The Lineage project was a collaboration between Twin Cities Public Television and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. The project included creation of a feature-length video program, a Virtual Reality game, and a set of hands-on activities designed for use by multigenerational audiences—all of which were incorporated as part of a series of seven Fossil Festival events at museums and other sites around the United States. This report presents findings from a set of external evaluation studies that examined impacts on families who participated in Fossil Festival events as well
According to the Gateway Belief Model, scientists and science educators should stress the scientific consensus when engaging with the lay population across a wide variety of mediums, including debates. The purpose of this study, then, was to determine if engaging in such debates does more harm than good in terms of persuading individuals towards accepting the scientific consensus of controversial issues. Participants (N = 208) read a manipulated debate segment altered by the issue discussed as well as the position/title of the skeptic debater. Results indicate that it is possible to influence
The National Academy of Sciences’ LabX program came into existence in 2017 with a directive to develop programming meant to engage with a young-adult (18-37 years old) target audience who are active decision-makers and whose actions impact current and future policies. While conducting preliminary research, the LabX staff and advisory board discovered that available research on young adults’ relationship with science was sadly lacking in detail, beyond obvious conclusions about high levels of interest in technology and social experiences.
To fill these knowledge gaps, gain a deeper
Basing mainly on author's direct involvement in some science communication efforts in India, and other reports, this contribution depicts and analyses the present science communication/ popularization scenario in India. It tries to dispel a myth that rural people don't require or don’t crave for S&T information. It discusses need for science and technology communication, sustaining curiosity and creating role models. Citing cases of some natural, 'unnatural' and organized events, it recounts how S&T popularization efforts have fared during the past decade and a half. It's made possible using
In this paper I use the concepts “understanding of science” and “appreciation of science” to analyze selected case studies of current science communication in Denmark. The Danish science communication system has many similarities with science communication in other countries: the increasing political and scientific interest in science communication, the co-existence of many different kinds of science communication, and the multiple uses of the concepts of understanding vs. appreciation of science. I stress the international aspects of science communication, the national politico-scientific
If we wish to attempt an initial analysis of the inquiry on the communication of science in Brazil, India and China that JCOM proposed in its three most recent issues, we should paraphrase Chinese science and science-fiction writer, Yan Wu: even though these three countries are emerging in the fields of economy and science, and are now part of a wide group of communicators, promoting numerous methods to divulge information, they don't yet have a sound theory on the communication of science to the public. This is not an insignificant problem because according to David Dickson, the director of
Nowadays, India is experiencing a widespread diffusion of science communication activities. Public institutions, non-governmental organisations and a number of associations are busy spreading scientific knowledge not only via traditional media but also through specific forms of interaction with a varied public. This report aims to provide a historical overview of the diffusion of science communication in India, illustrating its current development and its future prospects.
This report presents findings from Goodman Research Group's evaluation of the following: (1) The NOVA scienceNOW series, including viewer feedback on Season Three and the knowledge gained from viewing the six new episodes, (2) The NOVA scienceNOW website, and (3) Focus groups conducted at the Science Café conference in June 2008. Includes survey.
The National Science Foundation funded Roadside Heritage (RH) to produce three major deliverables during this project: (1) STEM-rich audio stories for the traveling public that highlight the science associated with Highway 395; (2) Traveling festival kits that highlight major STEM features of the Eastern Sierra landscape; and (3) The RH website, a STEM-rich site highlighting the natural and cultural landscape associate with Highway 395. During the project’s final year, WestEd conducted summative evaluation activities targeting each of these deliverables. Appendix contains survey.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Jerome HippsSharon HerpinDonna Winston
Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF),The STEM Pathways project focused on exploring strategies through which at-risk and incarcerated Hispanic youth could be engaged around STEM careers, understand the education, training, and skills they would need to attain them, and think that such a path was a future possibility. To this end, the project and evaluation teams collaborated on a literature review, the development of a logic model, and the design, implementation, and evaluation of a diverse set of program activities that included media, art, and flash mentoring with STEM role models
The NSF-funded 400 Years of the Telescope project was a unique partnership among a public television station, a production studio, two planetariums and a leading astronomical society in the United States. Its five main components included a one-hour PBS documentary, a 22-minute planetarium program, a website with astronomical infromation, "star parties"(nighttime astronomical viewing events) and promotional events hosted by PBS affiliate stations. The summative evaluation focused on three main evaluation questions: 1) What are the individual and cumulative impacts of the menu of deliverables