This report summarizes a Delphi study completed with 22 facilitators of climate adaptation workshops in the United States in 2020. The purpose of a Delphi study is to find areas of consensus around valued (or "best") practices in a particular field. In this case, the report focuses on valued practices for facilitating place-based climate adaptation workshops to maximize social learning and collective action outcomes associated with climate adaptation.
Tinkering is an approach to learning increasingly adopted within informal learning settings to engage people with STEM learning (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). It builds on ideas in inquiry-based pedagogy and exploits some of the most engaging and motivational elements of learner-centered, immersive and hands-on learning approaches to develop 21st century skills such as critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, problem solving, communication, responsibility, self-confidence, digital literacy and entrepreneurship. In a Tinkering activity, the learner is presented with
This webinar was presented by the NSF Education and Human Research (EHR) Department to describe a current funding opportunity, the EHR Core Research (ECR) program.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Earnestine EasterGregg SolomonJolene Jesse
Few would argue that the national parks provide significant value to both the nation and the world. The question remains though, What is that value and how to measure it? Increasingly, a key indicator of this value is the learning that parks support. However, as we will discuss, even defining what is meant by educational value is challenging, let alone coming up with a park-specific set of metrics to measure this dimension of value of national parks.
In a recent article, Ma, Dixon, and Hmielowski (2019. Psychological Reactance from Reading Basic Facts on Climate Change: The Role of Prior Views and Political Identification. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 71-86) explore whether scientific consensus messages activate psychological reactance. They find no main effect of the consensus message on psychological reactance, but a subsequent moderation analysis appears to show reactance among audiences who question the existence of climate change, especially Republicans. Here we attempt to replicate this finding in a large national sample of
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Sander van der LindenEdward MaibachAnthony Leiserowitz
The primary objective of this study is to document how people learn the science of the COVID-19 pandemic in real time, how they activate this scientific knowledge towards informed decision making, and how these processes change over time. This study is intended to produce additional insights on how such learning is shaped by equity concerns and contextual factors. For example, researchers will document how the ways in which people learn the science of COVID-19 are mediated by the sources of information they have access to and leverage, as well as what supports them in doing so. The research will further document how people leverage their understandings of COVID-19, alongside other forms of knowledge and concerns in their decision-making. This study may serve a crucial role in aiding the public understanding of where structural points of informational failure might occur. It may also reveal where and how the public engages or resists community action strategies to mitigate spread and suffering through when, how and why they gather, share, and make sense of scientific data. This RAPID was submitted in response to the NSF Dear Colleague letter related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This award is made by the AISL and ECR programs in the Division of Research on Learning, using funds from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
This research will draw upon a conceptual framework of consequential learning and a methodological framework of narrative inquiry. Sixty participants in Lansing, Michigan and Seattle, Washington will participate over the course of one year in cyclical interviews, focus group conversations and experience sampling approaches. Documents and resources named and used by the participants in their learning will be collected and analyzed. Attention will be paid to science learning in the following areas as the primary focus: a) the science of SARS-CoV-2 and the relationship between virus and disease, b) viral transmission, and c) origination, replication and spread. A key focus will also be how people use scientific data and evidence-based explanations when developing understandings and making decisions with respect to the pandemic. This research is urgent and timely because the COVID-19 pandemic is projected to occur in multiple waves over approximately 18 months. Insights may produce basic understanding about rapid science learning, policy strategies, school-based practices and resources for use within current and future waves. Socioscientific crises differentially impact people, with effects felt more significantly by vulnerable people. Thus, this study will address the urgent call for investigation into factors and experiences of low-income individuals and families who are trying to educate themselves on continually changing data during an international health crisis.
This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.
