Transforming Initial Wonder into Structured Understanding: A Descriptive Report of an Experiential Science Outreach Station ^†

Abstract

The transition from secondary school to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) higher education may be hindered when science is perceived as abstract or disconnected from everyday experience. This descriptive educational-practice report presents Beyond the Magic, a participatory science station implemented during the annual ConCiencia FACTA outreach event at the Faculty of Food Science and Technology, National University of Comahue, Argentina. Approximately 200 students aged 15–18 from eight regional secondary schools attended the event in October 2025. During approximately 45-min visits in groups of 10–15, students encountered eight short chemistry and physics experiences organized around prediction, observation, guided explanation, and discussion. Retrospective facilitator observations were organized into descriptive categories: predictions and alternative explanations, spontaneous questions, everyday-life connections, changes in willingness to participate, questions about university study and research, and participation by accompanying teachers. The facilitators perceived broader participation as each visit progressed. These observations were not counted, coded, independently assessed, or collected as contemporaneous transcripts, and no measures of learning, situational interest, STEM identity, or educational aspirations were administered. The contribution is therefore a replicable implementation design rather than evidence of educational effectiveness or changes in STEM pathways.

1. Introduction

Upper-secondary education is a pivotal period for students considering further study and occupational pathways. Contact with authentic scientific settings can complement formal classroom instruction by allowing students to encounter scientific practices, university spaces, and disciplinary communities. Research has reported associations between formal and informal science experiences, STEM career interest, and STEM identity among high-school students, while also showing that these relationships depend on program design and prior interest [1]. A meta-analysis of informal science education similarly found a positive association between participation and interest in and attitudes toward STEM, but emphasized the limited number and methodological heterogeneity of available studies [2]. College-run programs may thus form part of a broader science-learning ecology, although participation alone does not demonstrate a causal effect on educational or career pathways [3,4]. Recent longitudinal research in informal science-learning settings has further shown that science efficacy, STEM identity, and scientific career interest are related but distinct constructs whose development requires direct and repeated measurement over time [5].

Hands-on work does not automatically produce understanding. Its educational value depends on the quality of participation and on how observable action is connected to concepts. Holstermann et al. found that practical experience was related to interest for some, but not all, hands-on biology activities, and that the emotional quality of the experience was positively associated with interest [6]. Situational interest is especially relevant to brief outreach formats: novelty, physical activity, meaningfulness, and social interaction can focus attention temporarily [7,8]. However, triggered situational interest is conceptually distinct from maintained or individual interest and should not be inferred from behavioral observation alone [9]. Recent chemistry-education research has likewise assessed situational interest through repeated student-report measures, reinforcing the need to distinguish this construct from behavioral participation alone [10].

A recurring challenge in university outreach is transforming the momentary fascination generated by spectacular demonstrations into opportunities for scientific reasoning. The prediction–observation–explanation (POE) strategy makes prior ideas visible by asking learners to anticipate and justify an outcome, observe the phenomenon, and then compare prediction and evidence while constructing an explanation [11]. Experimental work on classroom demonstrations likewise indicates that prediction and discussion can make demonstrations more educationally productive than passive observation [12]. More generally, meta-analyses of inquiry-based instruction emphasize the importance of appropriate guidance [13,14]. Facilitator questions can scaffold conceptual thinking, while student-generated questions can provide resources for inquiry and discussion [15,16].

The present paper positions Beyond the Magic (El lado B de la magia) as a descriptive educational-practice and implementation report. The station formed part of ConCiencia FACTA, an annual outreach event organized by the Extension Secretariat of the Faculty of Food Science and Technology, National University of Comahue. The October 2025 event welcomed secondary-school groups visiting the Faculty while considering their higher education options. The objectives are to (i) describe the design and implementation of the station, (ii) organize the participation patterns retrospectively perceived by the facilitators into descriptive categories, and (iii) discuss the pedagogical rationale, practical replicability, and evidentiary limitations of the format. The paper does not evaluate educational effectiveness or changes in STEM aspirations, identity, or subsequent choices.

