STEM learning ecosystems harness unique contributions of educators, policymakers, families, and others in symbiosis toward a comprehensive vision of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education for all children. This paper describes the attributes and strategies of 15 leading ecosystem efforts throughout the country with the hope that others may use their lessons to deepen rich STEM learning for many more of America’s children.
Funding for informal science education in the United States is shifting. Federal funds once dedicated exclusively to the informal science education field are decreasing; competition for those funds is increasing. And there is a growing anti-science movement that threatens to drown out the field’s financial concerns. These reverberations are felt in everything from the specific rejection of the science behind climate change to the general elimination of science reporting in U.S. news outlets. Overall, these changes signal an urgent need for the field of informal science education to position
The John G. Shedd Aquarium’s Department of Learning Planning & Evaluation synthesizes learning research, develops evaluation plans with Learning Group staff, and assists with data analysis and interpretation for education programs. The Research Associate’s primary responsibility is reviewing literature, both research-based and practitioner-based, and synthesizing these findings into comprehensive research narratives. These narratives are used by staff members in the Learning Group to help them determine their suite of experiences and instructional strategies. Depending on the topic of the
Argumentation has become an increasingly recognized focus for science instruction---as a learning process, as an outcome associated with the appropriation of scientific discourse, and as a window onto the epistemic work of science. Only a small set of theoretical conceptualizations of argumentation have been deployed and investigated in science education, however, while a plethora of conceptualizations have been developed in the interdisciplinary fields associated with science studies and the learning sciences. This paper attempts to review a range of such theoretical conceptualizations of
In this paper, we introduce the Exploratory Behavior Scale (EBS), a quantitative measure of young children's interactivity. More specifically, the EBS is developed from the psychological literature on exploration and play and measures the extent to which preschoolers explore their physical environment. A practical application of the EBS in a science museum is given. The described study was directed at optimizing parent guidance to improve preschoolers' exploration of exhibits in science center NEMO. In Experiment 1, we investigated which adult coaching style resulted in the highest level of
In 2007, Chabot Space & Science Center, with partners LodeStar Astronomy Center and the Institute for Learning Innovation, received a National Science Foundation grant (#0610253) to develop, create, distribute, and conduct research on a full-dome planetarium show titled Tales of the Maya Skies. This physically immersive show was designed to transport viewers to ancient Maya civilizations and to push the boundaries of narrative approach in planetariums by presenting the film with a “cultural wrapper” of the Maya people and their achievements in archaeo-astronomy. The research conducted three
The Zooniverse projects turn everyday people into "citizen scientists" who work online with real data to assist scientists in conducting research on a variety of topics related to galaxies, exoplanets, lunar craters, and solar flares, among others. This paper describes our initial study to assess the conceptual knowledge and reasoning abilities of citizen scientists participating in two Zooniverse projects: Galaxy Zoo and Moon Zoo. In order to measure their knowledge and abilities, we developed two new assessment instruments, the Zooniverse Astronomical Concept Survey (ZACS) and the Lunar
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Edward PratherSebastien CormierColin WallaceChris LintottJordan RaddickArfon Smith
This book chapter describes the early evolution of Project FeederWatch, Classroom FeederWatch (which later evolved into the Lab of Ornithology's BirdSleuth), and early work to conduct citizen science online with the advent of the World Wide Web. It cites and presents data from several evaluation reports produced for the Lab's first citizen science award from the National Science Foundation, called "Public Participation in Ornithology." Contact Rick Bonney (reb5@cornell.edu) for a PDF of this chapter.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Cornell Lab of OrnithologyRick Bonney
Mueller, Tippins, and Bryan's contrast of the current limitations of science education with the potential virtues of citizen science provides an important theoretical perspective about the future of democratized science and K-12 education. However, the authors fail to adequately address the existing barriers and constraints to moving community-based science into the classroom. We contend that for these science partnerships to be successful, teachers, researchers, and other program designers must reexamine questions about traditional science education and citizen-science programs and attend to
This chapter presents an introduction to design-based implementation research (DBIR). We describe the need for DBIR as a research approach that challenges educational researchers and practitioners to transcend traditional research/practice barriers to facilitate the design of educational interventions that are effective, sustainable, and scalable.
In supporting education research from early childhood learning to doctoral work and beyond, EHR stimulates evidence-based innovation in teaching, instructional tools, curricula and programs. NSF-funded work in these areas has improved learning and achievement, developed more effective teaching models, and prepared a more globally competitive and diverse U.S. STEM workforce.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
National Science Foundation
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
This is a brief study of the changes in the merit review criteria for proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) over its 60-year history. Because far more worthy proposals are received than are fundable, it has been necessary for the NSF to develop review criteria to distinguish among meritorious proposals. For reasons of politics and policy, NSF has had to consider criteria other than simply good science—what are now known as “broader impacts.” This study shows that the general nature of the criteria has not changed over the years. Instead, the NSF has fought a continuing