c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 105
Non-formal Science Education: Moving Towards More 
Inclusive Pedagogies for Diverse Classrooms
Genco Guralp
1
, Martin McHugh
2
 and Sarah Hayes
2
 
• The Diversity in Science towards Social Inclusion–Non-formal Educa -
tion in Science for Students’ Diversity (DiSSI) project aimed to provide 
a holistic perspective on diversity, focusing specifically on cultural and 
ethnic identities, language, socioeconomic background, gender, as well 
as di ff er ing levels of achievement. In particular, the work presented in 
this paper aims to tackle consciously the issues surrounding teaching and 
learning in socio-economically deprived areas through non-formal edu -
cation. This paper presents the results of a pilot study that examined how 
students participating in non-formal education engage with multi-modal 
pedagogical approaches designed to address multiple dimensions of di-
versity via an intersectionality lens. Working with diverse groups requires 
varied methods; as such, a mixed-method approach was employed in the 
study to ensure the research team authentically captured and engaged 
with the lived experiences of the participants. The study aimed to generate 
best practices that augment the science capital of students, which are ap -
plicable across various contexts of diversity. The pedagogical approaches, 
while not novel in science education literature, were rarely utilised by the 
teacher and thus were rarely experienced by the students. Participants re -
ported a greater sense of autonomy and ownership of the science through 
participation in the DiSSI programme. Preliminary results indicate an 
overall positive experience for students and teachers alike and offer in -
sights into the overall lived experiences of participants, which inform fu -
ture work.
 Keywords: socio-economic deprivation, diversity, equality and inclu -
sion, science capital, context-based learning
1 *Corresponding Author. San Diego State University, San Diego, USA; and Science Foundation 
Ireland Research Centre for Pharmaceuticals (SSPC), University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland; 
gguralp@sdsu.edu.
2 Science Foundation Ireland Research Centre for Pharmaceuticals (SSPC), University of 
Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1707

106 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
Neformalno naravoslovno izobraževanje: približevanje 
inkluzivnejšim pedagogikam za raznolike razrede
Genco Guralp , Martin McHugh in Sarah Hayes
• Namen projekta Science towards Social Inclusion – Non-formal Education 
in Science for Students’ Diversity (DiSSI) je bil zagotoviti celosten pogled 
na raznolikost, s posebnim poudarkom na kulturnih in etničnih identi -
tetah, jeziku, socialno-ekonomskem ozadju, spolu pa tudi na različnih 
ravneh dosežkov. Cilj dela, predstavljenega v tem prispevku, je zlasti za -
vestno reševanje vprašanj, povezanih s poučevanjem in z učenjem na 
socialno-ekonomsko prikrajšanih območjih prek neformalnega izobra -
ževanja. V prispevku so predstavljeni rezultati pilotne študije, ki je pre -
učevala, kako se učenci, ki sodelujejo v neformalnem izobraževanju, od -
zivajo na multimodalne pedagoške pristope, namenjene obravnavi več 
razsežnosti raznolikosti skozi prizmo intersekcionalnosti. Delo z različ -
nimi skupinami zahteva različne metode; tako je bil v študiji uporabljen 
pristop z mešanimi metodami, da bi se zagotovilo, da je raziskovalna 
skupina avtentično zajela in upoštevala življenjske izkušnje udeležencev. 
Cilj študije je bil oblikovati najboljše prakse, ki povečujejo naravoslov -
ni kapital študentov in so uporabne v različnih kontekstih raznolikosti. 
Pedagoške pristope, ki v naravoslovni literaturi sicer niso novi, je uči -
telj uporabil le redko, zato so jih učenci le redko izkusili. Udeleženci so 
poročali o večjem občutku avtonomije in lastništva naravoslovja zaradi 
sodelovanja v programu DiSSI. Preliminarni rezultati kažejo na splošno 
pozitivno izkušnjo za učence in učitelje ter ponujajo vpogled v splošne 
življenjske izkušnje udeležencev, ki so podlaga za nadaljnje delo.
 Ključne besede: socialno-ekonomska prikrajšanost; raznolikost; 
enakost in inkluzija; naravoslovni kapital; učenje, temelječe na 
kontekstu

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 107
Introduction
The value of diversity is well-documented for scientific research in gen -
eral. Examining over nine million published papers and six million scientists, 
AlShebli and colleagues (2018) showed that scientific impact (measured using 
citation counts) strongly correlated with the ethnic diversity of researchers in 
a collaboration. Additionally, social diversity has recently appeared to be both 
a value and a challenge to be reckoned with in the field of science education 
(Mansour & Wegerif, 2013). Especially in urban contexts, science classrooms host 
a heterogeneous mix of students hailing from diverse backgrounds. These students 
study together with students that the teachers are traditionally more familiar 
with in their teaching experience, and from this perspective, the latter group 
may be seen as a ‘dominant’ one. Consequently, some students may experience 
pedagogical disparities as they belong to a minoritised group. The diversities in 
question may include cultural and ethnic identities , linguistic ability ( including 
diff ering abilities in comprehending the language of instruction), socio-econom -
ic class , gender , as well as di ffering levels of achievement. As recently demonstrat -
ed by Archer and colleagues (2012), diversity categories such as gender , class , 
and socio-economic background heavily influence career decisions and science 
aspirations of students. Thus, if insufficiently addressed, diversity in science ed -
ucation can lead to the under-representation of minoritised populations, which 
in turn leads to significant social and economic inequalities. The Erasmus+ Di-
versity in Science towards Social Inclusion (DiSSI) project aimed to develop sci -
ence education practices that address the pedagogical needs of a diverse body 
of students to contribute to more egalitarian and inclusive science classrooms.
Two important aspects of diversity are not sufficiently addressed in the 
current literature: first, most of the recent work on diversity tends to be descrip -
tive ; researchers aim to map how contemporary students with diverse backgrounds 
view or understand the nature of science, the school science curriculum, or ex -
amine the reasons behind the lack of interest in science that is observed globally 
(Avraamidou & Schwartz, 2021; Lee & Luykx, 2006; Aschbacher et al., 2010). How -
ever, what practising teachers need most are pedagogical tools that are available 
for them to make use of when teaching in a diverse classroom (Acquah et al., 
2020). Second, much of the research on the issue of which type of interventions 
are most helpful in addressing disadvantages that arise due to diversity tends to 
focus on a single dimension of diversity, most notably gender (Wright and Del -
gado, 2023) or race (White et al., 2019). However, as will be argued in detail be -
low, diversity is a holistic notion; specifically, the various categories of diversity 
do not appear in isolation, but they are present in each individual as a whole. 

108 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
T o develop a ‘holistic’ pedagogy, the DiSSI project singled out five specific 
dimensions of diversity, which the project partners have already built expertise 
on, and generated pedagogical approaches that are applicable in wider contexts by 
amalgamating this expertise. These specific dimensions are 1) linguistic diversity, 
2) cultural diversity, 3) ethnic diversity, 4) socio-economic status, and 5) high-
achieving students. Partners in the project each studied a single dimension of 
diversity and then exchanged and re-structured their pedagogical approaches to 
generate a set of strategies that can be employed in broadly generalisable ways.
In this paper, a pilot study that was conducted in Ireland as part of the 
DiSSI project is discussed. This paper has two specific aims. First, we aim to 
present a theoretical framework that provides a conceptual basis for developing 
pedagogical interventions for a diverse body of students. We believe that a solid 
theoretical understanding is essential for building pedagogical interventions, as 
this guides both their development and execution. Second, we aim to present 
the empirical results of our pilot project. The research and results presented in 
this paper are part of a general programme that was conducted in Limerick, Ire -
land. The main goal of our project in Ireland has been first to investigate which 
pedagogical practices are best suited to meet the science education needs of 
students from low socio-economic backgrounds and then examine how these 
strategies can be amended and improved based on the pedagogical practices 
the DiSSI partners developed to address diversity as a holistic notion. To this 
end, we have utilised a set of science workshops that were originally developed 
in a public engagement with a science setting aimed mainly at the non-formal 
sector,
3
 in addition to workshops specifically designed for DiSSI. These work -
shops are designed to be conducted in in-school and out-of-school settings with 
post-primary students. Even though the content and the pedagogical approach 
of the workshops vary, they all involve practice-oriented ‘hands-on’ activities 
that provide ‘agency’ to the students that they may insufficiently experience in 
the school science setting. One example of these activities is the Medicine Maker 
workshop, in which students ‘manufacture’ dummy capsules using a capsule-filling 
plate and other equipment. The main guiding question for our study has been to 
3 The DiSSI project focuses on non-formal learning as it provides the researchers with greater 
flexibility to design and test teaching strategies for diverse students. The OECD (2012) situates 
the non-formal sector between fully structured formal learning and a ‘never organised’ 
informal. The non-formal sector generally diff ers from the informal as it may be organised and 
structured. However, it has a ‘voluntary’ aspect that is not usually considered as part of formal 
education. (Garner et al. (2014) note that partial overlaps in these sectors seem unavoidable, 
given the difficulties in providing a sharp distinction between them. Thus, instead of seeking 
such distinctions, we prefer to emphasise the learning continuum that these sectors span. Our 
non-formal interventions do incorporate formal elements, such as the interventions taking place 
in a school lab with the teacher being present at all times, as well as many informal learning 
opportunities that context-based, collaborative hands-on activities present.