2. Educational Context and Project Design

2.1. Setting and Participants

ConCiencia FACTA was held at the Faculty of Food Science and Technology in Villa Regina, Río Negro, Argentina, during October 2025. It was a single-day event with morning and afternoon activities. The event was attended by eight secondary schools from the surrounding region, each bringing approximately 20–30 students, for an estimated total attendance of approximately 200 students. The students were 15–18 years old and were accompanied by approximately ten secondary-school teachers. The visit took place as part of a university outreach event designed to introduce prospective students to the University’s academic programs.

The event featured several stations showcasing different academic programs and projects. At Beyond the Magic, students participated in groups of approximately 10–15. A visit to the station lasted about 45 min. The two author-facilitators designed and facilitated the activities, provided theoretical explanations, supervised hands-on work, and performed procedures involving greater safety risks. Individual activities lasted approximately 5 min, although the sequence was adapted to the pace of each group and the discussions that emerged. Materials and preloaded solutions were arranged before each group arrived to minimize transition time.

2.2. Pedagogical Sequence

Each phenomenon was explored through four related steps: (1) prediction, in which students anticipated the outcome; (2) observation or supervised manipulation; (3) guided explanation linking the observed effect to its underlying scientific principle; and (4) open discussion. A typical five-minute cycle allocated approximately 30–60 s to prediction, 1–2 min to demonstration or manipulation, 1–2 min to guided explanation, and 1–2 min to discussion, with flexible timing according to the group. The facilitators repeatedly used prompts such as “What do you think will happen?”, “Why do you think so?”, “What changed?”, “Did it match your prediction?”, “How would you explain it?”, “Where have you seen something similar?”, “What variable produced the change?”, and “What evidence supports that explanation?”. The aim was not to present the effects as unexplained “magic,” but to use surprise as a temporary attentional resource before replacing it with a scientifically grounded explanation.

Table 1. Typical five-minute prediction–observation–explanation cycle used for one demonstration.

Phase	Approximate Time	Representative Facilitator Prompts	Facilitator Purpose
Prediction	30–60 s	“What do you think will happen?” “Why do you think so?”	Elicit initial ideas before revealing the outcome.
Demonstration or supervised manipulation	1–2 min	“What changed after the materials were mixed?”	Focus observation on the relevant change while maintaining safety.
Guided explanation	1–2 min	“Did the observation match your prediction?” “How would you explain it?”	Compare prediction and evidence and connect the effect to a scientific principle.
Discussion and connection	1–2 min	“Where have you seen something similar?” “What evidence supports that explanation?”	Relate the phenomenon to prior knowledge, everyday contexts, and further questions.

provides a replicable outline of the cycle.

The extent of student involvement depended on the level of risk associated with each activity. Students directly mixed preloaded solutions, sprayed a prepared indicator, added household materials, prepared alginate droplets, and immersed copper wire in a prepared solution. The facilitators carried out the procedure involving alcohol-soaked cotton because it required the use of an open flame. The preparation of the eutectic solvent was not performed at the station; instead, students examined the initial solid components and the final liquid product and watched a laboratory video showing the preparation process.

2.3. Experimental Experiences

Table 2. Experimental experiences used at the Beyond the Magic station.

