Rather than focusing on how different they are, this literature review details shared characteristics of science museums, science centers, zoos, and aquariums in order to contribute to an ecological view of learning. This article identifies four shared characteristics of these informal science environments: motives and goals, staging of popular science, physical layout, and social exchange and participation. The learning outcomes encompass not only knowledge acquisition but also changes in interests and beliefs.
Adams, Gupta, and Cotumaccio examine the STEM interest and identity development of a small group of young women of color who participated in a multi-year, museum-based, out-of-school time program as middle and high school students. Through their positive experiences in the program, participants developed positive STEM identities, which supported their persistence as STEM college majors.
To date, no national studies of science-focused out-of-school time (OST) programs have been implemented, making it difficult to get a sense of program diversity and characteristics. In this paper, Laursen, Thiry, Archie, and Crane map the national landscape of U.S. OST science, technology, and engineering programs. The findings allow the authors to describe a generalized profile for each of eight types of OST program providers.
Long aware that people from working-class, low-income, and ethnic minority backgrounds do not visit, informal science education institutions often attribute lack of visitorship to cost or barriers to access. Dawson argues that such institutions are not inclusive due to social factors that reinforce the experience of difference, discomfort, and inaccessibility for these minority groups.
Bathgate, Schunn, and Correnti investigate students’ motivation toward science across three dimensions: the context or setting, the way in which students interact with science materials or ideas, and the activity topic. Findings point to the importance of understanding children’s perceptions of specific science topics, not just science in general.
This paper draws on ethnographic data to bring equity to the fore within discussions of tinkering and making. Vossoughi, Escudé, Kong & Hooper argue that equity lies in the how of teaching and learning through specific ways of: designing making environments, using pedagogical language, integrating students’ cultural and intellectual histories, and expanding the meanings and purposes of STEM learning. The authors identify and exemplify emergent equity-oriented design principles within the Tinkering After-School Program—a partnership between the Exploratorium and the Boys and Girls Clubs of San
What is the relationship between experiences in informal settings and students’ understanding of and attitudes toward science? By analysing existing data sets, Suter finds that science museum attendance has an effect—albeit a small one—on student achievement.
Petrich, Wilkinson, and Bevan (2013) explore three areas of design principles related to tinkering. The authors share their thinking related to the activity design, environmental design, and facilitation practices involved in creating and supporting rich tinkering experiences for museumgoers. They wrote a chapter on tinkering, which describes how the group initiated, cultivated, and facilitated a making and tinkering space on the floor of a museum. Specifically the chapter outlines principles for the activity design, the tinkering space, and the facilitation practices. The authors conclude by