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 109
examine the eff ect of these workshops on the interest as well as the science-relat -
ed aspirations of the students.
Theoretical Framework: Intersectionality, Science Iden -
tity, and Science Capital
The DiSSI project is specifically oriented towards building a pedagogi -
cal repertoire for science education challenges in contemporary societies that are 
marked by various forms of diversity as a result of globalisation and interna -
tional immigration. The social and political consequences of these developments 
for science education have been theorised in various ways and from various per -
spectives (Carter et al., 2017; Marosi et al., 2021). In our study , we have focused on 
three conceptual pathways that are interlinked via a common theme of diversity to 
guide our research and analysis. These are the frameworks of intersectionality , 
science identity , and science capital .
Intersectionality
To conceptualise the holistic approach to diversity that DiSSI empha -
sises, we have adopted intersectionality as a theoretical lens. The concept of inter -
sectionality was first introduced by Kimberl ´ e Crenshaw in her study of the dis -
crimination experienced by black working-class women in the US legal system 
(Crenshaw, 1989). According to Crenshaw, identity politics that solely focuses 
on race or gender for achieving political equality misses the ways diff erent forms 
of identities may intersect and become a source of oppression. Thus, for Crenshaw , 
adopting a single categorical lens when analysing discrimination and oppression 
would marginalise those people who possess more than one category of identity 
and would thus make claims that do not stem from singular identity categories 
unintelligible. Here, the analytical work to be conducted is to examine how the 
many dimensions of identity shape the experiences of discriminated individuals. 
This framework is readily applicable to a science education context. Adopting an 
intersectionality lens, we may expect, for example, a non-white female student 
and a white female student to experience diff erent forms of discrimination. How -
ever, a problem seems to appear at this juncture: if intersectionality implies 
that each individual is uniquely positioned vis-à-vis the discriminatory prac -
tices that lead to inequalities, how could it be possible to develop pedagogical 
strategies that are context-unspecific and hence could counter these practices 
for everyone. There are two specific constructs we found helpful in this context: 
the constructs of science identity and science capital. Both these constructs put 

110 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
emphasis on the agency of the individual and facilitate the generation of prac -
tices that enable the students to assert their autonomy . As we argue below, a 
pedagogical practice that puts science identity at the centre and aims at aug -
menting the science capital of the students can both incorporate intersectionality 
and overcome the challenges it poses for science education.
Science Identity
Science identity has been discussed by numerous authors since the early 
2000s.
4
 There are several key reasons why science identity is important to con -
sider when working with students who are socio-economically marginalised. It
 
has been well established that most post-primary students associate the scientist 
with a white male figure in a lab coat (Chambers, 1983; Ferguson & Lezotte, 
2020). Thus, pedagogical interventions that aim to include students cannot be suc -
cessful by merely generating means of transferring scientific information in more ac -
cessible ways unless the students recognise that their own competencies, personal 
histories, perspectives, or interests are represented in science. A science identity 
lens can help us achieve this goal, as taking the science identity of the students 
into account would enable the researchers to recognise and incorporate into 
their practice the individual students’ science representations.
In an influential article, Heidi B. Carlone and Angela Johnson studied 
the science experiences of women of colour and proposed science identity as an 
explanatory lens to understand how scientists from marginalised backgrounds 
‘experience, negotiate and persist in science’ (Carlone & Johnson, 2007, p. 1188). 
They found science identity to be a key construct that can account for individ -
ual agency in its relationship with the existing societal structures and modelled 
it in terms of three components: competence , performance , and recognition. This 
conceptualisation is based on a ‘prototype’ person with a strong science identity. 
As the authors argue, such a person would have a certain level of competency 
in science topics, possess the necessary skills to perform this competency, and 
finally be recognised, as well as recognise herself, as a ‘science person’. A key 
finding of Carlone and Johnson is that recognition of oneself as a science per -
son critically depends on how one is perceived by meaningful others (established 
scientists or members of one’s own community), and in the case of negative rec -
ognition, a student may re-negotiate their science identity through strategies 
such as re-defining the very meaning of ‘science’ . Thus, one possible pedagogi -
cal approach that could be utilised when working with minoritised students is 
4 For a general introduction to recent work on science identity, see the edited volume by 
Holmegaard and Archer (2023).

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 111
pluralism: there can be more than one definition of science, or what it means 
to be a scientist, and various different kinds of activities can be considered as 
‘scientific’ depending on the context. On the basis of this observation, we have 
included a plurality of topics and pedagogical approaches in our workshops.
In a recent conceptual paper, Lucy Avraamidou points out that inter -
sectionality is a ‘useful conceptual framework and methodological tool for ex -
amining the relationality and multiplicity of science identity’ that has political 
implications (2020, p. 328, added emphasis). These implications are especially 
concerned with ‘the purpose of addressing inequalities and promoting goals relat -
ed to equity and social justice’ (Avraamidou, 2020, p. 331). In line with Avraami -
dou’ s approach, we situate science identity within an intersectionality framework, 
which makes explicit how various identities that the students possess interact and 
contribute to the multiplicity of their science identity.
Science identity has been studied from various diff erent perspectives, 
ranging from quantitative studies that aim at instrument development and 
validation (Chen & Wei, 2022) to studies exploring the social justice and eq -
uity angle on this concept, focusing on students from minoritised backgrounds 
(Harper & Kayumova, 2023). However, the question of what forms of pedagogi -
cal interventions can be developed that would help students from minoritised 
backgrounds to build more robust forms of science identity has been under-
explored. In the design and conduct of our workshops, we were attentive to 
enabling the students to recognise their own competencies and capabilities 
with which their relational but singular identities equipped them. The inter -
sectionality/science identity lens provided a solid theoretical grounding for our 
work and enabled us to explore the socio-political dimension of working with 
students from marginalised backgrounds. Nonetheless, as our guiding aim has 
been to explore pedagogical strategies for practitioners, a more tangible theo -
retical framework is required to measure and analyse the eff ects of the interven -
tions. The science capital framework developed by Louise Archer and colleagues 
provides a suitable setting for this, which allowed us to ask what forms of inter -
ventions can augment the science capital of students from diverse backgrounds 
(Archer et al., 2015; DeWitt et al., 2016; Calabrese Barton et al., 2021).
Science Capital
The science capital framework is built on Pierre Bourdieu’s sociologi -
cal theory, which extends the concept of economic capital to social and cultural 
spheres. Bourdieu introduced the concept of culture to explain how educa -
tion contributed to the reproduction of social inequalities by ‘legitimating class 

112 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
diff erences’ (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990, p. 164). More generally, according to 
Bourdieu, explaining the hierarchical structure of power relations in society and 
how this structure reproduces itself from one generation to the next requires tak -
ing into account the dynamics of social and cultural capital (such as how these are 
transmitted in the family, or through educational institutions). Following this 
conception, Archer and her colleagues proposed the concept of science capital, 
understood as the science-related forms of social and cultural capital, as a useful 
and measurable construct to analyse the issue of unequal patterns in the par -
ticipation rates in science education, especially of students from underrepresented 
groups. As an explanatory framework, science capital sheds new light on these 
‘uneven patterns in science participation’ and thus constitutes a possible basis 
for intervention (Archer et al., 2015, p. 923).
The concept of science identity can be suitably placed within a Bourdieu -
sian concept of habitus (DeWitt & Archer, 2015, p. 157). As Bourdieu character -
ises it, habitus is ‘spontaneity without consciousness?’: it is the subjects’ ability 
to navigate the world without the necessity of consciously following explicit rules 
in each step (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 56). Thus conceived, habitus comprises ‘systems 
of durable, transposable dispositions […] predisposed to function as […] principles 
which generate and organize practices and representations.’ (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 53). 
These are the practices and representations one ‘internalises’ through familial and 
other social interactions and readily deploys in social settings. Thus, one sees that 
the components of the science identity model that Carlone and Johnson propose 
(2007) can be seen as science-related conceptualisations of habitus:
For example, a scientist presenting her work at a conference must use 
language according to prescribed norms, dress and interact in certain ways, and 
demonstrate that she thinks in certain ways for others to recognise her performance 
as appropriately ‘science-like’ if she wants to be considered a scientist (p. 1190).
A person with a strong science identity would exhibit a scientific habitus 
that would enable her to navigate seamlessly the scientific field. Thus, in planning 
interventions aiming to augment the science capital of students’ one should be 
aware of this ‘unconscious spontaneity’ and incorporate it into the design of the 
intervention elements that would enable the students to equip themselves with 
tools that would make them ‘feel at home’ in the scientific field.
The Irish Context and the Research Setting
In Ireland, post-primary education is divided into the junior (age 12-15/16) 
and the senior (15/16-18) cycles . It should also be noted that science is not 
compulsory in Irish schools at the post-primary level. Schools with a higher 

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 113
provision of students from marginalised backgrounds are less likely to make 
junior cycle science compulsory for students, leading to lower numbers of these 
students taking science. Students who study science in the junior cycle study 
general science (physics, chemistry and biology) with a nature of science strand. 
Albeit short, this strand includes key topics such as scientific method, science in 
society, and science communication.
The Pobal HP Deprivation Index,
5
 which provides a measure of the affluence 
or disadvantage of a particular geographical area in Ireland, was utilised to lo -
cate the schools in Limerick which serve areas that are socio-economically most 
disadvantaged (Haase & Pratschke, 2017). Additionally, this index was cross-
matched with the register of ‘Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools 
(DEIS)’ .
6
 A study by Smyth et al. (2015) noted that ‘Schools classified as DEIS have a much 
higher concentration of disadvantage than other schools and also cater for more com -
plex needs, with a greater prevalence of students from T raveller backgrounds, non-English 
speaking students, and students with special educational needs’ ( p. vii). Limerick, where 
this study is conducted, has the highest relative deprivation score in the country, 
indicating that communities in Limerick are among the most disadvantaged. 
Thus, when we consider Limerick through the lens of the Pobal social depriva -
tion index, we observe that the city has areas with high lone-parent ratios and 
low third-level education, income, and class. These are merely indicators, but they 
point to significantly at-risk populations. 
In our pilot study, we conducted six workshops over the course of eight weeks 
at an all-girls school in Limerick, Ireland. Located in an urban setting, the school 
caters to mostly students from socio-economic backgrounds. The school has a 
sizeable population of students from immigrant communities, as well as stu -
dents with Irish Traveller heritage. Irish Travellers, or the Minc´ eiri, is an ethno-
cultural group in Ireland that is recognised as an ethnic minority (Haynes et al., 
2021). 
5 POBAL is an Irish government organisation that is responsible for the management and support 
services of 38 programmes in the areas of Social Inclusion and Equality. (‘Pobal’ is an Irish word 
meaning ‘community’ or ‘people’ .) The index utilises information from the Irish census, such as 
‘employment, age, educational attainment’ . https://w w w.p ob a l.ie/
6 In Ireland, certain schools serving disadvantaged populations are supported through the 
Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) programme that was introduced in 
2006, which identified schools based on school principal reports of the profile of their student 
population. Information from large-scale surveys, such as the Growing Up in Ireland study, 
‘confirms that DEIS schools diff er markedly from non-DEIS schools in terms of the social class 
background, parental education, household income and family structures of their students’ 
(Smyth et. al., 2015, vii).

