Saturday of the programme. The exhibition was an opportunity for students to share their experiences with families, friends and staff from their schools and also to explore and present an area of interest that had emerged during the programme, for example, the Wairarapa fault, CO₂ in liquids, fossils, mud volcanoes and the history of the Mangaparo stream where they visited the previous week. On-going group discussions took place with the GeoCamp team during this time to help students focus their ideas, to clarify the science concepts that underpinned these ideas, and to locate any resources the students required.

For each of the field trips, three phases were identified and specifically planned for: briefing and tasks that prepared the students for the visit (Days 1, 3 and 5), strategies to manage the visit, and follow-up activities to consolidate and clarify student learning (Days 3, 5 and 7; Table 1).

An example of this before, during and after planning model is the students’ visit to Castlepoint beach on Day 6. The day prior to their visit (Day 5), students were familiarized with the location of the beach, and general house-keeping associated with the visit was shared e.g. wearing suitable clothing, bringing food for morning-tea and lunch breaks, and toilet facilities that would be available. The focus of the visit was about how rocks tell the story of ancient ocean worlds, so discussions also took place to orient the students to relevant language and to consider the learning that was likely to take place.

The day of the visit began with a health and safety discussion at the beach, for example, the lagoon and adjacent rock outcrops were safe to explore but should be viewed with caution. Footing could be slippery and freak waves had been known to breach the lagoon walls.

The first task for students was to closely observe and then sketch the shell cliffs surrounding the lagoon (Figure 1a). A practical task was seen as a useful way to arouse curiosity and to identify something of their existing knowledge. The lead scientist for the session then reviewed students’ observations as part of a whole-group discussion and described how debris can become fossilized and buried over time, and later exposed through erosion by wind and sea water. This is how the shell cliffs of Castlepoint beach had been created.

The concept linking all the students’ GeoCamp experiences was that “every rock tells a story” (scientist oral presentation). A practical task followed the exploration of the shell cliffs with each of the four scientists working with a small group of five or six students to show how land form is represented by topographical maps. To support student understanding of these maps, they created sand models and used colored string to delineate the shape and elevation of their models (Figure 1b). Students were absorbed in this task, and there was much discussion and debate about how these details should be depicted. Returning the sand to its original smooth state brought this part of the day to a lively and entertaining conclusion.

On the fourth field trip (the afternoon of Day 6), each of the scientists worked with five or six students in two separate locations─the first to consider sea level rise and how this might impact Castlepoint beach (Figure 1c) and the other to observe the mud volcanoes and the gas vents of the Mangapakeha region several kilometers inland (Figure 1d). Here the scientists introduced a series of data-gathering tools to measure salinity and the temperature of the water flowing from the mud extrusion, and also a gas detector to measure the concentration of carbon dioxide emitted from the vent. The introduction of these tools demonstrated how it was possible to supplement the field observations that students had become familiar with during their previous field trips.

The following day (Day 7), the team reviewed the previous day’s activities. In the first session, the lead scientist built on the students’ understanding of topography and explained how the coastline had changed since the last glaciation, and the impact of ice melting and higher sea levels compared with periods of cooling and glaciation. Two videos were shown which built on students’ understanding of CO₂ emissions and how these relate to climate change. Students participated in some lively discussions, sketching ideas, and linking these concepts to their own world and the objects that were familiar to them. For example, students were encouraged to refer back to the measurements taken at Castlepoint beach, possible sea-level rise in the future, and the impact this would have on their own use of coastal areas, for example housing or recreational purposes. To further develop these ideas, the students were given a map to color to show where they thought the coastline had been 1800 years ago and again 1200 years ago. The session ended with a final discussion, which broadened to encompass all the visits the students had experienced during the programme, and the common themes that emerged from each of these.

The Castlepoint beach visit aligns well with the research cited earlier in which students’ preparation for their visit, the pre-planned management of the visit, and the follow-up tasks together would develop students’ conceptual understandings and foster a growing interest in the science of the physical world around them.