Experience	Student Task and Observable Outcome	Conceptual Focus
Invisible message	Students sprayed an ethanolic turmeric extract containing curcuminoid indicators onto paper previously inscribed with aqueous sodium bicarbonate; the hidden message (“Thank you”) turned reddish-brown.	Curcumin as an acid-base indicator and color change under basic conditions.
Iodine clock	Students mixed two preloaded solutions: 0.02 M KIO3 and 0.02 M NaHSO3 containing starch (5.0 mL of the latter solution was used). After a short delay, an intense blue color appeared.	Reaction kinetics, consumption of bisulfite, iodine formation, and the starch-iodine complex.
Balloon drawn into a bottle	A facilitator ignited alcohol-soaked cotton inside a bottle and placed a balloon over the opening. After the flame was extinguished and the gas had cooled, atmospheric pressure pushed the balloon inward.	Heating and cooling of gases, pressure differences, and atmospheric pressure.
Surface-tension disruption	Students added detergent to water sprinkled with ground pepper and observed the rapid outward movement of the pepper particles. In a second demonstration, they placed drops of food coloring on milk and touched the surface with a detergent-coated swab, producing dynamic color patterns.	Molecular cohesion, surface tension, surfactants, and surface-tension gradients.
Protein-stabilized foam	A facilitator placed egg white and sodium bicarbonate in an open Erlenmeyer flask before the activity. Students then added vinegar, generating CO2 and a persistent foam.	Acid-carbonate gas generation and stabilization of bubbles by egg-white proteins.
Direct spherification	Students used droppers to add sodium alginate solution to a calcium chloride bath, rinsed the resulting spheres with water, and examined them by touch without ingesting them.	Calcium-mediated alginate crosslinking and interfacial gel formation.
Silver deposition on copper	Students immersed copper wire in a tube containing 1 M AgNO3 and observed the deposition of silver on the copper surface.	Oxidation-reduction and metal displacement: copper oxidation coupled to silver-ion reduction.
Eutectic transformation	Students examined solid choline chloride and oxalic acid, the homogeneous liquid obtained from their mixture, and a video showing the laboratory preparation of the eutectic solvent.	Hydrogen-bond interactions, melting-point depression, deep eutectic solvents, and links to green-extraction research.

summarizes the experiences and the scientific concepts involved in each. The table records the procedures as implemented; it is not intended as a stand-alone laboratory protocol.

The eutectic demonstration connected foundational chemistry with an active institutional research project entitled “Sustainable extraction of bioactive compounds from regional fruit and vegetable raw materials and their residues using natural deep eutectic solvents (NADES)”. Natural deep eutectic solvents are being investigated as tunable media for extracting bioactive compounds from agri-food materials and by-products, although solvent performance, safety, and environmental attributes depend on composition and use conditions and should not be generalized without specific evidence [17,18]. At the outreach station, the connection to current research was used to show that the same intermolecular concepts invoked to explain a visible phase transformation also underpin contemporary food science research.

2.4. Safety and Data Collection

The activities were conducted under continuous supervision. Facilitators wore laboratory coats and used gloves and protective eyewear as required. Students wore gloves and safety glasses whenever the activity required their use. All work was conducted on protected surfaces using containment trays. Water, a fire extinguisher, a first-aid kit, and spill-response materials were readily available. The ethanolic turmeric extract was handled away from heat and ignition sources. The alcohol-soaked cotton procedure was performed exclusively by a facilitator. Ingestion of experimental materials was prohibited. Chemical residues were disposed of through the laboratory’s routine chemical waste management system. No incidents occurred during the event.

The event was designed as an educational outreach activity rather than a human-participant research study. After the event, the two facilitators jointly reconstructed recurring forms of participation from memory. No observation schedule, field notes, audio recordings, interview protocol, or independently rated data were used. The examples reported below are therefore representative recollections rather than verbatim transcripts or frequency data. No identifiable photographs of participants are included to protect participant privacy, particularly because the activity involved secondary-school students.

3. Observational Findings

3.1. Predictions and Initial Explanations

Students regularly offered predictions before outcomes were revealed and compared them with subsequent observations. For the balloon-in-a-bottle demonstration, remembered predictions included that the balloon would inflate, burn, break, or remain unchanged. Initial explanations commonly invoked the idea that “the fire sucks the air,” creates a vacuum, or consumes the oxygen. For the iodine clock, students variously predicted an immediate blue color, no change, or a gradual change while mixing; remembered explanations included that the substances “activate suddenly,” that complete mixing triggers the color, or that the reaction needs time to begin. In other activities, students suggested that detergent pushes or repels pepper, that calcium freezes alginate droplets, that copper absorbs dissolved silver, or that the two solids in the eutectic demonstration melt or react to generate a liquid. These examples were used as starting points for guided comparison with the observed evidence and the relevant scientific explanation.