114 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
Literature on Diversity and Students from Traditionally 
Excluded Backgrounds
The influence of socioeconomic status on the declining rates of science 
participation has been established by several studies (Gorard & See, 2009; 
Cooper et al., 2020). In a recent paper that draws on data from 4300 students, 
Cooper and Berry (2020) use the science capital construct and explicitly link 
socioeconomic status with a strong science identity. There are studies that either 
explicitly or implicitly assume an intersectionality lens and study how students 
from marginalised backgrounds develop or negotiate their science identities. These 
include both survey-type quantitative approaches (Keller et al., 2023) as well as 
qualitative studies based on ethnographical methods and/or in-depth interviews 
(Barton & Tan, 2018).
In a paper that builds on these studies, Kayumova and Dou (2022) raised a 
critical concern in working with students from marginalised backgrounds. For 
these authors, simply aiming at increasing the science capital of the students or 
attempting to strengthen their science identities would imply an implicit legiti -
misation of the dominant ontologies that are part of the very social structure 
that marginalises these students in the first place. As the authors write:
If science spaces continue to operate through dominant cultural norms 
and values, merely providing access to materials or opportunities to par -
ticipate in science will not make the kind of changes we seek ... From this 
perspective, the design of learning ecologies must create conditions of pos -
sibility that center on identities, community histories, relations, and experi -
ences of racialized youth from nondominant communities rather than erase 
them (p. 1113, added emphasis).
What these authors point out is that without recognising the perspective 
of the marginalised communities that a social justice-oriented science educa -
tion research aims to reach, we would be ‘normalize[ing] deficits and educa -
tional hierarchies’ (Kayumova & Dou, 2022, p. 1098).
These considerations are directly relevant to the research context that 
this paper presents. A study by McCoy and colleagues (2022) notes that un -
conscious bias can give rise to issues such as mothers perceiving boys’ abili -
ties to be higher than those of girls. This finding was also true for teachers. A 
similar study indicated that parental expectations for young people with special 
education needs are much lower than those of the young people themselves 
(Mihut et al., 2022). Thus, parental expectations and engagement can have a 
significant effect on students’ academic outcomes. In the context of students 

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 115
from low socio-economic backgrounds, low parental expectations and domi -
nant cultural norms with which the school science operates may be related. 
We acknowledge the possible tension between our research aim of generating 
best practices that augment the science capital of students and the critical per -
spective we raise here on science capital, following Kayumova and Dou (2022). 
Nevertheless, it should be emphasised that despite its potential pitfalls, the sci -
ence capital framework constitutes a valuable tool worth exploring further in 
the context of social disadvantage.
We pursued the following set of guiding principles in our quest to create 
pedagogies that target the science capital of the pupils. First, we examined the 
four general principles of the science capital teaching approach and generated 
pedagogical strategies to implement them (Godec et al., 2017). These principles 
include broadening what counts , personalising and localising, eliciting, valuing, 
and linking, and building the science capital dimensions. Broadening what counts 
involves ‘creating spaces where all students feel able to offer contributions from 
their own experiences, interests and identities, knowing that they will be valued’ 
(Godec et al. 2017, p.19). As a concrete broadening strategy, we employed the 
Family Resemblance Approach (FRA) for the nature of science (NOS) (Dagher 
& Erduran, 2016). The FRA approach incorporates three layers to conceptualise 
NOS. At the core, epistemological aims exist, social and professional aspects ex -
ist, and finally, the politics of science exists. Incorporating the FRA model, we 
broadened the pedagogical basis and the epistemic content of the activities that 
we could conduct with the students, such as a debate on the ethics of science, a 
discussion on space travel, or histories of science that are not usually included in 
the curriculum. Hence, NOS considerations can make science learning appealing 
to diverse learners. Following the principle of localising , which aims to contextu -
alise science in ways that relate it to the students’ lives, we have sought ways to 
make our activities open-ended and moderately to minimally structured so that 
the activities can be amenable to the students’ perspectives. Thus, all the activities 
were designed in a context-based way that incorporates science, society, and tech -
nology themes. As has been emphasised in the literature, building a community 
of learning is key to creating a space of trust with students from diverse back -
grounds (Gay, 2002b; Considine et al., 2017). Thus, we also incorporated elements 
of group work and peer review so that the students could interact with their peers 
in a non-competitive manner towards building trust. Finally, based on the evi -
dence showing the positive effects of inquiry-based learning for socioeconomi -
cally disadvantaged youth, we incorporated elements of inquiry-based learning 
that do not presuppose any prior knowledge (Creghan et al., 2015; Cuevas et al., 
2005; McManus et al., 2015; Summerlee, 2018.)

116 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
Research questions
Our project hypothesises that appropriate pedagogical approaches, 
grounded in theory, can augment the science capital of students from low socio-
economic backgrounds. This augmentation can occur by enabling the students 
to perform a positive science identity, meaning to see themselves (and to be rec -
ognised by others as being) science people, as well as developing self-efficacy 
by becoming more confident in their abilities (Avraamidou, 2020). Building on 
these conceptual characterisations of several key constructs in science education 
research on students from traditionally excluded backgrounds, we aimed to un -
derstand what kinds of non-formal interventions are best suited for these students. 
T o this end, our main research questions are:
A. What are the impacts of the interventions on participants (both the stu -
dents and the teachers)?
B. What kinds of new practices (or variations on the existing ones) can one 
introduce to best target the science capital of students during non-formal 
and informal pedagogical activities? In particular, does the specific com -
bination of the pedagogical approaches utilised in the programme prop -
erly target students’ science capital?
Method
This study employed a mixed methods approach. The rationale for this 
was to ensure that the study took a holistic perspective, enabling the construc -
tion of a broad, generalisable picture (Borg & Gall, 1983, p. 27) through quanti -
tative measures while also fostering a deeper richness of data through qualita -
tive methods. It has often been acknowledged that research studies must be 
‘governed by the notion of fitness for purpose’ (Cohen et al., 2007, p.78). There -
fore, when choosing a methodological approach, the aims of the study and the 
research questions were key considerations. This aided in focusing on the study 
and acknowledging the complexity of the research environment in which it 
was situated. The study identified that dimensions of diversity were typically 
treated in the singular throughout the literature and sought to draw from the 
theoretical underpinnings of intersectionality to explore and understand bet -
ter the lived experiences of teachers and students across varied dimensions of 
diversity. To better understand this, both quantitative and qualitative methods 
were utilised, as a mixed-methods approach served the requirements of the 
study most effectively. 

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 117
Participants
Once we had reviewed the Pobal HP Index and the DEIS school data -
base, we concluded that there were four urban schools in the locale to which we 
should o ff er the programme. We contacted teachers in these schools, and one 
school was particularly interested in participating. It was a DEIS status single-
sex female intake post-primary school in an urban setting. This urban school 
caters mostly to students from low socio-economic backgrounds, and it has a 
sizeable population of students from immigrant communities, as well as stu -
dents with Irish Traveller heritage.
This pilot was implemented with one first-year class (ages 12–13) of fe -
male students. The class size is 21, but with regular absenteeism, we have data 
from a lesser number of students (ranging from 13 to 18 in diff erent workshops)
7
 
and the class teacher who was present in every session. The research data col -
lected with this group consists of 1) exit cards collected after each intervention/
workshop, 2) a pre- & post-test DiSSI Instrument administered at the begin -
ning and the end of the intervention series, and 3) a teacher interview. All sur -
vey data is treated anonymously. 
Instruments
For quantitative analysis, we employed a Likert-style questionnaire spe -
cifically developed by the DiSSI project. Qualitative data collected consists of 
1) exit cards collected after each intervention/workshop and 2) teacher inter -
views. The initial plan with the study was to administer a pre- & post-test after 
every workshop to align with the evaluation of our project partners in Ger -
many, Scotland, Slovenia, and North Macedonia. However, after the first test 
was issued, the research team realised that the literacy issues in the class were 
more extreme than we had originally anticipated, and certain scales ( motivation 
in particular) were challenging for students to interpret, and they required a 
great deal of aid from the instructing researcher, teacher, and classroom assis -
tants. This led to a reconsideration and revision of the approach, and the team 
decided to incorporate exit cards into the evaluation portfolio. The pre- & post-
tests were utilised at the beginning of the set of the six-workshop programme 
and again at the end of the programme, rather than after each workshop. As 
mentioned, a limitation of these surveys is the challenges they posed for the 
group: the interpretation of questions required support from the researcher, 
teacher, and classroom assistants, and one child participating was illiterate. This 
7 See Table 1 for the number of students that attended each workshop.

118 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
explains, in part, the limited sample size from the class of 21 students. In addi -
tion, the research team acknowledged that certain elements of the survey could 
not be clearly interpreted (e.g. motivation) as the length of the statements was 
too long and complex for the students. To obtain quick and unobtrusive data at 
the end of each workshop, exit cards were utilised (sometimes referred to as exit 
tickets) post-workshop. Exit cards are short surveys specifically designed to be 
easy to comprehend and answer in that those using them have flexibility in how 
they answer elements of the exit card; they can write or draw. Emanating from 
educational settings, they are an instrument with which students are familiar. 
Given this, they are optimised for efficiently attaining the student voice in an 
anonymous manner (Fowler et al., 2019). 
The DiSSI pre- & post-test is an instrument that was developed by the 
DiSSI project team and included items chosen from the following Likert scales:
1. Interest in the subject (OECD/PISA, 2009). (DiSSI Instrument Items 
(1–5).
2. Career aspirations in science (Kier et al., 2014). (DiSSI Instrument 
(6–12). 
3. Self-concept towards science (OECD/PISA, 2009). (DiSSI Instrument 
(13–18).
4. Motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). (DiSSI Instrument (19–28). 
5. Situational interest (Chen et al., 2001). (DiSSI Instrument (29–37).
The pre-test included the items (1–28)] The post-test included all the 
items from the pre-test, in addition to items (29-37) that aim to measure the 
situational interest at the end of the six-set workshop programme. While there 
were significant issues among the students in comprehending the pre-test (as 
noted above), the items in ‘Interest for the subject’ (OCED/PISA, 2009) and 
‘Motivation’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000) were particularly problematic due to the 
longer sentence structure; as such, the research team had to develop additional 
supports for the students in order to enable them to access and respond to the 
survey instrument more fully in the post-test.
8
The use of exit cards as an evaluation tool for an earlier version of one of 
the DiSSI workshops (Medicine Maker) is described in (McHugh et al., 2022). 
However, these were further amended after a ‘knowledge sharing meeting’ was 
held with the DiSSI Scottish team. The exit card starts with a core question that 
can be adapted to each individual workshop. To support literacy issues and 
ensure student voices were heard, we included a section where the students are 
8 The data for ‘Interest for the subject’ and ‘Motivation’ items can be found in the Tables 5 and 6 
respectively, in the Appendix.