Evaluation design and methods

In this study, we used a modified “Draw-a-Scientist” [DAS] task to compare students’ attitudinal changes toward scientists including the two additional headings of the demeanor or facial expressions of the scientist, and the dimensions or drawings skills of the student. There were two phases to this task. The first phase was introduced on the first day of the camp when the students were assembled at the REAP Center. After preliminary introductions to the scientists, familiarizing students with the venue and outlining the programme for the next two weeks, each student received a workbook to record relevant notes, details relating to the camp and tasks that were to be completed. After a brief opportunity to answer questions, the students were asked to draw a picture in their workbook of a person they thought would typify a scientist. They were given approximately 20 min to complete the task and no further prompts were given.

The GNS team then circulated the room, answering further questions and offering encouragement to those students who were hesitant about beginning the task. All students present on Day 1 completed a drawing. These drawings were photographed by the first author who attended the GeoCamp for three days (Days 6, 7 and 8; Table 1) and took field notes of her observations.

The second phase of data collection was conducted six months after the camp. Each of the schools participating in the GeoCamp programme was sent an email requesting time for students to complete the second task. Students from three of the original six schools were able to participate, one rural primary school, the urban middle school and the private primary school. Once approval was received from these schools, hard copies of the task were posted to them. The purpose of this task was explained in the email, i.e. to gain an understanding of the students’ enduring memories and impressions they held of science, the role of the scientist, and the process of scientific research. The teachers were asked to supervise the task in the same manner they had observed during the GeoCamp. However, we are unable to provide evidence to confirm how each school interpreted this.

Based on Kahneman (2012), it is likely that students’ views of a scientist are quite different when they are asked to draw “on-the-fly” as opposed to being given time to consider their views before they draw. Furthermore, if they were asked to draw two scientists, instead of only one, they may present a more comprehensive view (Farland & McComas, 2007). We were also aware that students’ drawings and writing provide different aspects of their views (e.g. Akaygun & Jones, 2014; Cheng, 2021). Therefore, we invited students to draw two diagrams and to write a short narrative/notes to reflect their views about scientists. The two questions posed in this task were as follows:

1. Earlier in the year you worked with a group of scientists from during the GeoCamp, and you visited Lake Wairarapa, the Maunganui stream, Castlepoint and the Mangapaheka mud volcanoes. You also carried out your own investigations as a scientist would and presented them to your friends and families. Draw one or two pictures in the space below showing what you now think a scientist is like. Add labels to help give extra details that you may not be able to draw.

2. Do you think it would be interesting to be a scientist and if so, what sort of things would you find out about if you had the chance? Fill up the box with your ideas.

The completed templates were named and returned to the researcher by mail.

In order to progress this study, ethical approval was gained from the University of Waikato and this included approval from the participating schools, students and care-givers, to photograph, record and collect samples of student work during the two-week GeoCamp programme and the post-analysis task.

Analysis of student drawings and written responses

The factors that determined the analysis of the first drawings were influenced by the models presented by Chambers (1983) and Farland-Smith (2012). We identified six key features of drawings for analysis. They were gender, specialist clothing (specifically lab coats), the setting (field or laboratory), equipment (to indicate the type of science being undertaken), demeanor of scientist (facial expressions and/or body language) and captions that were included in the drawing (Table 2). By comparing the occurrence of these features in the drawings before and after the programme, it is possible to comment on the level of achievement of a project’s goals in enhancing students’ attitude toward scientists and science.

Table 2. Themes of analysis of drawings.

Analysis themes		Sub-headings
1	Gender of participant	Male Female Undetermined
2	Gender of scientist in drawing	Male Female Undetermined
3a	Clothing of scientist	Lab coat/white jacket No lab coat
3b	Setting	Laboratory or indoor setting Field or outdoor setting Undetermined
3c	Equipment and possible field of science	Chemist: shows bubbling test tubes, beakers, heating elements, safety glasses, Bunsen burners Earth Science: shows an outdoor landscape, and possibly magnifying glasses, outdoor clothing Biologist: shows plants including vegetables and/or animals Undetermined
3d	Demeanor of scientist – facial expressions and/or body language	Serious to pleasant facial expressions Happy to excited facial expressions Eccentric/mad facial expressions and body language Concerned to frightened facial expressions and body language No facial features included
3e	Appearance of scientist	Conventional: everyday clothing e.g. jeans, t-shirt, cap, jacket, conservative to fashionable hairstyles Unconventional: bizarre or silly appearance, possibly spiked brightly colored hair
3f	Relevant captions	As stated