3.2. Spontaneous Questions and Everyday-Life Connections

Spontaneous questions extended beyond the immediate outcome. For the balloon demonstration, students asked whether a vacuum had formed, what happened to the air, whether all oxygen had been consumed, and whether the effect would change with bottle size or a candle. For the iodine clock, they asked why the delay was followed by an abrupt color change, whether the rate could be changed, why the product was blue, and whether the change was chemical. Spherification prompted questions about edibility, liquid interiors, culinary television programs, alternative liquids, and storage time. The NADES activity elicited questions about why two solids form a liquid, possible natural occurrence, industrial applications, environmental claims, and the local research project.

Students connected the activities with familiar contexts: turmeric as a food ingredient and a source of household stains; starch in potatoes, rice, and bread, including questions about gluten-free foods; vacuum-sealed jars, food packaging, and pressure changes during travel; detergents, greasy cookware, insects on water, and soap bubbles; meringues, cakes, and other protein-stabilized foams; “false caviar” produced through spherification and television cooking programs; jewellery, corrosion, and metal coatings; and extraction of colors or antioxidants from fruit for food, cosmetic, or pharmaceutical applications. More broadly, participants connected the activities with concepts encountered in school science classes, experiments seen on social media, household cleaning practices, industrial food processing, analytical laboratory work, and scientific research conducted at the University.

3.3. Perceived Changes in Willingness to Participate

The facilitators perceived a recurring change over the approximately 45-min visits. At the beginning, answers often came from one or two students while others remained silent. As the sequence progressed, more students responded without being directly called upon, volunteered to manipulate materials, offered predictions despite uncertainty, and debated explanations with peers before the facilitator intervened. Initially reserved students sometimes began asking questions or proposing alternatives. Remembered remarks such as “I want to try,” “let me do it,” “can I add the reagent?”, “wait, I think this will happen,” and “I think it is due to something else” illustrate the perceived change in the interactional climate and the students’ growing willingness to manipulate the materials and add the reagents themselves. Toward the end, some groups began anticipating the prediction stage before the prompt was posed. These patterns were not counted, coded, or independently rated and should be interpreted only as facilitator perceptions of implementation.

3.4. University-Related Questions and Accompanying Teachers

Some questions moved from the phenomena to university study and scientific work: what the facilitators had studied, program duration, the amount of chemistry, access to laboratories from the first year, daily work in research, student participation in projects, scholarships, employment in research, and whether scientific careers required leaving the region. The NADES demonstration provided a direct bridge to current research at the Faculty. Accompanying secondary-school teachers helped formulate questions, reminded students of related school content, asked the facilitators questions of greater scientific depth, and supported group management. The facilitators estimated that most accompanying teachers (approximately 80%) were alumni of the Faculty, which also enabled informal connections between school subjects and university experiences.

All eight planned experiences were completed during the morning and afternoon sessions without reported incidents. Across the categories above, discussion often continued after individual activities had concluded. The observations document how the station operated; they do not establish changes in scientific understanding, situational interest, STEM identity, career aspirations, or future educational choices.

4. Discussion

The experience illustrates how a short university outreach station can be designed so that visual impact is followed immediately by intellectual work. The central design decision was to delay explanation until students had made a prediction and observed the phenomenon. This allowed facilitators to elicit initial reasoning and use discrepancies between prediction and observation as material for discussion. This interpretation is consistent with evidence that demonstrations become more instructionally productive when learners predict and discuss outcomes rather than observe passively [12], and with research on teacher and student questioning as resources for scientific thinking [15,16]. The present report, however, did not measure conceptual learning.

