This report is the third annual report summarizing data collected about the overall impact of the Saint Louis Science Center's educational programs on participants.
Bio Med Tech: Engineering for Your Health was a 2,750 square foot exhibition at the Great Lakes Science Center (GLSC) that dealt with issues related to biomedical technology. Partially funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health Science Education Partnership Awards program (NIH/SEPA), the project was developed through a partnership between GLSC and Case Western Reserve University. The SEPA grant also funded a variety of programming activities, including informal Exploration Cart activities in the exhibition, presentations in the exhibition's theater space, and teacher training
During 2005-2008, the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network researched, designed, implemented, and evaluated public deliverables covering various aspects of nanoscience, nanotechnology, and nanoengineering. Working with four NISE Net museums, Multimedia Research used a web-based post-survey design to assess nanotechnology awareness in a sample of museum visitors exposed to nano-topic programs, exhibits, forums and activities (treatment group) compared with a sample of museum members who were not exposed to the deliverables (control group). Exposure to nano-topic deliverables appears to
IN 2005-2008, the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network experimented with forum models designed to provide attendees with an opportunity to learn about and discuss the implications of nanotechnology on their lives, society and the environment. For this summative evaluation, the forum Nanotechnology in Health Care was implemented at three NISE Net museums and evaluated with a pre-post one-group design. The Nanotechnology in Health Care forum model is successful in positively influencing attendees' definition of nanotechnology; their awareness, assessment, and understanding of both the
From May 1 to July 7 of 2008, volunteers had the opportunity to provide feedback on their volunteer experience and offer suggestions for improvement. The survey was a follow up to the May 2007 volunteer survey. The 2008 survey was initially only available as a web-based survey. Volunteers with email accounts were sent a link to the survey. A kiosk was also available in the volunteer check-in area for volunteers to complete the survey while at the museum. After the first month, the survey was made available in paper format in the volunteer break room to help increase the response rate. Paper
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Sarah CohnScience Museum of Minnesota
In an effort to learn more about ways the Museum of Science can revise its existing comment card system so that it can better monitor the quality of the visitor experience, the Museum of Science Research and Evaluation Department, under the guidance of the Visitor Services division, set out to accomplish the following goals: Develop a detailed system for coding comments provided through the museum's existing electronic and physical comment cards; Determine the main visitor concerns that were expressed through the current comment card reporting system; and Explore how alternative sampling
During the summer of 2007, the Science Museum of Minnesota carried out a summative evaluation of the Kitty Andersen Youth Science Center's Park Crew program. The purpose of the evaluation was to understand how the youth staff implemented activities in the museum's Big Back Yard and what they learned about earth-surface processes, teaching others, and STEM careers. A mixed-methods design was used to gather evaluative data. Data collection methods included observations of youth presenting activities to visitors and pre- and post-interviews with the youth. A total of 11 youth (sophomore through
This study was designed to assess qualitative and quantitative impacts that the enactor program has on visitor experience at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science (DMNS), using two temporary exhibitions (Benjamin Franklin: In Search of a Better World and Titanic: The Artifact Exhibition) as examples. Of interest was capturing the unique visitor experience that enactors provide by combining visitor engagement, education and interaction. In turn, this affords opportunities to better consider enactor and/or theater-based programming for other areas of the Museum (temporary and permanent) in the
With the support of a Wallace Excellence Award, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum (the Gardner) contracted with Randi Korn & Associates, Inc. (RK&A) to study its young adult visitors. The study is part of an initiative to engage young adults between 18 and 34 years old, and to create conditions for a compelling experience at the Gardner that will foster continuing relationships with the Museum. Data for this study were collected from in-depth interviews with 55 groups of young adult visitors (184 individuals) between 18 and 43 years of age. After the interview, each participant completed
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Randi Korn & Associates, Inc.Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
Grossology Live! was a creative and innovative program that involved unique format, content, and collaboration. The program used live video-conferencing techniques to create two-way interaction between onscreen actors in a colorful Grossology set in the studio in Noblesville, Indiana; uniquely imaginative comedic and musical presentations on the human body; and a live presenter, stage set, and audience at 5 small science or health centers primarily in the mid-west and southeast. The receiving sites were members of the National Association of Health Education Centers (NAHEC), which played a
The Science Museum of Minnesota surveyed 16 museum visitors after they participated in the Exploring Measurement: Ruler Activity at NanoDays. This formative testing of the activity assessed the activity’s ability to convey the size of a nanometer, and that scientists need to use special tools when working at the nanoscale.
Visitors to the Science Museum of Minnesota provided feedback on the books, How Small Is Nano? and Is That Robot Real? in order to assess the books and their ability to impart knowledge of nanoscience. The visitors, 63 adults in all, read one of the books to the child or children accompanying them, then answered a series of questions about their experience including their interest in and enjoyment of the book they read, as well as the age appropriateness of the book. The report compares and contrasts the two books throughout.