Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Many public audiences lack access to traditional science education. We examined baseline perceptions and the impacts of science lectures on incarcerated adults in two correctional institutions. Although incarcerated populations are often characterized as having poor educational backgrounds, being disinterested in learning, and having few tools to seek science education, our incarcerated audiences were interested in, capable of, and desirous of science education. We found positive baseline attitudes about science and a significant positive effect of science lectures on content knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions related to science, suggesting that informal science lectures may be an appropriate portal to science education for this population.

Keywords

informal science education science attitudes and perceptions science content knowledge incarceration science literacy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bauer

M. W.

Jensen

(2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 3-11.

Benjamini

Hochberg

(1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 57, 289-300.

Carson

E. A.

(2015). Prisoners in 2014. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Carson

E. A.

Golinelli

(2013). Prisoners in 2012: Trends in admissions and releases, 1991–2012. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Chappell

(2004). Post-secondary correctional education and recidivism: A meta-analysis of research conducted 1990-1999. Journal of Correctional Education, 55, 148-169.

Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering. (2013). Broadening participation in America’s STEM workforce: 2011-2012 Biennial report to Congress. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Davis

L. M.

Bozick

Steele

J. L.

Saunders

Miles

J. N.

(2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated adults. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

de Leeuw

Valois

Aizen

Schmidt

. (2015). Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 128-138.

10.

Dunlap

Van Liere

(1978). The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.

11.

Dunlap

R. E.

Van Liere

K. D.

Mertig

A. G.

Jones

R. E.

(2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.

12.

Durose

M. R.

Cooper

A. D.

Snyder

H. N.

(2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

13.

Eisinga

Grotenhuis

Pelzer

(2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637-642. doi:10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3

14.

Fennema

Sherman

J. A.

(1976). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scale: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females and males. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 324-326.

15.

Gallagher

B. E.

(2013). Science and sustainability programs in prisons: Assessing the effects of participation on inmates (Master’s thesis). The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA. Retrieved fromhttp://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession86-10MES/Gallagher_B2013.pdf

16.

Gibbs

J. J.

(1975). Jailing and stress. In Toch

(Ed.), Men in crisis: Human breakdowns in prison (pp. 144-162). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

17.

Gill

Bell

J. F.

(2013). What factors determine the uptake of A-level physics? International Journal of Science Education, 35, 753-772.

18.

Guterl

(2014). Diversity in science: Why it is essential for excellence. Scientific American, 311. Retrieved fromhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-in-science-why-it-is-essential-for-excellence/

19.

Harlow

C. W.

(2003). Education and correctional populations (Bureau of Justice Statistics special report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

20.

Hayes

B. C.

Tariq

V. N.

(2000). Gender differences in scientific knowledge and attitudes toward science: A comparative study of four Anglo-American nations. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 433-447.

21.

Holdren

J. P.

(2008). Science and technology for sustainable well-being. Science, 319, 424-434.

22.

Institute of Education Sciences. (2013). Common guidelines for research and development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and National Science Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf

23.

Karpowitz

(2005). Prison, college, and the paradox of punishment. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 37, 305-331.

24.

Kirk

D. S.

(2015). A natural experiment of the consequences of concentrating former prisoners in the same neighborhoods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 6943-6948.

25.

Leshner

A. I.

(2007). Outreach training needed. Science, 315, 161.

26.

Mack

Walsh

(2013). Mathematics and science combinations NSW HSC 2001-2011 by gender. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: University of Sydney, School of Mathematics and Statistics.

27.

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

28.

Miller

J. D.

(2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 273-294.

29.

Miller

J. D.

(2013). The American people and science policy: The role of public attitudes in the policy process. New York, NY: Elsevier.

30.

Minton

T. D.

Zeng

(2015). Jail inmates at midyear 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

31.

Moore

R. W.

Foy

R. L. H.

(1997). The Scientific Attitude Inventory: A revision (SAI II). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 327-336.

32.

Nadkarni

N. M.

Hasbach

P. H.

Thys

Crockett

E. G.

Schnacker

(2017). Impacts of nature imagery on people in severely nature-deprived environments. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15, 395-403.

33.

National Academy of Sciences. (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s Science and technology talent at the crossroads. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

34.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2015). NASA education implementation plan. Washington, DC: Author.

35.

National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

36.

National Science Board. (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

37.

National Science Foundation. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.

38.

Nisbet

Markowitz

E. M.

(2014). Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: Looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society. PloS one, 9(2), e88473.

39.

Osborne

Simon

Collins

(2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-1079.

40.

Pew Research Center. (2015a). Americans, politics and science issues. Washington, DC: Author.

41.

Pew Research Center. (2015b). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Washington, DC: Author.

42.

Phillips

(2014). How diversity makes us smarter. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/

43.

Pintrich

P. R.

De Groot

E. V.

(1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

44.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

45.

R Development Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/

46.

Salt Lake County Auditor. (2001). A performance audit of the Salt Lake county jail. Retrieved from http://slco.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147506874

47.

Ulrich

Nadkarni

N. M.

(2009). Sustainability research and practices in enforced residential institutions: Collaborations of ecologists and prisoners. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11, 815-832.

48.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Profile of general population and housing characteristics. Washington, DC: Author.

49.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Educational attainment in the United States: 2015. Washington, DC: Author.

50.

Vacca

J. S.

(2004). Educated prisoners are less likely to return to prison. Journal of Correctional Education, 55, 297-305.

Baseline Attitudes and Impacts of Informal Science Education Lectures on Content Knowledge and Value of Science Among Incarcerated Populations

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References