This study helps us understand how children and adolescents perceive science and scientists, and it suggests some factors that influence those images. Researchers collected drawings from Catalan students ages 6 to 17 and analyzed them using the Draw-A-Scientist Test (Chambers, 1983). Findings show that, in general, Catalan students, and particularly boys over 12, retained classic stereotypes of scientists.
Brewer and Ley surveyed 851 participants in a U.S. city and revealed relationships among demographic characteristics, religious beliefs, political views, and trust in multiple forms of science communication sources.
In this comparative case study, Enright explores whether the very act of labeling students contributes to continued differences in educational opportunity for students labeled “mainstream” and “non-mainstream.”
This Hundal and Keselman paper describes the design of an afterschool curriculum aimed at supporting argumentation skills in the context of environmental health. It frankly describes the tensions between the teachers and researchers in the co-design of the project. It acknowledges differences in perspectives in a way that may guide the co-design efforts of others.
This paper’s findings illustrate the claim that young people’s prior knowledge cannot be separated from the cultural context in which it is situated. Using examples from a longitudinal ethnographic study of 13 children, the authors Bricker and Reeve argue that, in order to understand young people’s thinking and practice, we need to understand the social and cultural systems in which their thinking is embedded.
Drawing on a survey of 454 teachers, Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, and Gallagher found several components of professional development (PD) that predicted implementation of an earth science curriculum. They determined that the coherence of the PD effort and the provision of content instruction were the most important factors determining whether or not teachers implemented the new curriculum.
A two stage summative evaluation was conducted following the launch of the Mystic Seaport for Educators website, the final output resulting from the IMLS National Leadership grant entitled Mystic E-Port Digital Classroom project. The results of four focus groups, conducted in two phases, found consistent results suggesting that the project was successful at achieving all four goals as outlined in the original grant proposal. Appendix includes focus group protocol.
Through a critical ethnography, Birmingham and Calabrese Barton examined why and how a group of six middle school girls took civic action, defined as “educated action in science,” after studying green energy in an afterschool science program. The paper follows the students’ process in planning and implementing a carnival to engage their community in energy conservation and efficiency issues.
Lundh and colleagues compare afterschool science offerings to the model of informal science education defined in the National Research Council’s report on learning science in informal environments. Case studies explore how common site-based constraints and the support of external partners influence science program differences as seen through the lens of the NRC model.
Dabney and colleagues examine the relationship between university students’ reported interest in STEM careers and their participation in out-of-school time science activities during middle and high school. The researchers examined the specific forms of OST science activities associated with STEM career interest and the correlations among those forms.
Hamlin provides a how-to guide for leveraging traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) to teach science in indigenous contexts. Her process uses the Vitality Index of Traditional Ecological Knowledge with ethnography to identify TEK. She describes how a community-driven program used TEK to expand the learning opportunities of a historically oppressed group: Maya women in Guatemala.
Briseño-Garzón analyzed interviews with 20 families after they visited Universum Museo de las Ciencias. She concluded that the benefits of visiting a science museum are “much more than science,” including spending quality time together as a family, interacting with others, learning about local culture and history, learning from each other, and, of course, learning science.