This creative response is a role-play card game designed to communicate the key findings of Turnhout et al. (2020), who argue that co-production often reinforces existing power structures, privileges scientific knowledge, and fails to achieve transformative outcomes. Players take on stakeholder roles (e.g. Scientist, Activist, Policy Officer), each with different motivations, fears, and power levels. Through character-specific problems, event-driven tensions, and group reflection, players explore the politics of participation from within.
The game uses communication techniques grounded in constructivist learning theory, which emphasises active, experience-based knowledge-building and sociocultural learning theory, which highlights the role of social interaction and context (Vygotsky, 1978). Players construct understanding through dialogue, role-play, and reflection methods that support engagement, identity formation, and critical thinking (Gee, 2008), these game mechanics make for a more inclusive learning environment for kinesthetic, visual, and auditory learners (Zeni et al., 2019).
The structure mirrors the four stages of co-production identified by Turnhout et al.: framing, participation, knowledge integration, and outcomes. Rather than relying on quizzes the game employs narrative, open-ended discussion, and tension-based scenarios shown to improve learning outcomes (Qian and Clark, 2016; Randel et al., 1992).
Visually, the game follows multimedia and user-centred design principles. Colour-coded cards and schematic icons reduce cognitive load and aid schema-building (Mayer and Moreno, 2003; Clark and Lyons, 2010), while clean layouts and purposeful visuals avoid decorative distraction (Hegarty, 2011). Rather than delivering fixed outcomes, this game prioritises learning, reflection and transformations, just as Turnhout et al., (2020) says is needed for “true” co-production
This worksheet was designed for Key Stage 2 learners (ages 7-9), using research-led principles in science communication, literacy, and early years pedagogy. A sans serif font (Tahoma, 12–14pt) was selected for clarity and accessibility, aligning with the British Dyslexia Association’s (BDA, 2018) guidance. Well-structured, chunked layouts with clear headings and visual scaffolding support comprehension and retention (Englert and Hiebert, 1984; Honig, 2009).
Icons (e.g. bees, flowers) were used not as decoration but as instructional cues to support dual coding and reduce cognitive load (Mayer, 2014). Scientific vocabulary, including Tier 2 and Tier 3 terms like pollinatorand habitat,was embedded in meaningful, observed contexts. Research confirms that children of this age benefit from intentional, situated vocabulary use (Newton andNewton, 2000; Snow, 2010).
Seductive detail theory informed the exclusion of emotionally engaging but irrelevant material, which is known to hinder recall of core scientific information (Harp and Mayer, 1997; Sadoski, 2001). Instead, identity-based narrative framing "you are a scientist" promotes engagement without distraction (Avraamidou and Osborne, 2009).
The task is rooted in place-based and observational science: exploring familiar school grounds helps children connect abstract concepts to lived experience (Rickinson et al., 2004; Gruenewald, 2003). Structured inquiry (Pedaste et al., 2015) develops critical thinking, while follow-up reflection and action planning foster environmental agency and co-productive engagement in class and in family setting (Trott, 2020; Lawson et al., 2019).The result is a workbook that allows for introducing the scientific process while cementing class learning andenvironmental thinking.
References
Avraamidou, L. and Osborne, J. (2009) ‘The Role of Narrative in Communicating Science’, International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), pp. 1683–1707. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802380695.
BDA (2018) Dyslexia Style Guide 2018: Creating Dyslexia Friendly Content , British Dyslexia Association. London: BDA. Available at: https://iped-editors.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/British-Dyslexia-Association-Style-Guide-2018.pdf (Accessed: 1 August 2025).
Englert, C.S. and Hiebert, E.H. (1984) ‘Children’s developing awareness of text structures in expository materials.’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), pp. 65–74. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.1.65.
Gruenewald, D.A. (2003) ‘The Best of Both Worlds: a Critical Pedagogy of Place’, Educational Researcher, 32(4), pp. 3–12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x032004003.
Harp, S.F. and Mayer, R.E. (1998) ‘How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning.’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), pp. 414–434. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.414.Honig, S. (2009) ‘What Do Children Write in Science? A Study of the Genre Set in a Primary Science Classroom’, Written Communication, 27(1), pp. 87–119. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309350159.
