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.
We examined an approach to reaching audiences who may not ordinarily engage with science. Termed Guerilla Science, this approach blends elements of access, by removing barriers to participation by embedding science into unexpected places, with those of inclusion, by designing activities that speak to the learning identities of participants.
The On-the-Spot Feedback project was an iterative design and research project, which developed and tested a training model to help scientists build strategies to gather audience feedback into their outreach activities, allowing them to adjust and shift their communication and outreach on-the-spot, based on real time audience feedback.
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
KQED, the Northern California PBS and NPR member station, and the College of Media & Communication at Texas Tech University have recently completed a $3 million grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) for the project Cracking the Code (CTC): Influencing Millennial Science Engagement. The three-year grant provided funding for an unprecedented science media research initiative between science media professionals and science communication academics with the goal of identifying how best to engage younger, more diverse audiences with science media.
This report is the final process
This report presents summative evaluation results for a National Science Foundation funded project entitled Grounding Institutional Partnerships in Structures for Broader Impacts Design (BID). The project represents a collaboration between five institutions: Institute for Learning Innovation, The STEM Research Center at Oregon State University, Scicenter, University of Washington-Bothell, and University of Wisconsin-Madison. BID aimed at creating an inter-institutional structure and toolkit to assist higher education institutions (HEIs) and informal science education organizations (ISEs) in
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 Brains On! exploratory research study was guided by three overarching research questions:
Who is the audience for Brains On! and what are their motivations for listening to children’s science podcasts?
How are Brains On! listeners using the podcast and engaging with its content?
What kinds of impacts does Brains On! have on its audiences?
These questions were answered through a three-phase mixed-methods research design. Each phase informed the next, providing additional insights into answering the research questions. Phase 1 was a review of a sample of secondary data in the
Informal learning institutions, such as museums, science centers, and community-based organizations, play a critical role in providing opportunities for students to engage in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) activities during out-of-school time hours. In recent years, thousands of studies, evaluations, and conference proceedings have been published measuring the impact that these programs have had on their participants. However, because studies of informal science education (ISE) programs vary considerably in how they are designed and in the quality of their designs, it
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
This study researched whether and how affiliation with the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net) led to change in informal science education organizations’ (ISEs) practices. The NISE Net provided an opportunity to look at how participation in a large but loosely-structured network of museums, science centers, educators, and scientists can influence museums to experience organizational change and adopt new practices.
By conducting qualitative case studies of a few selected partners, this research aimed to understand the conditions that facilitate or impede the influence of
Over the past decade, science festival expos have emerged as popular opportunities for practicing scientists to engage in education outreach with public audiences. In this paper, a partial proportional odds model was used to analyze 5,498 surveys collected from attendees at 14 science expos around the United States. Respondents who report that they interacted with a scientist rated their experiences more positively than those who reported no such interaction on five categories: overall experience, learning, inspiration, fun, and awareness of STEM careers. The results indicate that scientists