This RAPID was submitted in response to the NSF Dear Colleague letter related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This award is made by the AISL program in the Division of Research on Learning, using funds from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The public must be made aware in a clear, responsible way about the role of science to help bring this pandemic under control and prevent future outbreaks. This project will allow the NewsHour to go beyond their daily reporting of the medical information about the pandemic, to inform the public about the difference scientific research/ research conducted by scientists and medical professionals can make in attacking such a dire threat. The PBS NewsHour has the capability to quickly mobilize its science journalists and national distribution infrastructure to produce at least six broadcast segments and additional digital materials reporting on this on-going scientific work. They will interview scientists, researchers and experts in genomic analysis, computer tracking, vaccine production, and social epidemiology showing what they are doing to test, treat, track and stop the spread of COVID-19, to create vaccines that may prevent further transmission, and to measure the social impact of the disease. These segments will be broadcast nationwide on local PBS stations and distributed on their website, YouTube, and social media channels. Viewership of the NewsHour is extensive reaching 2.5 million people nightly via broadcast and almost 33 million YouTube views per quarter. During a recent quarter, they reached 72.6 million on Facebook and garnered 86.8 million Twitter impressions.
The research team, Knology, will conduct a study to assess 1) where US adults are primarily getting information about COVID-19; 2) their perception of personal and public responsibility; 3) behaviors they have taken and/or plan to take, and when; 4) their social values. Knology will develop a survey instrument with adopted items and modules used in prior collaborations to develop a baseline understanding of the relationship between news consumption and attitudes about COVID-19 risk. The survey will be hosted using Qualtrics. Survey data will be gathered from a representative sample of US adults (N = 1000) recruited using the online software system, Prolific. A recent PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll will be used as a baseline. Once potentially identifying information like demographics are aggregated, these formative data and topline results will be shared openly through the Knology website to support other researchers and journalists.
This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.
At the Ecsite Conference held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in June 2019, a pre-conference workshop was held entitled "Beyond fact-checking: addressing misinformation". This workshop brought together practitioners in science engagement alongside researchers on the topic of misinformation from across Europe and beyond to focus on that topic.
Following this workshop, Ecsite, and The Kavli Foundation who supported it, decided to put together this resource document, for anyone developing or implementing activities or exhibitions working to engage the public in science.
This document has been
Policymakers need data to make informed decisions. Local governments need data to justify policies like bans on single-use plastics. Federal agencies need information to set the conservation guidelines that protect endangered species. Data are also required to report on progress towards international policy targets, like the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
But worldwide, we don’t have enough data to understand the current state of our environment, or effectively evaluate the impact of interventions. In 2018, Washington, DC banned plastic drinking straws while citing evidence that 3
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Anne BowserAlex LongMetis MelocheElizabeth NewburyMeg King
COVID-19 has put science in a tricky spot. The good news, as National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt explains, is that scientific expertise is back in high demand: “When the chips are down and everything is on the line and you can be the next person in the hospital bed, it’s the experts that you want to listen to.” But there’s a serious potential downside for science in having the public’s ear: today’s high-profile expert assertions can be disproven by tomorrow’s events. For example, if public health interventions such as social distancing are effective, COVID-19-related deaths in
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Dietram ScheufeleNicole KrauseIsabelle FreilingDominique Brossard
Genetic Modification (GM) has been a topic of public debates during the 1990s and 2000s. In this paper we explore the relative importance of two hypothesized explanations for these controversies: (i) people's general attitude toward science and technology and (ii) their trust in governance, in GM actors, and in GM regulations, in explaining the Dutch public's Attitude toward GM applications, and in addition to that, the public's GM Information seeking behaviour. This will be conducted through the application of representative survey methodology. The results indicate that Attitudes toward GM
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Lucien HanssenAnne DijkstraSusanne SleenhoffLynn FrewerJan Gutterling
This paper is a reflective account of a public participation project the authors conducted in Japan in 2012–2015, as part of the central government's initiative for evidence-based policy-making. The reflection focusses on three key aspects of the project: setting a precedent of involving public participation in policy-making; embedding an official mechanism for public participation in policy-making process; and raising policy practitioners' awareness of public participation. We also discuss why we think engaging with policy practitioners, while problematic in various ways, is and will continue