The most important consideration in evaluating chemistry outreach efforts is how to best use the evaluation to serve project needs. Evaluation should be about making programs more effective—at communicating ideas, changing attitudes, inspiring action, or reaching wider audiences, for example. A well-conducted evaluation typically contributes to the quality of a project by helping its leaders better define their goals, identify important milestones and indicators of success, and use evidence to support ongoing improvements. At its best, evaluation is an integral part of project design and
Informal learning opportunities are increasingly being recognized as important for youth participation in authentic experiences at the intersection of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) (Dorsen, Carlson, and Goodyear 2006). These experiences may involve specialized equipment and dedicated time for learners to gain familiarity with the relevant scientific and engineering practices (i.e., designing experiments on their own, struggling to make sense of data, learning from their own mistakes and the results of peers), which often go beyond the classroom. However, the educators who
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Kathryn WilliamsonSue Ann HeatherlyVivian HoetteEva Erdosne TothDavid Beer
As a leader in the science museum field, the New York Hall of Science (NYSCI) is a destination for hands-on, interactive exhibitions and innovative programs. NYSCI’s Design-Make-Play (DMP) pedagogical approach to STEM learning recognizes that what is essential is not only the content—what is being taught—but how teaching and learning are imagined through the curriculum. This commitment to practice builds off of interest-based learning research, which emphasizes that all learners should feel a sense of efficacy and possibility. The hallmarks of this approach include deep personal engagement
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Amanda SolarshGina TesorieroMichaela LabrioleTara Chudoba
As part of the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding for the In Defense of Food project directed by Kikim Media, the independent evaluation firm Knight Williams Inc.1 conducted a summative evaluation of the project’s key deliverables, which included: a PBS television broadcast program, an outreach effort, and an educational curriculum. This report (Study 3 of 3) considers the In Defense of Food curriculum and, in particular, educators’ reactions to the curriculum in terms of perceived appeal, ease of implementation, and learning value. Feedback was gathered from educators who were surveyed
As part of the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding for the In Defense of Food project directed by Kikim Media, the independent evaluation firm Knight Williams Inc.1 conducted a summative evaluation of the project’s key deliverables, which included: a PBS television broadcast program, an outreach effort, and an educational curriculum. This report (Study 2 of 3) focuses on the outreach effort.
Many people believe that both public policy and personal action would improve with better access to “reliable knowledge about the natural world” (that thing that we often call science). Many of those people participate in science education and science communication. And yet, both as areas of practice and as objects of academic inquiry, science education and science communication have until recently remained remarkably distinct. Why, and what resources do the articles in this special issue of JRST give us for bringing together both the fields of practice and the fields of inquiry?
The fields of science education and science communication share the overarching goal of helping non-experts and non-members of the professional science community develop knowledge of the content and processes of scientific research. However, the specific audiences, methods, and aims employed in the two fields have evolved quite differently and as a result, the two fields rarely share findings and theory. Despite this lack of crosstalk, one theoretical construct—framing—has shown substantial analytic power for researchers in both fields. Specifically, both fields have productively made use of
In the 1920s, John Dewey and Walter Lippmann both wrote important books examining whether the public was capable of playing a constructive role in policy, particularly when specialized knowledge was involved. This essay uses the Lippmann–Dewey debate to identify new challenges for science education and to explore the relationship between science education and science communication. It argues that science education can help foster democracy in ways that embody Habermas' ideal of the public sphere, but only if we as a field pay more attention to (1) the non-scientific frames and narratives that
In some senses, both science education and science communication share common goals. Both seek to educate, entertain and engage the public with and about science. Somewhat surprisingly, given their common goals, they have evolved as disparate academic fields where each pays little attention to the other.1 The purpose of this special issue, therefore, is an attempt some form of rapprochement—to contribute to building a better awareness of what each has to contribute to the other and the value of the scholarship conducted in both fields.
Abstract
In 2011, Donna DiBartolomeo and Zachary Clark enrolled in the Arts in Education Program at Harvard Graduate School of Education. Harvard Graduate School of Education is home to Project Zero, an educational research group comprising multiple, independently funded projects examining creativity, ethics, understanding, and other aspects of learning and its processes. Under the guidance of Principal Investigator Howard Gardner and Project Manager Katie Davis, the authors were tasked with developing a methodology capable of observing finegrained, objective detail in complete works of
The academic interest in 'science and technology communication' has evolved from different societal domains and fields of application, giving rise to different scholarly traditions. This contribution introduces current issues and agendas in a field that has its origin at the interface of (agricultural) innovation studies, rural development sociology and the communication sciences. The paper starts with a brief sketch of the history of the field. When compared to earlier approaches, current thinking about 'communication, innovation and development' pays greater attention to limitations in the