This article makes a case for the importance of brokering future learning opportunities to youth as a programmatic goal for informal learning organizations. Such brokering entails engaging in practices that connect youth to events, programs, internships, individuals and institutions related to their interests to support them beyond the window of a specific program or event. Brokering is especially critical for youth who are new to an area of interest: it helps them develop both a baseline understanding of the information landscape and a social network that will respond to their needs as they
Brokering Youth Pathways was created to share tools and techniques around the youth development practice of “brokering” or connecting youth to future learning opportunities and resources.
This toolkit shares ways in which various out-of-school educators and professionals have approached the challenge of brokering. It provides a framework, practice briefs and reports that focus on a particular issue or challenge and provide concrete examples, as well as illustrate how project partners partners worked through designing new brokering routines in partnership with a research team.
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.
The Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) conducted two kinds of baseline studies that mapped the
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.
The Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) conducted two kinds of baseline studies that mapped the
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
Please join us in celebrating Citizen Science Day, which falls this year on Saturday, April 14th. This issue of Connected Science Learning is dedicated to highlighting effective citizen science programs that involve classroom students in collecting data for research scientists, while also engaging them in key STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) content and practices. Students get a “front row seat” to what scientists do and how scientists work, plus develop the reasoning skills and practices used by scientists.
With support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), SciStarter 2.0 was launched to enhance, diversify, and validate participant engagement in scientific research in need of the public’s help. SciStarter’s leadership is part of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee, Designing Citizen Science to Support Science Learning, which is developing guidelines and a research agenda for citizen science in education. This article briefly introduces educators to SciStarter 2.0.
Scientists (and engineers) wishing to conduct public engagement do so in the context of established disciplinary norms and complex institutional systems that may support or limit their success. This report seeks to convey the known complexity, unique challenges, and opportunities for universities to better support for scientists in their public engagement work. The report is intended to drive discussion towards deeper exploration and development of actionable next steps.
This is a report from Workshop III: Academic Institutions, part of the Support Systems for Scientists' Communication and
These are slides from Shupei Yuan, John Besley and Anthony Dudo's presentation at the Support Systems for Scientists' Communication and Engagement: Workshop II held February 28-March 1, 2018 at HHMI. The workshop was intended to explore how scientific societies can advance a sustainable system that supports scientists’ communication and engagement efforts. Yuan, Besley, and Dudo provide an overview of their project aiming to help reveal how societies view the concept of “public engagement” and to provide an empirical understanding of the availability and prevalence of tools that societies
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Shupei YuanAnthony DudoJohn BesleyBrooke Smith
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
From February 28-March 1, 2018, the Kavli, Moore, Packard, and Rita Allen Foundations hosted a workshop at HHMI for leaders from scientific societies, associations
and professional organizations, researchers who study communication and learning, funders and other experts to explore how scientific societies can advance a sustainable system that supports scientists’ communication and engagement efforts. This outline summary aims to capture the ideas, notes and content discussed at the meeting.
This is a list of participants who attended the Support Systems for Scientists' Communication and Engagement Workshop II: Associations, Societies & Other Professional Organizations. This workshop was held February 28 - March 1, 2018 at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
This is a report from Workshop II: Overview of Organizational Support for Public Engagement among Scientific Societies, part of the Support Systems for Scientists' Communication and Engagement workshop series. Workshop II was held Feb. 28 - Mar. 1, 2018 at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chevy Chase, MD. The report provides an overview of a project aiming to help reveal how societies view the concept of “public engagement” and to provide an empirical understanding of the availability and prevalence of tools that societies currently use to support engagement efforts.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Shupei YuanAnthony DudoJohn BesleyBrooke Smith