The Maryland Science Center, in partnership with SK Films, Inc. received NSF funding to produce a large format, 2D/3D film and multi-component educational materials and activities on the annual migration of monarch butterflies, their life cycle, the web of life at select sites where they land, and the citizen science efforts that led to the monarch migration discovery. Project goals are to 1) raise audience understanding of the nature of scientific investigation and the open-ended nature of the scientific process, 2) enhance and extend citizen science programs to new audiences, and 3) create better awareness of monarch biology, insect ecology and the importance of habitat. Innovation/Strategic Impact: The film has been released in both 3D and 2D 15/70 format. RMC Research Corporation has conducted evaluation of the project, both formatively and summatively, including a study of the comparable strengths of the 2D and 3D versions of the film. RMC has conducting formative evaluation and is currently conducting summative evaluation to assess the success of project materials in communicating science and achieving the project's learning goals. Collaboration: This project employs a collaborative model of partnerships between the project team and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the University of Minnesota's Monarchs in the Classroom and Monarch Watch. Project advisors represent world-renown monarch butterfly research scientists and educators, including Dr. Karen Oberhauser, named a "Champion of Change" by President Obama in June 2013, and Dr. Chip Taylor, founder and director of Monarch Watch at the University of Kansas.
In 2010 the Royal Society journal Biology Letters published an article, ‘Blackawton bees’, which caused something of a sensation: the findings, on bees’ foraging patterns, were original, but the true originality lay in the fact the experiments were in part devised, and the paper written, by a group of 8- to 10-year-old children at Blackawton Primary School in Devon (Blackawton et al., 2011).[1] The article attracted considerable media attention, troubling, as it did, the boundaries of professional science, and distinctions between scientific practice and education, not to mention the