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 119
allowed to draw as well as write. Two sections asking the ‘best thing’ and the 
‘worst thing’ about the activity are included, which encourages the students to 
write singular words (as opposed to sentences with which they have difficulty). 
The best-worst contrast enables the students to focus on multiple aspects of the 
workshops and aims to foster critical thinking.
We also incorporated a science capital measure prompted by the ques -
tion ‘Which of the best describes you?’; however, the researcher observations 
indicate that the students’ level of engagement was not nuanced enough to give 
us a sensible measurement in the pilot. Exit cards were issued to all students at 
the end of each workshop, and they were given time and freedom to complete 
(see Figure 1.)
Figure 1
An example of a DiSSI Ireland Exit Card
For the analysis of the exit cards, thematic coding was used (Saldana, 
2015). First-cycle coding was undertaken by one of the authors (MM), and a 
consensus was achieved in a group discussion among the researchers.
Three semi-structured open-ended teacher interviews were conducted 
at the end of the programme (two teacher interviews and one interview with 
the Special Educational Needs teacher who supported the teaching). The teach -
er interview questions were developed by the research team with the aim of 

120 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
eliciting teachers’ views on the main challenges of teaching at a DEIS school 
where the majority of the students come from ‘low’ socio-economic back -
grounds, as well as the teachers’ perspective on the impact of the workshops 
both on them and on the students. The guiding questions focused on the im -
pact of the workshops on the teacher’s pedagogical practice and her observa -
tions on the science interests and aspirations of the students. The interviews 
were analysed using thematic analysis as this is a flexible method that is deemed 
appropriate for a pilot study (Clarke & Braun, 2017).
Research Design
The main methodological approach in the DiSSI project is developing 
non-formal sector interventions that support the science education needs of a 
diverse student body. T o this end, we have focused on pedagogical strategies that 
would foster inclusivity. The programme of workshops developed covers a range of 
topics across the Junior Cycle (12–15 years) general science curriculum, with varying 
lenses leaning towards physics, chemistry and biology content depending on the 
workshop and pedagogical approaches that would both link to the curricula for 
the course and aid with the overall goals of the DiSSI project. The overall Irish 
DiSSI programme is illustrated in Figure 2, with the pilot of the first-year pro -
gramme (circled in red) presented here.
9
Figure 2
The DiSSI programme at the University of Limerick (UL)
9 In the figure, ‘TY’ stands for transition year, which is a one-year programme between Junior Cycle 
and Senior Cycle. It is an unexamined year without a set curriculum that aims to help students 
become independent learners. We conduct several types of workshops and programmes with the 
TY year students.

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 121
In our pilot study, we conducted six workshops over the course of eight 
weeks (accounting for school holidays in between). The workshops were indi -
vidual units and not interdependent, as this school had noted challenges of high 
levels of absenteeism. Therefore, the team determined that individual workshops 
which could be delivered as standalone units, but also interconnect via their 
pedagogical approaches were the most appropriate. The workshops and ele -
ments of the pedagogical approaches embedded in each are outlined in Table 
1 below. 
Table 1 
Overview and descriptors of workshops implemented throughout the 8-week 
intervention.
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6
Workshop
Medicine 
Maker
Gross 
Germs & 
Bizarre 
Bacteria
Crystal 
Drop
Ethics of 
Animal 
Research
NASA Survival 
on the Moon 
Activity
Inventing 
the 
Microscope
Pedagogy
Context- 
based 
Inquiry
Hands-on 
Inquiry
Open 
Ended 
Inquiry
Nature of 
Science
*
Nature of 
Science
History of 
Science
Delivery
Mode
Structured 
Activity
Moderately 
Structured 
Activity
Minimally 
Structured 
Activity
Argumentation 
/ Minimally 
Structured 
Activity
Argumentation/ 
Minimally 
Structured 
Activity
Minimally 
Structured 
Activity
Epistemic
Content
Authentic 
Science
Applied 
Science
Basic 
Science
Ethics and 
Politics of 
Science
Peer Review
Nature of 
Science
Relevance
Science 
and 
Society
Implicit 
Nature of 
Science
Science 
and 
Technology
Science and 
Society
Science and 
Technology
Science 
and Society
Number of 
students 
in class & 
evaluation 
methods
16
Exit Cards 
Pre-test
13
Exit Cards
17
Exit Cards
13
Exit Cards
16
Exit Cards
18
Exit Cards 
Post-test
*‘Nature of science’ is considered both a pedagogical tool and epistemic content during the work-
shops.

122 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
Results
The Research Context
As mentioned above, the team triangulated the data collected to pro -
vide a clearer and more holistic picture of the student experience. The data 
were examined through the lenses of the research questions, with additional 
foci on science identity and science capital. This will be elaborated upon in the 
discussion.
In order to set the context for these results, the following excerpt from 
the teacher interview is important. During the interview, we asked the teacher 
how she thinks the socio-economic background of the students affects their 
performance. In response, she explained:
You have some that are really poor, had a poor background, and they 
don’t seem to progress as quickly as the others […] They just, you’ll have the 
1 in 10 that will do well, and the school will be trying to support them if there 
is something they don’t have or something they need. But some, you just can 
never, you can never help them, because the home situation is affecting them 
so much. So, for example, they may not have a study place. An area at home to 
study that’s safe or that’s noise-free, so the school will try and provide a quiet 
place for them to study. Or you might have ... their parents may be in jail. We 
would have a lot that are living in a hotel.
10
During an exam week, a ‘home-school’ liaison would go to the house of 
a student to provide them with a study space outside their home. As the teacher 
explained, this person would:
[…] knock on the door trying to get the child out to go and sit their 
exam. Because the parents are just, they are not involved; they might be 
incapacitated for whatever they’ve taken or done. Some of the home 
situations would be dreadful. And it seems to be, if that’s the situation, 
we really struggle to help them, or help them do well. Or we’ll get them 
so far, and then they’ll go, ‘Nah, I’m gonna drop out of school’ . We would 
have a high number of drop out, we would have a high number of school 
refusal […] So maybe 1 in 10 we manage, with a really poor background 
home environment, we manage to save them, I would say.
Here, the class teacher highlights the challenges that both the students 
and the school face in terms of the home environment, social surroundings, and 
10 After our interview, the teacher explained that the students who live in a hotel are from 
families who are experiencing homelessness and are waiting on housing, so they are 
temporarily placed in hotels. These families are in a social housing waiting list.

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 123
school setting. The challenges of data collection processes in this research context 
of working with low-income students necessitated modifying the initial plan of us -
ing the pre- and post-survey instrument at each intervention. The researchers 
decided to enrich their data using exit cards, teacher interviews, and researcher 
reflections, given the literacy issues encountered by the students, which made 
the project surveys more challenging to administer.
Main Research Outcomes
When discussing the impact of the programme on the students, the class 
teacher noted that a particular highlight for her was that the students were men -
tioning the workshops at home. She also noted that this is highly unusual for this 
group of students and for the parents, and she believed this to have a particu -
larly positive impact, inferring it was increasing students’ attitudes towards and 
interest in science. When asked about the possible impacts the workshops had 
on the students, the teacher responded as follows:
So they definitely want you teaching them instead of me [laughter.] [...] 
So they definitely have a peak in interest in science. Even the really weak 
ones. If they are leaving at the end of the year saying, ‘Jeez, I love that 
about science, ’ I think we are winning […] The fact that they are talking 
at home about ‘we did this today in science,’ and at the parent-teacher 
meeting in January, I probably forgot to tell you that, I would have spo -
ken to all the parents and asked, ‘Have they told you that they are doing 
a workshop, you know, with a guy from the University of Limerick. ’ And 
these are children from very poor backgrounds as well, the parents hav -
ing very little interest. I’ d say 90% of them had heard about it. Like that’s 
massive. Yeah, like that doesn’t happen. Cuz I might say, ‘Did they tell 
you I brought in a set of sheep lungs for science week?’ and they go, ‘No, 
I’ve never heard anything about it. ’ That’s really good, the fact that they 
are talking about science at home, in the homes of these children are go -
ing to, is massive, cuz it doesn’t really happen.
So they are talking about it at home, and 90% of their parents have heard 
about the workshop, which is brilliant. So you are winning when they are 
doing that. I think they are leaving at the end of this year, and most of 
the students, in their heads, really enjoyed science. So then they come in 
September with a positive attitude about it.
From this excerpt, we can infer the positive impact of the workshops on 
the science capital of the students. This interpretation also agrees with results 

124 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
from the exit cards, with one of the themes emerging from the coding being 
the ‘a ff ective’ . In vivo, codes such as ‘Satisfying’ and ‘Feel like a scientist’ came 
through the data.
Another input from the teacher that should be noted is that, for many 
students, science is a subject that ‘when they come in in September, they are ex -
cited about ... cuz it’s diff erent, but they think that they are gonna be blowing 
things up. ’ As a result, the students ‘get a bit deflated when it is not all hydro -
gen bombs or things on fire or whatever.’ When students experience aspects of 
school science such as learning theory, their interest levels go down. Nevertheless, 
the version of science that the workshops present is diff erent from the ‘school 
science’ the students are familiar with, in almost contradictory ways. To give 
one example, whereas the school science is presented by the teacher in a more 
controlling manner, the workshops gave considerable agency to the students. 
The teacher elaborated on this point while also emphasising how being given 
autonomy in the school lab improved the practical skills of the students and the 
way this contrasts with her way of teaching:
At the end of it all, I think their practical skills were brilliant, like really 
good. Because I think in the first year I don’t, maybe I don’t give them 
enough to do because I am nervous. I won’t let them near the Bunsen 
burner; I don’t want them to break something; I am giving them the 
plastic stuff so that they don’t wreak the place. I definitely think that 
their practical skills are massively improved compared to ... the start of 
the year. Perhaps better than if I was just teaching them, because you [i.e., 
the researcher instructor] just give it a go and let them at it. Whereas I am 
very controlling ... Y ou are better to go, ‘No, no, just let them figure it out. ’ 
I probably don’t let them figure out enough ... I need to let them spill it ... I 
have gotten more confident in the fact that I can give them something and 
they can figure it out. I think their interest in science has gone way up.
Thus, ‘school science’ and ‘workshop science’ are almost contradictory to 
each other, and this contrast appears in the data.
The second element of the survey, Career aspirations in science (Kier 
et al., 2014), indicated modest increases on both sides of the scale, with slightly 
fewer in the ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ category post-test (note that two addi -
tional students were present for the post-test, and one student who was present 
during the pre-test was absent for the post-test) (See Table 2).

