This is the final evaluation report from RMC Research Corp. for the PES@LTERs project. Appendix includes instruments.
RMC Research designed evaluation activities to provide formative and summative feedback to Harvard Forest and the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation (Hubbard Brook) on their plan to embed public engagement with science (PES) into the cultures and practices of Long-Term Ecological Research Sites (LTERs) in the northeastern US. The purpose of this project was to build PES mechanisms into long-term ecosystem studies that create on-going, open exchanges between scientists and
The Brains On! exploratory research study was guided by three overarching research questions:
Who is the audience for Brains On! and what are their motivations for listening to children’s science podcasts?
How are Brains On! listeners using the podcast and engaging with its content?
What kinds of impacts does Brains On! have on its audiences?
These questions were answered through a three-phase mixed-methods research design. Each phase informed the next, providing additional insights into answering the research questions. Phase 1 was a review of a sample of secondary data in the
This NOVA multiplatform media initiative consisted of a 2-hour nationally broadcast PBS documentary, Polar Extremes; a 10-part original digital series, Antarctic Extremes; an interactive game, Polar Lab; accompanying polar-themed digital shorts, radio stories, text reporting, and social media content; a collection of educational resources on PBS LearningMedia; and community screening events and virtual field trips for science classrooms. Across multiple media platforms the project’s video content had nearly 13 million views.
The research explored the potential for informal STEM learning
Informal learning institutions, such as museums, science centers, and community-based organizations, play a critical role in providing opportunities for students to engage in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities during out-of-school time hours. In recent years, thousands of studies, evaluations, and conference proceedings have been published measuring the impact that these programs have had on their participants. However, because studies of informal science education (ISE) programs vary considerably in how they are designed and in the quality of their designs, it
Final External Evaluation Report for Informal STEM Learning at Biological Field Stations, an NSF AISL Exploratory Pathways project, which studied the pedagogical and andragogical characteristics of informal educational outreach activities at field stations. This report summarizes the project team’s major research activities and the contextual factors that supported that work.
Appendix includes interview protocol.
This study researched whether and how affiliation with the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net) led to change in informal science education organizations’ (ISEs) practices. The NISE Net provided an opportunity to look at how participation in a large but loosely-structured network of museums, science centers, educators, and scientists can influence museums to experience organizational change and adopt new practices.
By conducting qualitative case studies of a few selected partners, this research aimed to understand the conditions that facilitate or impede the influence of
“Not a place for me” is often one of the main reasons people choose not to visit art museums.
Such perceptions of art museums call for institutions to create wider and more diverse entry points for visitors. At the Art Institute of Chicago—envisioned by our first president as a “museum of living thought”—we seek to continually expand art historical narratives by bringing together a plurality of perspectives and voices to processes of research, scientific and creative inquiry, and to increasingly varied modes of public engagement with art. To achieve these goals we developed a multifaceted
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Francesca Casadio
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
Informal Science Education (ISE) and Science Communication (SciComm) are two overlapping but distinct fields that support engagement in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) in a variety of settings. Though fluid boundaries and fuzzy definitions make a clear distinction between ISE and SciComm difficult, the two fields nevertheless exhibit strong differences in core values and goals, based in part on different histories, commitments, and trajectories.
This paper summarizes two studies conducted by the Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE):
A survey
This set of appendices represent all research instruments related to study presented in the I/CaLL Art Experiences and Advancing Science Literacy report (NewKnowledge Publication #NSF.097.115.07).
Appendix A: Installation Site Intercept Interview Instrument
Appendix B: Artists-Scientists Walk & Talks Instrument
Appendix C: Post-Performance Event Survey Instrument
Note that researchers did not use an instrument for the fourth aspect of the study, the post-performance event reflection sessions. Instead, they allowed the discussions to be directed by the reflection participants.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
John FraserRebecca Joy NorlanderSophie SwansonNezam ArdalanKate FlinnerJoanna Laursen BruckerNicole LaMarca
RMC Research designed evaluation activities to provide formative and summative feedback to the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation (HBRF) on their NSF Pathways project, Forest Science Dialogues (FSD). FSD consists of a plan to engage with scientists at the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study and with the surrounding community using the Hubbard Brook Roundtable dialogue process in order to facilitate mutual learning. The purpose of this engagement was to increase public knowledge, understanding, and awareness of ecosystem science in the Northern Forest in order to enrich local dialogue surrounding
This checklist identifies and describes the elements of an evaluation report. It is intended to serve as a flexible guide for determining an evaluation report’s content. It should not be treated as a rigid set of requirements. An evaluation client’s or sponsor’s reporting requirements should take precedence over the checklist’s recommendations. Decisions about the order of content and level of detail in a report should be made with consideration of the audience’s information needs and priorities.
This checklist is strictly focused on the content of long-form technical evaluation reports
The Society for Science and the Public’s Advocate Grant Program provides selected Advocates with funding, resources, and information. Advocates include classroom teachers, school and district administrators, university professors, and informal science educators in community-based programs. The role of the Advocate is to support three or more underserved middle or high school students in the process of advancing from conducting a scientific research or engineering design project to entering a scientific competition. Advocates receive a stipend of $3,000; opportunities to meet and interact with