This document contains the following Appendices that provide information for the I/CaLL Community Science Learning study.
Appendix A: StreamLines Events
Appendix B: StreamLines Events Survey Instrument
Appendix C: Art + Science Brainstorm Coding Themes
Appendix D: Art + Science Brainstorm Flyer
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
This report describes the results from an exploratory study of how artists approached collaboration with earth scientists to foster the public’s science learning and engagement with a city’s waterways. Data from phone interviews, surveys, and reflection on the artwork produced for this collaboration were compared with observations of roundtable discussions with community-based artists and scientists grappling with these ideas in a dialogue format.
The researchers found that personal connections with the waterway sites and professional interest in and experience with art–science
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
In August 2012, the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) contracted with Audience Focus (AF), a Maryland-‐based research and evaluation organization, to evaluate visitors’ experiences with the Scientist Is In program. Specifically, AF was asked to design a comprehensive study that would provide insight into the nature of visitors’ engagement with the program, and how participation in the program influenced visitors’ understanding of and curiosity about science topics, awareness of science careers, perceptions of NMNH as a research institution, and recognition of the connections between
This summative evaluation report focuses on the impact that the Working with a Scientist Program at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) had on its student participants. Student participants were recruited from regional high schools that are categorized as Title I schools, due to the large population of low income students that they serve. The participants engaged in mentored research activities a UTEP every other Saturday during the spring semester and on weekdays during the summer. Their mentors were professional scientists from different STEM disciplines, such as Chemistry, Immunology
This report comprises the third part of a 4-year evaluation assessing the impact of the Working with a Scientist Program (WWASP) at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) had on its student-participants. This report includes an assessment of the program’s impact on the third cohort of student-participants. To assess the students’ overall performance, several measures were used. First, a review of participant’s academic performance before and after their involvement in the program was conducted. Second, the impacts that the programs’ cogenerative dialogues (cogens) had in the third cohort of
This report is part of a four-year evaluation assessing the impact of the Working with a Scientist Program (WWASP) at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) had on its student-participants. This report includes an assessment of the impact on the first two cohorts of student-participants. This program selected participants from local high schools to take part in research activities for the spring and summer semester. To assess the students’ overall performance, several measures were used. First, a review of participant’s academic performance before and after their involvement in the program
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Lizely Madrigal-GonzalezGuadalupe Corral
This report is part of a four-year evaluation assessing the impact that the Working with a Scientist Program at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) had on its first cohort of participants. Participants were students from a regional high school that were selected to take part in research activities every other Saturday during the Spring semester and on weekdays during the summer. The evaluation components included in this report focus on assessing students’ academic performance and the gains the students made while in the program. It also focused on an assessment of students’ perceptions
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Guadalupe CorralJacqueline LowereeJoseph Negron
The Anthropologist examines climate change like no other film before. The fate of the planet is considered from the perspective of American teenager Katie Crate. Over the course of five years, she travels alongside her mother Susie, an anthropologist studying the impact of climate change on indigenous communities. Their journey parallels that of renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead, who for decades sought to understand how global change affects remote cultures.
From January 2012 to May 2012, SmartStart Educational Consulting Services conducted a front-end evaluation of the documentary