These slides about the NSF commitment to informal STEM education were presented during the keynote at the 2016 Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) PI Meeting held in Bethesda, MD on February 29-March 2.
These slides were presented at the NSF Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) Principal Investigators' Meeting held in Bethesda, MD from February 29-March 2, 2016. The presentation describes NSF INCLUDES, a funding opportunity that leverages collective impact strategies to broaden participation in STEM.
These slides provide an overview of current NSF funding opportunities, including Dear Colleague Letters and foundation-wide mechanisms. The presentation occurred as a technical assistance session at the 2016 NSF AISL PI Meeting.
This poster was presented at the 2016 Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) PI Meeting held in Bethesda, MD on February 29-March 2. This project's interdisciplinary team will carry out research and training that will identify ways for professionals in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to engage with public audiences that currently lack the community connections, resources, time, or know-how to gain access to science education and to scientists.
Even in the best-resourced science communication institutions, poor quality evaluation methods are routinely employed. This leads to questionable data, specious conclusions and stunted growth in the quality and effectiveness of science communication practice. Good impact evaluation requires upstream planning, clear objectives from practitioners, relevant research skills and a commitment to improving practice based on evaluation evidence.
Access to high quality evaluation results is essential for science communicators to identify negative patterns of audience response and improve outcomes. However, there are many good reasons why robust evaluation linked is not routinely conducted and linked to science communication practice. This essay begins by identifying some of the common challenges that explain this gap between evaluation evidence and practice. Automating evaluation processes through new technologies is then explicated as one solution to these challenges, capable of yielding accurate real-time results that can directly
King et al. [2015] argue that ‘emphasis on impact is obfuscating the valuable role of evaluation’ in informal science learning and public engagement (p. 1). The article touches on a number of important issues pertaining to the role of evaluation, informal learning, science communication and public engagement practice. In this critical response essay, I highlight the article’s tendency to construct a straw man version of ‘impact evaluation’ that is impossible to achieve, while exaggerating the value of simple forms of feedback-based evaluation exemplified in the article. I also identify a
AAAS describes public engagement with science as intentional, meaningful interactions that provide opportunities for mutual learning between scientists and members of the public. Through the Alan I. Leshner Leadership Institute for Public Engagement with Science, AAAS empowers scientists and engineers to practice high-impact public engagement by fostering leaders who advocate for critical dialogue between scientists and the public and lead change to enable their communities, institutions, and others to support public engagement. This bibliography, with additional work on understanding
Wallace and Brooks examined the culture of an elementary science education methods course conducted in a summer science camp, along with the professional identity development of the preservice teachers during their participation in the course.
Recent years have brought a shift in the rhetoric of science communication from initial deficit models to practices involving dialogue and, finally, engagement. But to what extent has this rhetorical shift changed practice in the U.K.? Jensen and Holliman analysed practitioners’ views of their science communication practices. Findings indicate that science communication practice is still primarily deficit-based, with some incidence of dialogue-oriented thinking.
Citizen Science 2015 was the inaugural conference of the Citizen Science Association (CSA). The conference planned for two days of building connections and exchanging ideas across a wide spectrum of disciplines and experiences and was held February 11th and 12th in San Jose, California, as a pre-conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Annual Meeting.
In addition to the other strands, a specific strand dedicated to education was held to identify opportunities and strategies to support the integration of citizen science into the Science, Technology