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 125
Table 2
Results of survey instrument items on ‘career aspirations in science. ’
Career aspirations in science 
(Kier et al., 2014)
Strongly agree 
& agree % (n)
Neither agree 
nor disagree 
% (n)
Strongly 
disagree & 
disagree % (n)
Strongly agree 
& agree % (n)
Neither agree 
nor disagree 
% (n)
Strongly 
disagree & 
disagree% (n)
Pre-test, n = 16 Post-test, n = 18
6.  I plan to use science in my 
future career.
25% (4) 56% (9) 18% (3) 39% (7) 28% (5) 33% (6)
7.  If I do well in science 
classes, it will help me in 
my future career.
54% (8) 33%(5) 13% (2) 61% (11) 17% (3) 22% (4)
8.  My parents I would like it if 
I chose a science career.
27% (4) 67% (10) 7% (1) 39% (7) 39% (7) 22% (4)
9.  I am interested in careers 
that use science.
46% (7) 27% (4) 27% (4) 50% (9) 17% (3) 33% (6)
10.  I have a role model in a 
science career.
31% (5) 31% (5) 38% (6) 22% (4) 17% (3) 61% (11)
11.  I would feel comfortable 
talking to people who work 
in science careers.
75% (12) 25% (4) 0 35% (6) 30% (5) 35% (6)
12.  I know of someone in my 
family who uses science in 
their career.
37% (6) 19% (3) 44% (7) 50% (9) 6% (1) 44% (8)
Once again, this data, in isolation, does not give a complete picture; 
however, coupled with the teacher interview and exit cards, it aids in building 
a broader impression of the impact of the programme. From the survey data, it 
appears that student career aspirations have modestly shifted towards the posi -
tive, but also that their understanding of a career in science and of the work of 
a scientist has also been enhanced, thus better enabling them to make a shift in 
either direction. One item (11) signified a large decline in students’ comfort levels 
in speaking with people who work in science careers. This is notable, and as this 
is a pilot study, it will be explored further in subsequent student focus groups. 
Exit cards revealed a large number of drawings or interpretations of people doing 
the activities/experiments that were at the centre of the workshop, in addition to 
technical drawings with the correct interpretation, along with new vocabulary 
and terminology. This is believed to be important, with the correct use of new 
vocabulary and the use of drawing to explain the work, rather than the pressure of 
writing about the activities to report them, offering ways for the students to dem -
onstrate their knowledge and understanding outside of traditional formal routes. 
The exit cards paint a picture unlike what the research team has previously noted 

126 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
with workshops with other groups (McHugh et al., 2022). In previous workshops, 
‘relevancy’ as a theme appeared prominently; however, this was not observed in 
the pilot group.
11
 It appears that student career aspirations have modestly shifted 
towards the positive, but also that their understanding of a career in science and 
of the work of a scientist has also been enhanced, thus better enabling them to 
make a shift in either direction. ‘Relevancy’ not emerging in this group may be 
explained by background and environment: the students do not have the prior 
knowledge and experience to make connections between the workshop content 
and daily life. In recognition of this, we attempted to lower the barriers between 
the students and authentic science content and build exposure.
In this pilot study, a clearer picture of the Nature of Science emerges with 
students noting abstract elements such as the history of science, philosophy, mo -
rality, ethics, debate, or novelty. Additionally, the exit card data showed enhanced 
scientific language among the students. This is noteworthy, as in one instance at 
the beginning of the workshops when the researcher referred to the concept of 
‘explanation’ , a student retorted, saying that she does not understand the meaning 
of this term as it is a ‘big word. ’ As a result, a significant portion of the instruc -
tion during the workshops was devoted to discussing the meanings of these ‘big 
words’ used in the science content of the workshops or the survey instrument.
Interestingly, and in contradiction to the teacher’s opinion, the students 
have a mostly positive self-concept towards science in the pre-test (T able 3). Their 
self-concept towards science actually decreased marginally in most instances, 
indicating perhaps that they were either more challenged by the workshops or 
found them more difficult than their typical school science class. 
The teacher also acknowledged that the pedagogical approaches were 
important for the students. In particular, concerning one student, she reported 
the following:
There was another one that I said to you, an L2LP [Level 2 Learning Pro -
gramme] student. A Traveller background. So is sitting, no exams. Actu -
ally, I can’t read and write, and I was super excited about some of those 
practicals if you remember. Do you remember the person I am talking 
about? […] Y eah, she was mad keen to get going and came up to the top 
bench, if you remember. And actually concentrated for 80 minutes and 
did that activity. And I said, ‘I am blown away with this because this one 
breaks my heart. ’ Not that she is terribly bold, but she is just not able to 
access whatever we are doing.
11 By ‘relevancy’ , we mean students making the connections between what they were studying and 
things that were personally relevant or noting the relevance of the work by linking it to the news 
or to their parent’s jobs.

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 127
For this student, accessing traditional lessons in any form was particu -
larly challenging. However, during the DiSSI programme, the student was very 
engaged, yet her voice was not represented in the pre-post-test due to her literacy 
issues.
Table 3
Results of survey instrument items on ‘self-concept towards science. ’
Self-concept 
towards 
science 
(OECD/PISA, 
2009)
Strongly 
agree & 
agree % 
(n)
Neither 
agree nor 
disagree 
% (n)
Strongly 
disagree 
& 
disagree 
% (n)
Strongly 
agree & 
agree % (n)
Neither 
agree nor 
disagree 
% (n)
Strongly 
disagree 
& disagree 
% (n)
Pre-test, n = 16 Post-test, n = 18
13.  Learning 
advanced 
science 
topics 
would be 
easy for 
me.
44% (7) 25% (4) 31%(5) 35% (6) 24% (4) 41% (7)
14.  I can 
usually 
give good 
answers 
to test 
questions 
on science 
topics.
57% (8) 7% (1) 36% (5) 33% (6) 33% (6) 33% (6)
15.  I learn 
science 
topics 
quickly.
56%(9) 25% (4) 19% (3) 50% (9) 17% (3) 33% (6)
16.  Science 
topics are 
easy for 
me.
31%(5) 44% (7) 25% (4) 33% (6) 28% (5) 39% (7)
17.  When I 
am being 
taught 
science, 
I can 
understand 
the 
concepts 
very well.
56%(9) 38% (6) 6% (1) 39% (7) 33% (6) 28 % (5)
18.  I can easily 
understand 
new ideas 
in science.
56% (9) 31% (5) 13% (2) 39% (7) 28% (5) 33% (6)

128 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
The teacher went further, acknowledging the student, noting that it was 
‘actually fun’ . Thus, a student who comes from a marginalised ethnic group and 
who ‘can’t read and write’ was able to express her interest in hands-on non-
formal science activity:
So I think that was a huge positive cuz it is very hard to engage an L2LP 
learner within a group of 23 that aren’t. […] And I asked her afterwards, 
like I said, ‘God, you worked brilliantly the other day’ [here the teacher imi -
tates the student’s answer] ‘Yeah, that’s cuz it is actually fun’ […] I think 
that’ s massive, that student does not partake at all and isn ’t able to partake. 
Can’t follow written instructions, so the fact that she was doing it with 
her hands–active learning and doing her own thing, and she was mad to 
get going, mad to do it, that was huge.
Table 4
Results of survey instrument items on ‘situational interest. ’
Situational interest (Chen et 
al., 2001)
Strongly agree & 
agree % (n)
Neither agree nor 
disagree % (n)
Strongly disagree & 
disagree % (n)
Post-test, n = 18
29.  The lesson in today’s science 
class was interesting.
83% (15) 6% (1) 11% (2)
30.  Dealing with the subject 
matter was challenging 
today.
39% (7) 28% (5) 33% (6)
31.  I was focused on this lesson. 78%(14) 11% (2) 11% (2)
32.  I enjoyed science lessons 
today.
78%(14) 5% (1) 17% (3)
33.  Today, I understood well what 
we learned in class.
61%(11) 28% (5) 11% (2)
34.  Today’s class was fun for me. 78 % (14) 11% (2) 11% (2)
35.  There was a lot going on at 
today’s class, it was varied.
72% (13) 22% (4) 6% (1)
36.  I was attentive in today’s 
class, from the beginning to 
the end.
78% (14) 11% (2) 11% (2)
37.  Today’s material in the 
class attracted me, so I 
participated.
72% (13) 11% (2) 17% (3)
38.  I want to delve into the 
details of the material we 
discussed in today’s class.
78% (13) 11% (2) 11% (2)
This interpretation of the teacher is bolstered by the exit card survey, 
as codes such as ‘fun’ ‘, hands-on’ and ‘group work’ appeared, which evidences the 

