Presented at the 2008 ISE PI Summit, this presenation introduces viewers to evaluation in the NSF ISE (now AISL) program and the Online Project Monitoring System (OPMS).
Presented at the 2008 ISE PI Summit, this presentation from Alan Friedman introduces the Framework for Evaluating the Impacts of Informal science Education Projects.
There were 190 projects represented at the ISE PI Summit 2008.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Center for Advancement of Informal Science EducationAl DeSenaTom KalilBruce LewensteinCatherine McEverSheila GrinellBonnie Sachatello-SawyerRob SemperJulie JohnsonErik PetersonRick BorcheltWendy Wheeler
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
There were 251 attendees, of which 176 were representatives of NSF ISE funded projects. In addition to NSF, seven other federal agencies (CPB, DOE, IMLS, NASA, NIH, NOAA, NPS, Smithsonian) that support informal science education were also represented.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Center for Advancement of Informal Science EducationAl DeSenaTom KalilBruce LewensteinCatherine McEverSheila GrinellBonnie Sachatello-SawyerRob SemperJulie JohnsonErik PetersonRick BorcheltWendy Wheeler
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
At the request of the National Science Foundation (NSF), CAISE organized a meeting for NSF Informal Science Education (ISE) Program principal investigators (PIs), July 25–26, 2008 in Washington, D.C. The ISE PI Summit 2008 provided PIs of recent and active NSF ISE grants the opportunity to discuss the state of ISE with other leaders in the field and to get updates on the latest directions in NSF funding. ISE PI Summit 2008 was held at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel and the nearby National Zoo.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Center for Advancement of Informal Science EducationJanis DickinsonSteve KellingJason MobleyKen RosenbergSheila GrinellBonnie Sachatello-SawyerRob SemperJulie JohnsonErik PetersonRick BorcheltWendy WheelerCatherine McEver
Based on the National Research Council study, Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits, this book is a tool that provides case studies, illustrative examples, and probing questions for practitioners. In short, this book makes valuable research accessible to those working in informal science: educators, museum professionals, university faculty, youth leaders, media specialists, publishers, broadcast journalists, and many others. Practitioners in informal science settings--museums, after-school programs, science and technology centers, media enterprises, libraries
The March 12-13, 2007 workshop at NSF on informal science education evaluation brought together a distinguished group of experts to discuss how impact categories might be best applied to various types of informal learning projects. This publication is an outcome of that meeting. The authors have strived to make the sections as helpful as possible given the primary focus of this workshop on project impacts. It should be viewed as part of an ongoing process to improve the ways in which evaluation can most benefit ISE projects, NSF, and the field. The publication is intended to help those
Presentation slides on submitting competitive Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) proposals, originally presented at the 2012 Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC) Annual Conference
In 2012, Concord Evaluation Group (CEG) conducted an evaluation of the impact of Peep and the Big Wide World (Peep) resources on Spanish-speaking families with preschool-aged children. The three-pronged evaluation included a National Family Study in which 112 Spanish-speaking families who used the Peep resources were compared to Spanish-speaking families who did not use the Peep resources. It also included an In-Depth Family Study -- an experiment conducted in the metro Boston area in which 36 Spanish-speaking families who used the Peep resources were compared to Spanish-speaking families who
Conceived as part the Denver Evaluation Network, the City Value Study sought to understand whether people visiting one of the cultural institutions in the Network valued that museum. Further, participants were asked to explain, in their own words, more about why they valued that particular institution; what that museum offered themselves, their family, and their community; and what other leisure options they had considered for the day. Following these interview questions, administered by DMNS Research Assistants, each respondent completed a short, demographic questionnaire. Data collection
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Laureen TrainerDenver Museum of Nature & Science