To determine students’ changes in thinking about science and what they wanted to do with science, we adopted the steps suggested by Nowell et al. (2017) in thematic analysis. The first two authors started by familiarizing themselves with the data, followed by identifying themes, and testing the themes with the data. We present the data under each theme so readers will be able to check their validity.

Results

Results of draw-a-scientist: Phase 1

Of the 28 students enrolled in the programme, 23 students were present on Day 1 and able to participate in the first task. In Phase 1 there were a total of 10 male students and 13 female students. In the first analysis theme which looks at the gender of the students’ drawings, 17 students drew male scientists (74%), and six drew female scientists (26%). (Please refer to the data under the column “Phase 1” of Table 3. The data for “Phase 2” is discussed in the next section.) The inclusion of lab coats or jackets in the drawings was noted in 15 drawings (65%) with the remaining drawings showing the scientist in everyday streetwear. Whilst 13 drawings (56%) showed the scientist presenting in a conventional manner (including five with spiked hair), 10 of the drawings (43%) were classified as unconventional—bizarre or silly. These drawings showed the scientist with wild, colored, spiked hair, wide eyes, and, in one case, vomiting. These drawings also showed explosive chemical reactions occurring in a laboratory with boiling test tubes and lightning discharging from the equipment.

Table 3. A breakdown of student drawings.

		Phase 1 (respondents: 23)		Phase 2 (respondents: 11)
		Number	%	Number	%
Gender	Male	18	69%	10	63%
	Female	6	23%	6	38%
	undetermined	2	8%	0	0%
Clothing	Lab coat	15	65%	2	18%
	no lab coat	8	35%	9	82%
Setting	Lab	16	70%	0	0%
	Outdoor	3	13%	6	55%
	undetermined	4	17%	5	45%
Field of Science indicated by equipment	Chemist	16	70%	1	9%
	Earth Scientist	3	13%	5	45%
	Biologist	2	9%	0	0%
	undetermined	2	9%	5	45%
Demeanor of Scientist	Serious ̶ pleasant	6	26%	8	73%
	Happy ̶ excited	4	17%	2	18%
	Eccentric ̶ mad	9	39%	0	0%
	Concerned ̶ frightened	3	13%	0	0%
	Undetermined	1	4%	1	9%
Appearance of Scientist	Conventional	13	57%	11	100%
	Unconventional	10	43%	0	0%

The demeanor of the scientists shown in the drawings offers further insight into the students’ views of a typical scientist. Six of the drawings showed serious to pleasant expressions, four showed happy to excited expressions, and nine showed eccentric or mad expressions. Three students illustrated their scientist with concerned or frightened expressions and one was undetermined. Seven students also added captions to their drawings, including “whapow,” “boom,” “oops,” “yeah science” and “science!”

Students were not prompted to include anything other than a scientist in their drawings. However, the probable setting of the students’ scientists showed 15 (65%) working indoors or in a laboratory, four working outdoors, and two working in both an indoor and outdoor setting (a total of 26%). Two others provided no detail of the work environment. The associated field of science suggested in the students’ drawings was evidenced by the instruments or equipment, as well as the environment they illustrated. Sixteen drawings (69%) showed the scientist as a chemist, three as an Earth scientist (13%), two as a biologist, and a further two with no detail to indicate a field of science.

Results of annotated draw-a-scientist: Phase 2

(A) Changes in students’ drawings

A total of 11 students replied to our task. The resulting data set, though small, showed the gender balance of the scientists had changed from the first data set to ten males (63%) and six females (38%). In addition, five of the 11 students now identified a scientist as being either male or female, with one student stating that a scientist could be anyone.