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 129
students being able to engage with the content without having to be solely reliant 
on written instructions. This appears to have led to a more emotional/a ff ective en -
gagement with the content in some instances. Further, terms associated with the 
practice of being a scientist, such as teamwork and group work, measuring, handling 
equipment, and experimental tasks (mixing, making, observing, planning, or pour -
ing), regularly appeared. The opportunity to draw their answers was heavily utilised 
by the students, and the theme of ‘abstract drawing’ emerged alongside ‘technical 
and labelled drawing.’
12
 
When we consider this data along with the teacher interview, which, as 
noted previously, highlighted the autonomy an illiterate student gained with the 
DiSSI approaches and the data from the exit cards, a more nuanced impression 
emerges. As already noted, the a ff ective domain comes through with students 
noting feelings of satisfaction, success, winning, fun, and enjoyment. These give 
a strong impression of motivating factors. The data on motivation from the sur -
vey instrument is not presented here (see Appendix) as the students struggled 
with the item statements in the pre-test, and as such, changes were made in the 
supports students were given with the instrument in the post-test and in the 
subsequent main study beyond this pilot. 
Finally, situational interest was only examined in the post-test (Table 4), 
and this was found to be high, which aligns with the teacher’s impression and 
other data from the exit cards. More specifically, items 29, 37 and 38 had a high -
ly positive response, indicating that the students’ interest in the material was 
linked to their engagement in the class.
Discussion
A. What are the impacts of the interventions on participants (both the stu -
dents and the teachers)?
B. What kinds of new practices (or variations on the existing ones) can one 
introduce to best target the science capital of students during non-formal 
and informal pedagogical activities?
Research Question A in Section 2.5 explored: ‘What are the impacts of the 
interventions on participants (both the students and the teachers)?’ The results 
give a broad sense that the overall impacts of the programme have been posi -
tive for participants. The overarching goal of this programme was to determine 
12 With ‘abstract drawing, ’ we mean any drawing that goes beyond a direct representation of 
the activity. The drawing presents an idea that the students relate to the activity in an abstract 
manner and thus shows that the hands-on practical work can be theoretically contextualised by 
the students.

130 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
whether DiSSI-informed pedagogical approaches could work in situations where 
multiple dimensions of diversity were present. This was true for the context of 
this study, with issues ranging from socio-economic deprivation to language 
and literacy issues to cultural and ethnic dimensions. Thus, there was a complex 
interplay of diversity, yet approaches such as inquiry-based science education, 
elements of argumentation, Nature of Science focus, and authentic, real-life con -
textualisation all aided in raising situational interest and elements of the students’ 
science capital and science identity. As discussed in earlier sections of this paper, 
both science identity and science capital are multi-faceted in and of themselves 
(Barton et al., 2013; DeWitt et al., 2016; Avraamidou, 2020). This leads to research 
Question B, which asked: ‘What kinds of new practices (or variations on the ex -
isting ones) can one introduce to best target the science capital of students dur -
ing non-formal and informal pedagogical activities?’
As acknowledged above, the interplay of pedagogical approaches utilised 
in this study aided in targeting elements of science capital during non-formal 
activities. No one pedagogical approach was utilised over another, drawing 
from appropriate elements of those discussed earlier depending on the topic 
being taught and the objectives and outcomes for the topic. It is worth noting 
that the pre-and post-survey results noted only modest increases in career aspi -
ration but strong situational interest. Furthermore, there was a modest decrease in 
self-concept towards science between the pre-and post-survey, which must be 
acknowledged. The teacher interview indicates that the pedagogies employed 
in the DiSSI programme were outside the typical ‘norms’ for their classroom, 
as they offered the students more autonomy, a greater voice in discussing and 
debating the work, and more ‘hands-on’ practical experience with experimental 
work. This may have been challenging for students, as they may find this ‘non-
normal’ to be an unfamiliar form of science learning. The challenges of hands-
on inquiry-based approaches have been well noted in the literature, in line with 
our findings (Sharpe & Abrahams, 2020; Snětinová, 2018; Zhang, 2016). We 
hypothesise that the further these pedagogical approaches became normalised 
for the pupils, the more increases in ‘self-concept’ would be observed, as the 
data from the teacher interview and the exit cards highlight greater levels of 
empowerment. The data demonstrate that this was a novel exercise for many of 
the students since some of them felt like scientists for what was seemingly the first 
time. The authors believe that this potentially resulted in the slight lowering of 
‘self-concept towards science’ . School science and non-formal science are seen 
as diff erent, and this idea is manifested in the teacher interview on multiple oc -
casions. The freedom that the students were given during this programme was 
new for students and classroom teachers alike. It was challenging and outside the 

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 131
typical comfort zone for both, yet both teachers and students indicated that they 
had experienced a shift and appreciated the approaches within the programme. 
The active learning and experimental tasks were the drivers of unique forays into 
the world of science. Mentions of hands-on activities were commonplace, along 
with references to the a ff ective domain (evidence of emotional engagement). Again, 
this is in the context of the dominant cultural, community, and societal norms 
under which the school operates (Kenny et al., 2020; Smyth, 2020). Therefore, 
the richer data from the teacher interviews and exit cards aid us in concluding 
that the pedagogical approaches and overall impact of this study have aided in 
breaking down barriers to science (cf. DeWitt et al. 2016; Godec et al. 2017).
This has manifested in a number of ways. The six workshops formed a 
continuum, and while diverse in their design and approach, they are grounded 
in the key concept of an ‘ask’ . Students are asked to perform an activity with 
varying levels of support depending on their progress. In this way, adaptability 
to the complex social tapestry of the classroom was embedded into the overall 
programme, with student autonomy being central.
Unique to the data was the lack of references to their personal lives or other 
areas of science. The students lacked the ability to connect the workshops to their 
own world or school science class. The intervention was a brand-new explora -
tion of science. The data suggests that interventions gave them their first mean -
ingful opportunity to connect school science with authentic, context-based 
science and expanded their scientific language. Students referred to all the new 
information they had learned, utilised new terminology and vocabulary, made 
technical labelled drawings of their workshop, noted the ethical and philosophi -
cal challenges they encountered and finally made unique and abstract drawings of 
scientific phenomena. The embedded content within workshops around the Na -
ture of Science came to fruition and targeted the students’ science identity, with 
some noting that they enjoyed seeing the results or something actually work -
ing. The class teacher referred to the student’s parents as having an awareness of 
the eight-week programme while not knowing about other elements of science 
from the school. In her eyes, this was impactful, and we would argue that the 
students saw the science within the programme as belonging to them, something 
personal and larger than what they may see in more conventional formal school 
science classes.
We consider the three main outcomes of this pilot study to be as follows. 
First, we observed that hands-on, context-based science workshops helped the 
students to access technical language and language to represent authentic sci -
ence behaviour (such as ‘design’ or ‘planning. ’) When working with students with 
low socio-economic backgrounds, this is crucial as this may contribute to remove 

132 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
some of the ‘gatekeeping’ barriers posed by scientific terminology, and scientific 
language in general, and build a foundation for access.
Second, we have observed an increase (albeit modest) in career aspira -
tions. The survey instrument revealed that at the end of the workshops, the stu -
dents developed a better understanding of what it meant to be a scientist. Finally, 
we have observed high levels of situational interest, which is revealed in the survey 
results, as well as the teacher’ s testimony and the researcher’ s observations. Accord -
ing to the teacher, when she conducted experiments with them, the group of stu -
dents who attended the workshops ‘were able to go o ff and get it done themselves’ . 
This confirms the value of conducting non-formal work in a school setting that 
raises situational interest, as this gives the students the opportunity to ‘improve 
their practical skills’ , as the teacher put it in the interview.
The authors are keen to reiterate the challenging environment that the 
students, parents, school, and community are situated in. As stated earlier in this 
paper , inequality is complex, multifaceted, and somewhat messy . This was reflect -
ed in practice in the non-formal environment in which we worked. There were 
serious barriers to engagement, literacy not the least, and this eight-week pro -
gramme is not a panacea to all the issues that have been discussed in the earlier 
part of this paper. However, we do see indicators that are important, particularly 
those that ultimately break down the barriers that are set up around science and 
scientific work and those that aid in building science capital and identity. This 
type of work, which is responsive to students and teachers on a weekly cyclical 
basis through forming a partnership, has a place in breaking down barriers and 
building up diversity in science going forward.
Conclusions
The current societal realities of global immigration and climate change 
imply that diversity, equality, and inclusion will continue to be one of the key 
issues in science education. As noted above, there are many forms of diversity, 
including gender, socio-economic background, ethnicity, linguistic, or culture. 
However, these rarely exist in isolation, as intersectionality theorists remind 
us, and they combine in ways that may lead to forms of oppression that remain 
invisible for the most part. A science education pedagogy that is sensitive to 
challenges that stem from diversity must consider intersectionality. In this pa -
per, we have presented a pilot study, which examined how engaging in a set of 
context-based authentic science workshops in a non-formal setting influences 
students’ self-concept towards science, situational interest, and some elements 
of their science capital. As detailed in the paper, we argued that the concept 

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 133
of intersectionality can provide a robust foundation for interventions aiming 
to target the science identity and the science capital of the students. In our pi -
lot study, we worked with students attending an urban post-primary school in 
Ireland. Most students in our study come from families with a low socio-eco -
nomic background, many of whom have an immigrant or refugee status, with a 
language other than the language of instruction (i.e., English) being spoken at 
home. Thus, multiple forms of diversity exist among students, some of which 
pose challenges that need to be addressed. 
The most important aspects of our findings can be summarised as fol -
lows: Based on the survey instrument data, we have seen that the situational 
interest of the students has clearly improved, yet we did not see any significant 
change in their overall interest in science and career aspirations; and a marginal 
drop in self-concept towards science has been observed. However, one should 
note that due to their particular socio-economic backgrounds, many students 
have literacy issues with minimal parental support; in other words, this is a 
group with very low science capital. As a result, the survey instrument with its 
formal register proved to be challenging for the students, and we found it of 
essential value to complement it with observational and interview data. Indeed, 
the survey data, coupled with the teacher interview, exit cards, and researcher 
observations, led to a more nuanced picture. We have seen that the students 
distinguished between school science and the hands-on practice-based ‘work -
shop science’ . The exit cards, which are completed at the end of each activity, 
show a more positive picture of engagement in that students appreciated the 
context-based science activities and their science identities were well-targeted 
in the workshops. Literacy issues mentioned in the teacher interview are also 
attested by the researcher in their interactions with the students, resulting in a 
certain unwillingness in students to express themselves in writing or engaging 
with the survey instrument. Paradoxically enough, this is a group that needs 
intervention the most and thus, accurate measurement is essential for pro -
gress. Thus, when working with student groups whose identities are marked 
by intersectionality, which results in marginalisation, it is crucial to multiply 
modes of measurement by employing a mixed-methods approach. The prob -
lem of linking formal and non-formal learning in science education has been 
acknowledged in the literature (Hofstein & Rosenfeld, 1996; Rennie, 2007; Gar -
ner et al., 2014). Our findings indicate that specific challenges exist in bridging 
the gap between school science and non-formal context-based activities that 
aim to make the former accessible for students with low socio-economic and 
immigrant backgrounds. In particular, we note that engaging in non-formal 
hands-on activities does not automatically imply an increase in science interest 