Lawson, D.F., Stevenson, K.T., Peterson, M.N., Carrier, S.J., Strnad, R.L. and Seekamp, E. (2019) ‘Children can foster climate change concern among their parents’, Nature Climate Change, 9(6), pp. 458–462. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0463-3.
Mayer, R.E. (2014) ‘Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning’, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, pp. 43–71. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139547369.005.
Newton, D.P. and Newton, L.D. (2000) ‘Do Teachers Support Causal Understanding through their Discourse when Teaching Primary Science?’, British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), pp. 599–613. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/713651580.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S., Kamp, E., Manoli, C., Zacharia, Z. and Tsourlidaki, E. (2015) ‘Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle’, Educational Research Review, 14(14), pp. 47–61. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003.
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M., Sanders, D. and Benefield, P. (2004) A review of research on outdoor learning. Available at: https://cdn.fieldstudiescouncil.net/fsj/A_Review_of_Research_on_Outdoor_Learning.pdf (Accessed: 1 August 2025).
Sadoski, M. (2001) ‘Resolving the Effects of Concreteness on Interest, Comprehension, and Learning Important Ideas From Text’, Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), pp. 263–281. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016675822931.
Snow, C.E. (2010) ‘Academic Language and the Challenge of Reading for Learning About Science’, Science, 328(5977), pp. 450–452. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182597.
Trott, C.D. (2020) ‘Children’s constructive climate change engagement: Empowering awareness, agency, and action’, Environmental Education Research, 26(4), pp. 1–23. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1675594.
Avraamidou, L. and Osborne, J. (2009) ‘The Role of Narrative in Communicating Science’, International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), pp. 1683–1707. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802380695.
BDA (2018) Dyslexia Style Guide 2018: Creating Dyslexia Friendly Content , British Dyslexia Association. London: BDA. Available at: https://iped-editors.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/British-Dyslexia-Association-Style-Guide-2018.pdf (Accessed: 1 August 2025).
Englert, C.S. and Hiebert, E.H. (1984) ‘Children’s developing awareness of text structures in expository materials.’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), pp. 65–74. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.1.65.
Gruenewald, D.A. (2003) ‘The Best of Both Worlds: a Critical Pedagogy of Place’, Educational Researcher, 32(4), pp. 3–12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x032004003.
Harp, S.F. and Mayer, R.E. (1998) ‘How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning.’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), pp. 414–434. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.414.
Honig, S. (2009) ‘What Do Children Write in Science? A Study of the Genre Set in a Primary Science Classroom’, Written Communication, 27(1), pp. 87–119. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309350159.
Lawson, D.F., Stevenson, K.T., Peterson, M.N., Carrier, S.J., Strnad, R.L. and Seekamp, E. (2019) ‘Children can foster climate change concern among their parents’, Nature Climate Change, 9(6), pp. 458–462. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0463-3.
Mayer, R.E. (2014) ‘Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning’, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, pp.43–71. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139547369.005.
Newton, D.P. and Newton, L.D. (2000) ‘Do Teachers Support Causal Understanding through their Discourse when Teaching Primary Science?’, British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), pp. 599–613. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/713651580.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S., Kamp, E., Manoli, C., Zacharia, Z. and Tsourlidaki, E. (2015) ‘Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle’, Educational Research Review, 14(14), pp. 47–61. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003.
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M., Sanders, D. and Benefield, P. (2004) A review of research on outdoor learning. Available at: https://cdn.fieldstudiescouncil.net/fsj/A_Review_of_Research_on_Outdoor_Learning.pdf(Accessed: 1 August 2025).
Sadoski, M. (2001) ‘Resolving the Effects of Concreteness on Interest, Comprehension, and Learning Important Ideas From Text’, EducationalPsychology Review, 13(3), pp. 263–281. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016675822931.Snow, C.E. (2010) ‘Academic Language and the Challenge of Reading for Learning About Science’, Science, 328(5977), pp. 450–452. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182597.
Trott, C.D. (2020) ‘Children’s constructive climate change engagement: Empowering awareness, agency, and action’, Environmental Education Research, 26(4), pp. 1–23. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1675594.