This summary brief captures highlights from the second year of the NSF-funded WaterMarks project. The technical evaluation report for this same project period can be found on the main project page. The purpose of this document is to communicate key updates (as observed by the evaluation team) in a less technical way with the many different audiences who have an interest in keeping up with WaterMarks.
This is the evaluation report for the second year of the NSF-funded WaterMarks project. It reflects a current summary of available evidence about the intended outcomes of program activities to date, as well as commentary on how the project is using (or could use) this information moving forward.
This study collected data from seven planetarium email lists (one per planetarium regional organization in the United States), as well as online survey panel data from residents in each area, to describe and compare those who do and do not visit planetariums.
This by the project external evaluation partner presents findings from the first phase of the Co-Created Public Engagement with Science project (CC-PES). The CC-PES project has sought to bring together informal science education institutions, civic partners, and community partners to create forums that address socio-scientific issues that are important to audience being served. The project is designed to lead these collaborative teams through three key steps of public engagement with science: agenda setting (identifying the topic of interest and designing a forum to address it), decision
This report summarizes findings of an NSF conference grant designed to support the knowledge-building component of the 2019 Inclusive SciComm Symposium (ISCS). Specifically, this document describes symposium participants' motivations for attending the symposium, the symposium's effectiveness in achieving participants' desired outcomes, and participants' attitudes, behaviors, and self-efficacy related to critical dialogue, or difficult conversations across difference. The report also summarizes participants' perceived needs, challenges, and opportunities for advancing inclusive, equitable, and
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Sunshine MenezesHollie SmithKayon Murray-JohnsonHannah TrautmannMehri Azizi
The pilot test of a capacity building program integrating strategic discourse & community change theory identified a new path for advancing community STEM literacies. The results of experiment established partnerships with locally based non-profits working to address environmental justice and social disparities in areas threatened by climate change identified five recommendations to reset the role of ISLC’s as more relevant to the communities: 1) Allocate Time to Build Relationships; 2) Develop a Shared Definition of Resilience; 3) Situate Community Aspirations as Context for STEM Learning; 4)
The attached evaluation is of the A2A (Awareness to Action) Planning Workshop held February 21-23 in two locations simultaneously connected by internet: the University of Colorado, Boulder and Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey. It was made possible thanks to a collaboration of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) and EcoArts Connections, with additional assistance from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. A2A brought together 39 natural and social scientists, artists, urban planners, “sustainablists” (e.g. sustainability professionals working in a variety
The Society for Science and the Public’s Advocate Grant Program provides selected Advocates with funding, resources, and information. Advocates include classroom teachers, school and district administrators, university professors, and informal science educators in community-based programs. The role of the Advocate is to support three or more underserved middle or high school students in the process of advancing from conducting a scientific research or engineering design project to entering a scientific competition. Advocates receive a stipend of $3,000; opportunities to meet and interact with
This report presents findings from a formative evaluation of Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities-Informal Science Education (SENCER-ISE), a National Science Foundation and Noyce Foundation funded initiative to support partnerships between informal science and higher education institutions. This evaluation looked primarily at the collaborative infrastructure of SENCER-ISE, which included the web site, SENCER Summer Institute, and communications with project staff and/or the advisory board. This evaluation is the third evaluation that Randi Korn & Associates, Inc
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
RK&A, Inc.
resourceevaluationProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
The National Center for Science and Civic Engagement (NCSCE) contracted Randi Korn & Associates, Inc. (RK&A) to conduct a summative evaluation of its SENCER-ISE project partnerships. SENCER-ISE is an initiative that brings partners from higher education (HE) together with partners from informal science education (ISE) to create projects that engage audiences in science using the lens of civic engagement. SENCER funded 10 partnerships over three years—six through the National Science Foundation (DRL #1001795) and four through the Noyce Foundation. Previously, RK&A conducted a formative
InformalScience.org is an online collection of resources designed to serve a broad community of professionals whose work relates to informal education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Funded by the National Science Foundation and managed by the Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), InformalScience hosts a variety of usercontributed resources, including a wiki of evidence-based information on the impacts of informal STEM and a database of over 7,000 reports, articles, project descriptions, and other items uploaded by CAISE and website members.
The
This infographic presents a visual summary of a user study of the InformalScience.org website, which was conducted in 2016. The study used online surveys, task-based interviews, and web analytics to explore the following questions: (1) Who are the site's users and what content do they value? (2) Does the site clearly convey its purpose to visitors? and (3) Are users able to navigate the site and use search tools effectively?