134 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
and self-conception of science, as the students may compartmentalise school 
science and non-formal science. Future studies should examine what types of 
interventions may be effectively implemented in this context to enable students 
to form a more unified conception. The findings also indicate that considera -
tions in the nature of science constitute a valuable resource for relating sci -
ence to the real-life experiences of students. Further research should examine 
in more detail whether and to what extent the nature of science considerations 
can be useful in augmenting the science capital and science interest of students 
from diverse backgrounds.
There are several limitations of our study. As this is a pilot study, our 
statistical sample is not very large, and thus, our inferences must be interpreted 
with caution. We also need to acknowledge the literacy issues that were ob -
served in the group as a limitation that may have affected the measurements. 
We began our study with the expectation of decreased levels of literacy; howev -
er, this factor has been compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic. As the teacher 
also attested, the pre-Covid and post-Covid disadvantages are different, given 
that with this group of students, the resources of the parents are limited. This 
limitation was addressed by taking a mixed-methods approach, combining sev -
eral pieces of evidence, and providing language support to the students while 
they filled out the survey instrument. A further limitation of the study was our 
singular focus on one school, which is an urban school with an all-female stu -
dent body. T o address the issues of intersectionality more appropriately, we plan 
to extend our work to include both all-male intake and co-educational schools. 
Furthermore, a sizeable population in Ireland lives in rural areas. Thus, rural 
area schools should also be included to create a more general picture. Finally, 
a significant limitation of this study is that an intervention that aims at a major 
change in science interest and science capital has to be long-term. A long-term 
approach was indeed intended at the beginning of the project, yet because of 
the Covid-19 pandemic, this plan was not sustainable, as Ireland had one of 
the longest lock-down periods in Europe (Chzhen, 2022.) To alleviate this, we 
have conducted a series of workshops extended over several weeks that ena -
bled a more sustained relationship with the school and the students. In future 
research, we plan to extend our workshops towards building a longitudinal pro -
gramme that would provide more robust results concerning change in science 
interest and science capital.

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 135
Acknowledgement
This research was part of the project ‘DiSSI – Diversity in Science to -
wards Social Inclusion – Non-formal Education in Science for Students’ Diver -
sity’ , which is co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union 
under the grant number 612103-EPP-1_2019-1-DE-EPPKA3-IPI-SOC-IN. We 
would like to thank the European Union for its financial support. The European 
Commission’s support for the production of this publication does not consti -
tute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, 
and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be 
made of the information contained therein. The authors would like to acknowl -
edge funding from the Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) through SSPC, the SFI 
Research Centre for Pharmaceuticals, grant number 12/RC/2275_P2, which is 
co-funded under the European Regional Development Fund. We would like to 
thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and com -
ments. The authors would also like to acknowledge all the participating teach -
ers and students in this project for their collaboration and contributions to the 
project, and for their meaningful engagement with the research team. 
References
Acquah, E. O., Szelei, N., & Katz, H. T. (2020). Using modelling to make culturally responsive 
pedagogy explicit in preservice teacher education in Finland. British Educational Research Journal , 
46(1), 122–139.
AlShebli, B. K., Rahwan, T., & Woon, W . L. (2018). The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific 
collaboration. Nature Communications , 9(1), 5163.
Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., & Wong, B. (2015). “Science capital”: A conceptual, 
methodological, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. 
Journal of Research in Science T eaching , 52(7), 922– 948.
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & W ong, B. (2012). “Balancing acts”: Elementary 
school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education , 96(6), 967–989.
Aschbacher, P . R., Li, E., & Roth, E. J. (2010). Is science me? High school students’ identities, 
participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. Journal of Research in Science 
Teaching , 47(5), 564–582.
Avraamidou, L. (2020). Science identity as a landscape of becoming: rethinking recognition and 
emotions through an intersectionality lens. Cultural Studies of Science Education , 15(2), 323–345.
Avraamidou, L. & Schwartz, R. (2021). Who aspires to be a scientist/who is allowed in science? 
science identity as a lens to exploring the political dimension of the nature of science. Cultural Studies 
of Science Education , 16(2), 337–344.

136 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
Barton, A. C., Kang, H., Tan, E., O’Neill, T. B., Bautista-Guerra, J., & Brecklin, C. (2013). Crafting 
a future in science: Tracing middle school girls’ identity work over time and space. American 
Educational Research Journal , 50(1), 37–75.
Barton, A. C. & T an, E. (2018). A longitudinal study of equity-oriented stem-rich making among youth 
from historically marginalized communities. American Educational Research Journal , 55(4), 761–800.
Borg, W . R. & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational Research An Introduction (4th ed.). Longman.
Bourdieu, P . (1990). The Logic of Practice . Stanford University Press. 
Bourdieu, P . & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture . Published in 
association with Theory, Culture & Society. SAGE Publications.
Calabrese Barton, A., Greenberg, D., Kim, W . J., Brien, S., Roby, R., Balzer, M., Turner, C., & Archer, 
L. (2021). Disruptive moments as opportunities towards justice-oriented pedagogical practice in 
informal science learning. Science Education , 105(6), 1229–1251.
Carlone, H. B. & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of 
color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 44(8), 1187–1218.
Carter, L., Weinstein, M., & Bencze, L. (2017). Biopolitics and science education. Cultural Studies 
of Science Education, 12 (4), 761–767.
Chambers, D. W . (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science 
Education, 67(2), 255–265.
Chen, A., Darst, P . W ., & Pangrazi, R. P . (2001). An examination of situational interest and its sources. 
British Journal of Educational Psychology , 71(3), 383–400.
Chen, S. & W ei, B. (2022). Development and validation of an instrument to measure high school 
students’ science identity in science learning. Research in Science Education , 52(1), 111–126.
Chzhen, Y . (2023, July 23). How lockdown highlighted educational inequality in Ireland – new research . 
The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/how-lockdown-highlighted-educational-inequality-
in-ireland-new-research-177413
Clarke, V ., & Braun, V . (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology , 12(3), 297-298.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th Ed.). Routledge.
Considine, J.R., Mihalick, J.E., Mogi-Hein, Y .R., Penick-Parks, M.W . & Van Auken, P .M. (2017). How 
Do Y ou Achieve Inclusive Excellence in the Classroom?. Teaching and Learning , 2017(151), 171-187.
Cooper, G. & Berry, A. (2020). Demographic predictors of senior secondary participation in biology , 
physics, chemistry and earth/space sciences: students’ access to cultural, social and science capital. 
International Journal of Science Education , 42(1), 151–166.
Cooper, G., Berry, A., & Baglin, J. (2020). Demographic predictors of students’ science participation 
over the age of 16: An Australian case study. Research in Science Education , 50(1), 361–373.
Creghan, C., & Adair-Creghan, K. (2015). The Positive Impact of Project-Based Learning 
on Attendance of an Economically Disadvantaged Student Population: A Multiyear Study. 
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 9 (2).
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of 
antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. The University of Chicago Legal 

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 137
Forum , 140, 139–167.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against 
women of color. Stanford Law Review , 43(6), 1241–1299.
Cuevas, P ., Lee, O., Hart, J. & Deaktor, R. (2005), Improving science inquiry with elementary students 
of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 42, 337–357.
Dagher, Zoubeida R. & Erduran, Sibel (2016). Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science 
Education. Science & Education, 25(1–2), 147-164.
DeWitt, J. & Archer, L. (2015). Who Aspires to a Science Career? A comparison of survey responses 
from primary and secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education , 37(13), 
2170–2192.
DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Mau, A. (2016). Dimensions of science capital: exploring its potential for 
understanding students’ science participation. International Journal of Science Education , 38(16), 
2431–2449.
Erduran, S. & Wong, S. L. (2013). Science Curriculum Reform on ‘Scientific Literacy for All’ Across 
National Contexts: Case Studies of Curricula from England & Wales and Hong Kong. In Mansour, N. 
and Wegerif, R. (Eds.). Science Education for Diversity , 179–201. Springer.
Ferguson, S. L. & Lezotte, S. M. (2020). Exploring the state of science stereotypes: Systematic review 
and meta-analysis of the draw-a-scientist checklist. School Science and Mathematics , 120(1), 55–65.
Fowler, K., Windschitl, M., & Richards, J. (2019). Exit tickets: Understanding students, adapting 
instruction, and addressing equity. The Science Teacher , 86(8), 18–26.
Garner, N., Hayes, S. M., and Eilks, I. (2014). Linking formal and non-formal learning in science 
education a reflection from two cases. SISYPHUS journal of education , 2(2), 10–31.
Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: 
Setting the stage, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 15(6), 613–629.
Godec, S., King, H. & Archer, L. (2017). The Science Capital Teaching Approach: engaging students 
with science, promoting social justice. University College London. 
Gorard, S. & See, B. H. (2009). The impact of socioeconomic status on participation and attainment 
in science. Studies in Science Education , 45(1), 93–129.
Haase, T. & Pratschke, J. (2023, July 23). The 2016 Pobal HP deprivation index . Trutz Haase.  
http://trutzhaase.eu/deprivation-index/the-2016-pobal-hp-deprivation-index-for-small-areas/
Harper, A. & Kayumova, S. (2023). Invisible multilingual black and brown girls: Raciolinguistic 
narratives of identity in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 60(5), 1092–1124.
Haynes, A., Joyce, S., & Schweppe, J. (2021). The significance of the declaration of ethnic minority 
status for Irish travellers. Nationalities Papers , 49(2), 270-288.
Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. 
Studies in Science Education, 28 , 87–112.
Holmegaard, H. T . & Archer, L., editors (2023). Science Identities . Contributions from Science 
Education Research. Springer International Publishing.
Hong, L. & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-