The facilitators’ perception of increasing willingness to participate may be consistent with processes described in situational-interest research. The station combined novelty, rapid visible changes, hands-on participation, social interaction, and links to familiar contexts [6,7,8]. Nevertheless, situational interest was not measured, and behavioral participation cannot establish either triggered interest or its development into a maintained or individual form [9]. The observed pattern should therefore be understood as a cautious interpretive possibility rather than an outcome demonstrated by the present report.

The university setting added a second descriptive dimension. Students encountered science as an activity conducted within a local higher-education institution, which aligns with broader accounts of informal science learning as participation across designed settings and social contexts [4]. The eutectic-solvent experience connected a visible phase transformation to an ongoing project involving regional fruit and vegetable materials and residues, and students asked about programs, laboratories, research work, projects, and scholarships. These interactions document exposure to a local university STEM environment; they do not demonstrate changes in STEM identity, aspirations, or subsequent choices.

The sequence of eight brief demonstrations reflects an intentional breadth-oriented design. Repeated cycles of prediction, observation, explanation, and discussion exposed participants to a common pattern of scientific reasoning across chemistry, physics, food science, and contemporary extraction research. For a 45-min station with groups of 10–15, the authors recommend retaining eight demonstrations when the aim is broad exposure, provided that materials are pre-staged, transitions are brief, and two facilitators divide responsibility for dialogue, materials, and safety. If the aim is in-depth conceptual development or formal assessment, fewer demonstrations and longer cycles would be more appropriate. Table 2 makes the timing and questioning routine explicit so that the format can be adapted to either purpose.

The activities also illustrate why scientific accuracy and safety must remain visible parts of outreach. Phenomena commonly presented as “magic tricks” can encourage oversimplified explanations. For example, movement of pepper after detergent addition is best explained through surface-tension gradients rather than generic repulsion; silver, not copper, is deposited when copper wire is placed in silver nitrate; and the environmental profile of a particular eutectic solvent cannot be inferred solely from the label “green solvent.” Guided explanation is therefore not an optional addition to spectacle but the mechanism through which an unexpected effect is connected to a scientifically defensible account.

Limitations and Future Evaluation

The principal limitation is that this paper documents implementation rather than educational effectiveness. Participant numbers were estimated from school attendance; observations were retrospective and informal; representative questions and remarks were reconstructed from facilitator memory; and no systematic measures of learning, situational interest, STEM identity, aspirations, or subsequent choices were collected. Future implementations should retain the eight-experience format while adding a brief pre-activity diagnostic of relevant prior knowledge, an aligned post-activity instrument, and structured in situ records for each experience. With appropriate ethical review and consent, observation checklists, contemporaneous field notes, or audio records could document participation and reasoning more reliably. Longer-term follow-up would be required before making any claim about STEM study or career pathways. Recent studies of sustained authentic research programs in informal science education have used surveys and interviews to evaluate the development of scientific practices, competence, and interest [19], illustrating the type of empirical design that would be required to evaluate outcomes beyond the descriptive scope of the present report.

5. Conclusions

Beyond the Magic was implemented as a supervised, participatory science station for approximately 200 secondary-school students visiting the National University of Comahue. Eight short experiences linked visible phenomena to concepts in chemistry, physics, food science, and contemporary extraction research through repeated prediction–observation–explanation cycles. Facilitators recalled predictions, alternative explanations, spontaneous questions, everyday-life connections, broader participation as visits progressed, and questions about university programs and research. These observations support the practical feasibility of the station design but do not establish learning gains, situational interest, STEM identity, aspirations, or changes in educational trajectories. The principal contribution is a descriptive and replicable implementation logic: use wonder to initiate attention, invite participation, elicit reasoning through guided questions, and connect unexpected effects with scientifically defensible explanations.