This research project is associated with a Ph.D. investigation, which aims to develop (design, implement, and evaluate the impact) a didact resource based on comics for science communication and science education (science comics), related to the Health Education field. The context of action and investigation is a non-formal education environment – a science center based in Portugal – and the target audience is composed of children from the first years of schooling. 

 The methodology is based on the Research and Development (R&D) ideas, combining principles of qualitative research (Creswell, 2012) with the process of Design Thinking (DT) for Educators (Riverdale & IDEO, 2012). 

 The research question is “How to communicate science to children, using comics, in order to foster learning?". 

 To answer this research question, three specific objectives were defined: 

1. Understand how the characteristics of comics can be used to communicate scientific content and what competencies can be developed in this process.
2. Develop (design, implement, and evaluate the impact) the didact resource based on comics, through activities implemented in a non-formal educational context.
3. Co-create, with the education and communication experts involved in this process, a framework to develop didact resources based on comics for science communication and education (science comics).

In the field of science communication and science education, comics emerge as a powerful mediator tool, fostering engaging and effective learning experiences. In this context, we can use the term science comics, i.e. the “comics which have as one of their main aims to communicate science or to educate the reader about some non-fictional, scientific concept or theme” (Tatalovic, 2009, p.4). Previous studies (omitted for blind review) concluded that comics are an interesting resource for science communication and education since they have the potential to explain concepts that are difficult to visualize (such as abstract scientific concepts) and, as a didactic resource, it is important to be combined with a didactic strategy adapted to the learning objectives, the target audience, and the educational context. 

Many authors have been studying science communication and science education simultaneously (Baram-Tsabari & Osborne, 2015; Lewenstein, 2015; McKinnon & Vos, 2015) to comprehend the relationship between both. They are distinct disciplinary areas but may share some characteristics, such as similar goals, strategies, and learning contexts. It is important to comprehend the relationship between science communication and science education to understand how comics can contribute to achieving the expected results of both disciplinary areas.  

One of the main goals is to promote scientific literacy, and it is important to develop this competency in children since the first years of schooling, to develop critical citizens who can make informed decisions based on science.  According to McKinnon and Vos (2015), “Each definition of scientific literacy incorporates common elements: principally an understanding of scientific concepts and the nature of science, interest in science and an ability to find and evaluate information in order to make decisions about science-based issues” (p. 301)

Nowadays, non-formal science education contexts have an important role in promoting scientific literacy in society. According to Rodrigues (2016), non-formal education is an important ally of formal education and even informal education, as a lifelong learning strategy. Schools are no longer seen as the only space for learning and other educational contexts have gained importance to ensure the scientific culture of society. 

The promotion of scientific literacy is associated with the development of competencies, considering that “the concept of competency implies more than just the acquisition of knowledge and skills; it involves the mobilization of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values to meet complex demands” (OECD, 2018).

As already stated, this is an R&D investigation, which combines qualitative research with the DT process. DT is inherently human-centered, emphasizing empathy and a deep comprehension of people’s needs and motivations. The DT process has five stages: discovery, interpretation, ideation, experimentation, and evolution. Qualitative research methods were combined with procedures of the DT process, to deeply understand each stage. The first phase of the research project involved the discovery and interpretation stages. The discovery stage is the moment to be aware of new opportunities and understand the research problem and the design challenge. It was carried out through systematic literature reviews, focus group interviews, and science comics analysis. The interpretation stage involved content analysis (Bardin, 2012), to interpret the findings of the previous stage. The result of this stage was a framework to develop science comics – still in its first version – which guided the next stages. The second phase of the research project involved the other stages: ideation, experimentation, and evolution. The ideation stage was the moment: to co-create different ideas for the didactic sequence and the didactic resource, with the stakeholders of the project: educators, science communicators, and – in the specific case of this project – health researchers; to create narratives using the steps described by (omitted for blind review) which supposed finding a character, defining the scenery, determining the time of the action, and defining the lines of action, including an initial situation, a complication, incidents, and a resolution. The experimentation stage included: the prototype’s building to test the ideas in context; the data collection using techniques such as observation, semi-structured interviews, and group interviews. Finally, in the evolution stage, the framework to develop science comics has been refined to support the development of new didactic resources based on comics to be used in science communication and science education activities.

Since this project aimed to understand how to develop didactic resources, it was useful to apply a methodological approach that combines product development methodology and qualitative research methodology. The combination of the DT procedures with the qualitative research methods allowed us to deeply understand each stage of the research as it was precisely focused on the development process itself. The co-creation techniques were important considering the multidisciplinary essence of the project. Therefore, the multidisciplinary team collaborated to build knowledge and new ideas regarding the teaching (and learning) strategies related to the disciplinary areas involved: science communication, science education, health education, and languages. It was concluded that the didactic resource developed has the potential to mediate activities that involve science communication, science education, and language education – especially because of the essence of comics itself, composed of visual and verbal language, creating a narrative through a story plot. The Portuguese and the Science and Technology learning objectives from the Primary School curriculum were considered to create the narratives and the didactic sequence. It was important to understand the characteristics of the non-formal education context. For instance, to consider that the activities would be carried out on Saturday morning outside school. Thus, the didactic strategies had to be less rigid and more flexible to meet the expectations of the target audience. To sum up, creating a didactic sequence that involves the use of the resource previously designed and is consistent with the proposed learning objectives and the characteristics of the education context makes the resource able to support the development of competencies related to scientific literacy and language literacy in children.

Baram-Tsabari, A., & Osborne, J. (2015). Bridging science education and science communication research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21202 Bardin, L. (2012). Análise de Conteúdo. Edições 70. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research (4th ed.). Pearson. Lewenstein, B. V. (2015). Identifying what matters: Science education, science communication, and democracy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21201 McKinnon, M., & Vos, J. (2015). Engagement as a Threshold Concept for Science Education and Science Communication. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 5(4), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2014.986770 OECD. (2018). The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030. In OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/about/documents/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf Riverdale, & IDEO. (2012). Design Thinking for Educators (2a). Rodrigues, A. V. (2016). Perspetiva Integrada de Educação em Ciências: Da teoria à prática (1a). UA Editora. Tatalovic, M. (2009). Science comics as tools for science education and communication: A brief, exploratory study. Journal of Science Communication, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.08040202