138 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 101(46), 16385–16389.
Jones, T . R. & Burrell, S. (2022). Present in class yet absent in science: The individual and societal 
impact of inequitable science instruction and challenge to improve science instruction. Science 
Education , 106(5), 1032–1053.
Kayumova, S. & Dou, R. (2022). Equity and justice in science education: Toward a pluriverse of 
multiple identities and onto-epistemologies. Science Education, 106(5), 1097–1117.
Kayumova, S., McGuire, C. J., & Cardello, S. (2019). From empowerment to response-ability: 
rethinking socio-spatial, environmental justice, and nature-culture binaries in the context of stem 
education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14 (1), 205–229.
Keller, L., Lu ¨dt ke, O., Preckel, F., & Brunner, M. (2023). Educational inequalities at the intersection 
of multiple social categories: An introduction and systematic review of the multilevel analysis of 
individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) approach. Educational Psychology 
Review , 35(1), 31.
Kenny, N., McCoy, S., & Mihut, G. (2020). Special education reforms in Ireland: changing systems, 
changing schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–20.
Kier, M. W ., Blanchard, M. R., Osborne, J. W ., & Albert, J. L. (2014). The development of the stem 
career interest survey (stem-cis). Research in Science Education, 44 (3), 461–481.
Lee, O. & Luykx, A. (2006). Science Education and Student Diversity: Synthesis and Research Agenda. 
Cambridge University Press.
Mansour, N. & Wegerif, R. (Eds.). (2013). Science Education for Diversity. Springer Dordrecht.
Marosi, N., Avraamidou, L., & Galani, L. (2021). Culturally relevant pedagogies in science education 
as a response to global migration. SN Social Sciences, 1(6), 147.
McCoy, S., Byrne, D., & O’Connor, P . (2022). Gender stereotyping in mothers’ and teachers’ 
perceptions of boys’ and girls’ mathematics performance in Ireland. Oxford Review of Education , 48(3), 
341–363.
McHugh, M., Hayes, S., T ajber, L., & Ryan, L. (2022). Medicine maker: An outreach activity for 
pharmaceutical manufacturing and health literacy. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(3), 1231–1237.
McManus, B., Dwyer, A., Childs, P ., Broggy, J. & Mccormack, O. (2015). Teaching Enquiry with 
mysteries incorporated: the benefits of involving pre-service teachers. LUMAT International Journal 
on Math Science and Technology Education, 3(4), 512–528. 
Mihut, G., McCoy, S., & Maître, B. (2022). A capability approach to understanding academic and 
socio-emotional outcomes of students with special educational needs in Ireland. Oxford Review of 
Education , 48(3), 271–288.
OECD (2012). Recognition of Non-formal and Informal Learning - Home. OECD. https://www.oecd.
org/education/skills-beyond-school/recognitionofnon-formalandinformallearning-home.htm 
OECD/PISA (2009). PISA 2006 Technical Report. OECD Publishing. 
Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning science outside of school. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), 
Handbook of research and science education (pp. 125–167). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic 

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 139
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist , 55(1), 6878.
Saldana, J. M. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3
rd
 ed.). SAGE Publications.
Sharpe, R. & Abrahams, I. (2020). Secondary school students’ attitudes to practical work in biology, 
chemistry and physics in England. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38(1), 84–104.
Smyth, E., McCoy, S., & Kingston, G. (2015). ‘Learning from the evaluation of DEIS’: Research Series 
(39). Economic and Social Research Institute. https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/RS39.pdf 
Smyth, E. (2020). Shaping educational expectations: the perspectives of 13-year-olds and their parents. 
Educational Review , 72(2), 173–195.
Snětinová, M., Kácovský, P ., & Machalická, J. (2018). Hands-On Experiments in the Interactive 
Physics Laboratory: Students’ Intrinsic Motivation and Understanding. Center for Educational Policy 
Studies Journal , 8(1), 55-75. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.319
Summerlee, A.J.S. (2018). Inquiry-based learning: A socially just approach to higher education. 
Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 28 (4), 406–418.
Tobin, K., Seiler, G., & Smith, M. W . (1999). Educating science teachers for the sociocultural diversity 
of urban schools. Research in Science Education, 29(1), 69–88.
White, A. M., DeCuir-Gunby, J. T ., & Kim, S. (2019). A mixed methods exploration of the relationships 
between the racial identity, science identity, science self-e ffi cacy, and science achievement of African 
American students at HBCUs. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 57, 54–71.
Wright, G. W . & Delgado, C. (2023). Generating a framework for gender and sexual diversity-
inclusive stem education. Science Education, 107 (3), 713–740.
Zhang, L. (2016). Is Inquiry-Based Science Teaching Worth the Effort?. Science & Education, 25, 
897–915.

140 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
Appendix: Data Tables
Table 5
Results of survey instrument items on “interest in science”.
Interest in science
(OECD/PISA, 2009)
Strongly agree 
& agree % (n)
Neither agree 
nor disagree 
% (n)
Strongly 
disagree & 
disagree % (n)
Strongly agree 
& agree % (n)
Neither agree 
nor disagree 
% (n)
Strongly 
disagree & 
disagree % (n)
Pre-test, n = 16 Post-test, n = 18
1.  I generally have fun when I 
am learning science topics.
94% (15) 5% (1) 0
61% 
(11)
28% (5) 11% (2)
2.  I like reading about science. 81% (13) 0 18% (3)
56% 
(10)
11% (2) 33% (6)
3.  I am happy doing science 
problems.
69%(11) 25% (4) 6% (1)
28% 
(5)
44% (8) 28% (4)
4.  I enjoy acquiring new 
knowledge in science.
75%(12) 19% (3) 6% (1)
61% 
(11)
17% (3) 22% (4)
5.  I am interested in learning 
about science.
94%(15) 0 6% (1)
50% 
(9)
28% (5) 22 % (4)
16.  Science topics are easy for 
me.
31% (5) 44% (7) 25% (4)
34% 
(7)
28% (5) 38% (6)

c e p s Journal | V ol.14 | N
o
1 | Y ear 2024 141
Table 6
Results of survey instrument items on “motivation. ”
Motivation (Ryan & Deci, 
2000)
Strongly agree 
& agree % (n)
Neither agree 
nor disagree 
% (n)
Strongly 
disagree & 
disagree % (n)
Strongly agree 
& agree % (n)
Neither agree 
nor disagree 
% (n)
Strongly 
disagree & 
disagree% (n)
Pre-test, n = 16 Post-test, n = 18
  I participate actively in science class ...
19.  … because I feel like its a 
good way to improve my 
understanding of the mate-
rial.
75% (12) 25% (4) 0 56% (10)
16% 
(3)
28% (5)
20.  … because others might 
think badly of me if I didn’t.
12 % (2)
25%(4)
63% (10)
29% (5)
18% (3)
53% (9)
21.  … because a solid un-
derstanding of science is 
important to my intellectual 
growth.
75% (12) 19% (3) 6% (1) 59% (10) 0 41% (7)
  I am likely to follow my instructor’s suggestions for studying science ...
22.  … because I would get a bad 
grade if I didn’t do what she 
suggests.
63% (10) 25 % (4) 12% (2) 59% (10) 18% (3) 23% (4)
23.  ... because I am worried that 
I am not going to perform 
well in the course.
56% (9) 13% (2) 31% (5) 47% (8) 41% (7) 12% (2)
24.   ... because its easier to 
follow her suggestions than 
come up with my own study 
strategies.
62% (10) 19% (3) 19% (3) 67% (12) 22% (4) 11% (2)
25.  ... because she seems to 
have insight about how best 
to learn the material.
94% (15) 6% (1) 0
76 % 
(13)
12% (2) 12% (2)
The reason that I work to expand my knowledge of science is ...
26.  … because it’s interesting to 
learn more about the nature 
of science.
94% 
(15 )
0 6% (1) 78% (14) 11% (2) 11% (2)
27.  … because it’s a challenge 
to really understand how to 
answer science questions.
50% (8) 38% (6) 12% (2) 59% (10) 29% (5) 12% (2)
28.  … because I want others 
to see that I am intelligent 
when discussing science 
topics.
38% (6) 25% (4) 38% (6) 41% (7) 41% (7) 18% (3)
 

142 non-formal science education: moving towards more inclusive pedagogies for ...
Biographical note
Genco Guralp, PhD, is an assistant professor in philosophy at San 
Diego State University, and a postdoctoral researcher at SSPC, the Science 
Foundation Ireland Research Centre for Pharmaceuticals, at the University of 
Limerick. His post-doctoral work is on Science Education and Public Engage -
ment in Science through the ERASMUS+ DiSSI project. His research areas 
include the history and philosophy of science, philosophy of cosmology, phi -
losophy of physics, and the historical epistemology of science. His recent work 
focuses on science studies and the sociology of science in the context of STEM 
education and public engagement with science.
Martin McHugh, PhD, is a Projects and Public Engagement Officer 
at SSPC. He is a former science and biology teacher and in 2017 completed a 
PhD investigating the impact of video technology on student interest and en-
gagement throughout secondary schools in Ireland. Currently, Martin develops 
medicine and health-themed public engagement activities for diverse public 
groups, and he is active in collaborative research investigations into the impact 
of informal and non-formal learning environments on participants.
Sarah Hayes, PhD, is the Chief Operations Officer at SSPC, the SFI 
Research Centre for Pharmaceuticals. Sarah is a former physics and chemistry 
teacher and completed her PhD in science education. Currently, Sarah works 
with a broad number of stakeholders including academic, industry, and societal 
partners to enhance collaboration and develop impactful public engagement 
projects. She conducts research in the area of informal and non-formal learning 
and engagement in science.