The most noteworthy change was seen in the clothing and demeanor of the scientists. Only two of the drawings (18%, Table 3) showed the scientist wearing a white lab coat, and, with the exception of one drawing, the remaining students drew their scientist in everyday streetwear. Similarly, the demeanor of the scientists showed a range of commonplace facial expressions—eight were categorized as being pleasant to serious facial expressions (73%), two happy to excited expressions, but none of the drawings fitted the eccentric or mad category seen in the first task.

The field of science indicated by the students’ drawings showed a significant reduction in the “mad chemist” perception, with one student representing the scientist in a laboratory with beakers and test tubes, five students representing the scientist in the field as an Earth scientist (45%), and five others were undetermined—no tools, equipment, or hint of a working environment, were included in the drawings. The paraphernalia of the chemist in the first data set (70%) had been replaced with items such as a pickax, rock and water samples, a tent, a carrier bag and a microscope. The work environment in this set almost entirely featured an outdoor setting or a dig site, with only one indoor laboratory illustrated.

(B) Paired comparison of students’ drawings

Out of the responses from 11 students, six of them provided their names. That allowed us to compare their differences between their first day drawing and their drawings six months after the programme (Table 4). Due to the small paired data, it would be more meaningful to report a case comparison of selected students to highlight their changes.

Table 4. Comparison of six students’ drawings from Phase 1 and Phase 2.

		Phase 1		Phase 2
		Number	%	Number	%
Gender	Male	3	50%	1	17%
	Female	0	0%	1	17%
	Male and Female	3	50%	4	67%
Clothing	Lab coat	3	50%	0	0%
	no lab coat	3	50%	6	100%
Setting	Lab	3	50%	1	17%
	Outdoor	3	50%	3	50%
	undetermined	0	0%	2	33%
Field of Science indicated by equipment	Chemist	4	67%	0	0%
	Earth Scientist	2	33%	4	67%
	Biologist	0	0%	2	33%
	undetermined	0	0%	0	0%
Demeanor of Scientist	Serious ̶ pleasant	4	67%	5	83%
	Happy ̶ excited	0	0%	0	0%
	Eccentric ̶ mad	0	0%	0	0%
	Concerned ̶ frightened	2	33%	0	0%
	Undetermined	0	0%	1	17%
Appearance of Scientist	Conventional	5	83%	6	100%
	Unconventional	1	17%	0	0%

A closer inspection of these developments is revealed in the drawings of two female students, Roshi and Jacqueline (both pseudonyms). Neither student retained the “mad chemist” concept either physically or in terms of the scientists’ demeanor that was evident in their first drawings, or that science only occurred in a laboratory. For example, in her first drawing, Roshi had sketched both male and female scientists wearing lab coats and working indoors (Figure 2). Dotted around the drawing were the paraphernalia of the chemist—test tubes, flasks, office furniture and a computer. Six months after the programme (Figure 3), she drew the male and female scientists wearing everyday streetwear, and carrying out a range of tasks both indoors and in the field, i.e. Lake Wairarapa was named as the setting, with a grass bank, rocks, and some small fish that could be seen in one corner of the drawing. Labels in this drawing included equipment such as a thermometer, a water testing device, test tubes, and a table to record the scientists’ findings and check results.

Figure 2. Roshi’s drawing of scientists at the beginning of the programme ̶ scientists wearing lab coats and working indoors with test tubes and flasks.

Figure 3. Roshi’s drawing of scientists six months after the programme ̶ scientists wearing everyday streetwear working outdoor.

Similarly, at the beginning of the programme, Jacqueline drew a male scientist with wild spiky hair, dressed in a white lab coat and clutching a fluid-filled flask (Figure 4c). Six months after the programme, she expressed a number of changes. The drawings of her scientists had become match-stick figures (Figure 5). The lack of detail was consistent with her annotation that “a scientist can be anyone”. The accompanying text beneath her drawing (not shown) suggests an increasing awareness of the varying fields of science, rather than being limited to that of a chemist, by referring specifically to “palaeontology,” and “the study of shells and dinosaur fossils.”

