Skip to main content

Community Repository Search Results

resource evaluation Informal/Formal Connections
The New Ecological Paradigm for Children is modeled after the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) and the New Ecological Paradigm-Revised (NEP-Revised) for adults. The survey contains 10 questions assessing three subscales that contribute to one’s “environmental world view” including “rights of nature,” “eco-crisis,” and “human exceptionalism.”
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Constantinos C. Manoli Bruce Johnson Riley E. Dunlap
resource evaluation
Assesses children's interest in, attitude towards, and experiences in science and technology, as well as their opinion about environmental challenges and career aspirations.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Svein Sjøberg
resource evaluation
Assesses current interest and attitudes in science activities at school.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Helen Gibson Christopher Chase
resource evaluation
The inventory consists of eleven items, each representing a different skill in the science inquiry process. Youth are prompted to respond to each statement using a 4-point Likert scale indicating how often they practice each of the items when doing science: Never (1), sometimes (2), usually (3), and always (4). Recommended scoring of the SPSI is the calculation of a composite science process skills score. This is calculated by summing the individual ratings for each item. The score range for the composite score is 11-44.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Mary E. Arnold Virginia Bourdeau
resource evaluation
Assesses students interest in science, their attitudes toward science, their views of scientists, and their desire to become scientists.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Richard W. Moore Rachel Leigh Hill Foy
resource evaluation
"Monitors" students' views concerning the epistemological, social & technological aspects of science.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Glen S. Aikenhead Alan G. Ryan Reg W. Fleming
resource evaluation Public Programs
This report is the formative evaluation for the “Computing the Future” presentation, a presentation concerned with both the history of computers and the ways in which nanotechnology is changing how computers are built and operated. The survey used in this study is included in the appendix of this report.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Kerry Bronnenkant
resource evaluation Public Programs
This report evaluates the program entitled “Treating Tumors with Gold” by looking at visitor feedback in an attempt to assess the success with which the presentation was able to educate the public on a particular study using nanotechnology. The exit survey instrument is included in the appendix of this report.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Elizabeth Kunz Kullmann
resource evaluation Media and Technology
The Nanomedicine Explorer kiosk at the Museum of Science, Boston provides opportunities to learn about nanomedicine, nanotechnology, cancer biology, new research in cancer diagnosis and therapy, and the process of medical research from bench to bedside. This report is the formative evaluation of the prototype of this kiosk, presenting the results of visitor observations, exit surveys, and interviews. The findings of these data served to provide the Nanomedicine Explorer production team a basis from which to make improvements to the program, which was released as Version 1.0 in May of 2009
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Kerry Bronnenkant Carol Lynn Alpert
resource evaluation Public Programs
The 2010 Delivery and Reach study documented the delivery of nano education activities at NISE Network partner institutions and estimated the public reach of those activities. Surveys used in this study are included in the appendix of this report.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Scott Pattison Marcie Benne Jenna LeComte-Hinely
resource evaluation Public Programs
Summative evaluation of four programs created by the NISE Network. The survey instrument used in this study is included in the appendix of this report.
DATE:
resource evaluation Public Programs
The Nanoawareness Study is designed to answer the question "What, if any, impact do NISE Net activities delivered at Tier 1 and Tier 2 institutions have on the nanoawareness of the public audiences that experience those activities?" The Nanoawareness Study was initially conducted in Year 3 and then replicated in Year 4 with some methodological changes and a different sample of participants. The following report describes the Nanoawareness Study findings from Year 4 in comparison to findings from Year 3. This appendix of this report includes the online survey instrument used in the study.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Brett Kiser Marcie Benne