Figure 4. Student drawings in Phase 1 of a person typifying a scientist. All wear a lab coat, some with unusual hairdo, and some with flasks.

Figure 5. Jacqueline’s drawing of scientists six months after the programme ̶ the matchstick persons were unspecific in gender and the label “a scientist can be anyone”.

(C) Writing about scientists

Of the 11 students who returned the second task to us, all students offered a comment to Question 2, which asked whether they thought it would be interesting to be a scientist. The responses were positive and went beyond a simple “yes” in suggesting that scientists are “cool” because of what they do. That is, they could “answer” questions and “discover… new things.” Here are their quotes:

“It would be pretty cool to be a scientist and discover lots of new things”

“I would love to be a scientist because I could not only ask questions but try to answer them myself”

One student indicated quite specifically what working as a scientist would entail:

“I think being a scientist would be a very hard, but very rewarding profession.”

The response suggested that the student was able to foresee challenges that a scientist would face and considered the work as worthwhile as it would be “rewarding.” We see that this example was a relatively informed and realistic view of being a scientist, which includes both the positive and negative aspects of this profession.

The second part of Question 2 asked what things they would like to find out about if they had the chance. All of the 11 students responded. There are two themes that we believe are worth noting.

(1) Expanded scope of what scientists do

Compared with the stereotypical view of scientists in which most of them were chemists, we noticed that the students provided a wide range of scientists. The breadth of their knowledge is worth noting because having the experience of working with geologists, students’ views developed extensively. They include, “medicine and radiology,” “psychology, meteorology, noetic, geology, physics, zoology,” “marine biology or anything to do with the oceans,” “archaeology or palaeontology” and “animal psychology.”

(2) Specific problem statements

Some students (four out of the 11 responses) provided specific problem statements if they were to be a scientist. One of them was closely related to their experiences in the GeoCamp, “there are lots of shells and their stories, dinosaur fossils to look at, and finding out more information about what they do,” two were indirectly related, “find out about how the Earth was formed and how other planets were formed and how they changed” and “how much petrol would it take to drive around the world.” One of the responses was completely outside the field of geology, “see inside the depths of the human brain.”

Discussion

We interpret our observations to indicate that participation in the GeoCamp was followed by some subtle changes in the students’ attitudes toward scientists. The data collected from the Phase 1 task (Figure 4) indicated there was little difference between this and students’ stereotypical view of a scientist as reported in Chambers (1983) and Farland-Smith (2012). Six months after that experience, the replies from students who completed Phase 2 of the task indicated they could see themselves as scientists and were able to suggest specific issues or problems they would like to research and solve. The very narrow view of what a scientist did, and who they could be, as interpreted from Phase 1, had broadened in Phase 2 data to include a more realistic concept of the scientist, one that included scientists of all genders and represented a broader range of scientific fields beyond that of the chemist. We conjectured that having a chance to work closely with Earth scientists provided students with a frame to see the world differently after the programme so they could identify a more diverse view of scientists and some specific problems that scientists would solve.

A positive change of attitude experienced after working with scientists for a consecutive two-week period is recognized as a significant factor in achieving a successful outcome. Closely aligned with student interest in a visit, is the enjoyment of the visit, and there are added benefits when there is an emotional connection with the experience, i.e. excitement, wonderment, amusement and even shock (Anderson et al., 2003; Jarret & Burnley, 2010). We conjectured that these experiences went side-by-side with the cycles of pre-visit discussion, on-site learning experiences, and debriefing afterwards. In the early research of Rennie and Johnston (2004), experiences that were rich in sensory encounters often produced memories that students are able to recall months and often years later. When considering the data collected six months after the GeoCamp experience, these ideas become important. The combined nature of the experience will dictate how the students felt about it and what they are most likely to remember.

We contend that the student views indicated in the second task developed over the two-week period of the GeoCamp as well as the subsequent six months—an interesting phase of consolidation sometimes referred to as the “simmer and brew” analogy (White, 1954 cited in Yaden, 2003, p. 348) in which ideas can be strengthened and developed over time.

In conclusion, results from the two Draw-A-Scientist tasks suggest that the relatively long, immersive GeoCamp experience represents a valuable EOTC experience, which firmly aligns with, and contributes to, wider curriculum objectives in a New Zealand educational context. It is an opportunity for students to experience expert practice within an authentic context, an opportunity to encounter the noise, the smells and the visual impact resulting from that practice, and one that was well-informed by experts in the field, and highly memorable for the participants (see Supplement for ideas behind our planning). The findings show there are many positive and effective factors in the GeoCamp concept and these resonate strongly with the Ministry of Education goals for learning outside the classroom.

Limitations

Upon reflection, we believe that there could have been better ways to solicit students’ attitudes toward scientists. We could have asked students to draw two diagrams of scientists and write about them at the beginning of the programme (compared with drawing a diagram without writing as we did), and right after the programme so that we could have (1) more informed views of students’ attitude toward scientists through their multiple drawings and writing, and (2) determined more directly the effects of the programme.

Furthermore, it is not possible to ascertain the influences of media and television on these results, or the age and characteristics of the typical 10 − 13-year-old. With the luxury of more time, it could also have been beneficial to interview the students and gain a deeper understanding of their views and to check the sincerity of some responses e.g. the drawings of mad chemists with garish mohawks.

Eleven of the 23 students replied to the Phase 2 drawing and writing task. We are cognizant that these students were, by no means, representative of the entire group of students. Therefore, we could only interpret their data as being evidence that the programme did make a change for these students. To gain a better scope of the changes that the programme made in the future, we would use better strategies to engage students in Phase 2, for example, by working with their teachers so they also saw the significance of their students’ reply and to ensure that the timing of Phase 2 was significantly earlier in the term.

Learning is inseparable from students’ emotions during their learning experiences (Pekrun & Linnenbrink‐Garcia, 2014). It would be worthwhile to identify students’ emotional status (i.e. what kind of things, people, experiences, trigger emotional responses) (Leung & Cheng, 2023) throughout the two-week programme to better inform programme development.

Implications

The focus of this study is on the attitudinal aspect of learning, which is an important part of any educational experience and contributes to students’ aspirations toward science (Archer et al., 2015). Students need to see themselves as relevant to scientists in order to aspire to study science and become scientists. We suggest that the repeated drawing of scientists, supported by brief written explanations, is a useful tool to evaluate changes in students’ attitudes toward scientists. The tool is particularly useful for young students who do not always engage meaningfully in answering questionnaires or survey items or writing extended essays. Different data and strategies of data analysis reveal different aspects of a phenomenon. Practitioners are likely to find our strategies, or some of them, readily usable in evaluating attitudinal changes. These strategies included: (a) a comparison of specific features in students’ drawings that give an overall picture of their changes (Table 3), (b) paired comparison of drawings that provide insight into the changes of individual students (Table 4), and (c) thematic analysis of student writing that overcomes limitations of drawings.

We are aware that our programme was situated and contextualized in a particular region of New Zealand, but it has drawn on a number of research projects that have examined education outside the classroom, the use of drawing to ascertain student understandings and teaching and learning approaches. We consider that some of its components, including the programme as discussed in the section “Materials and Implementation,” are relevant and applicable to other contexts. These include (i) the small ratio of scientists to students showed students that scientists are accessible and share similarities with them—factors that facilitate identity formation, (ii) cycles of preparation and debriefing before and after fieldwork, which was made possible by the two-week long programme, and (iii) harnessing specific features of the field in creating educational experiences for students whilst maintaining the all-important “wow” factor in order to elicit valuable and memorable emotional responses from students. The GeoCamp was a programme rich with experiences and opportunities.

Acknowledgements

GNS Science acknowledges the following project sponsors for their valued support of GeoCamp: Equinor NZ, OMV NZ, Chevron, MBIE Endeavour Fund “Gas Hydrates: Economic Opportunities and Environmental Implications (HYDEE)” research programme, the Strategic Science Investment Fund “Global Change through Time” and “Sedimentary Basins Research” programmes, and delivery partner REAP Wairarapa.