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.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is in many of our everyday activities—from unlocking phones to running Internet searches to parking cars. Yet, most instruction on how AI works is only in computer science courses. The unique role that AI plays in making decisions that affect human lives heightens the need for education approaches that promote public AI literacy. Little research has been done to understand how we can best teach AI in informal learning spaces. This project will engage middle school age youth in learning abouts AI through interaction with museum exhibits in science and technology centers. The exhibits employ embodied interactions and creative making activities that involve textiles, music making, and interactive media. The research will build on three exhibit prototypes that teach about concepts including bias in data in machine learning, AI decision-making processes, and how AI represents knowledge. Female-identifying and Title 1 youth will be recruited as participants during the exhibit design iterations and testing. The project is funded by the Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) program, which seeks to advance new approaches to, and evidence-based understanding of, the design and development of STEM learning in informal environments
Researchers will explore two key research questions: 1) How can the design of interactive museum exhibits encourage interest development in and learning about AI among learners without a Computer Science background by using embodiment and creative making? and 2) How do embodied interaction and creative making mediate learning about AI in informal learning environments? The project will take a design-based research approach, iteratively building on existing exhibit prototypes and testing them in-situ with learners. Data sources and modes of analysis will include retrospective surveys to assess interest, content knowledge gain, creativity, learning talk analysis of audio recordings, and coding of embodied movements in video recordings. Learning talk analysis will identify instances of joint sensemaking during naturalistic interactions with our exhibit to reveal connections between sensemaking talk; learners' behaviors and embodied actions during real-time collaborative knowledge building; and outcomes in knowledge, interest, and creativity measures as elicited in retrospective surveys. The final set of exhibits will be rigorously evaluated with over 500 museum visitors. The key contributions of this work will include a set of rigorously tested exhibits, publicly available exhibit designs, a set of design guidelines for developing AI literacy museum exhibits, and an improved understanding of the relationship between AI-related learning and interest development, embodiment, and creativity.
DATE:
-
TEAM MEMBERS:
Brian MagerkoDuri LongJessica Roberts
Informal STEM field trip programming is a large, yet under-researched area of the education landscape. Informal STEM education providers are often serving a more privileged section of society, leading to a risk of perpetuating inequalities seen throughout the education landscape. In an attempt to address the lack of research, this thesis explores the relationship between educational equity and informal STEM field trips. The intention was to collect data using a critical ethnography approach to the methods of qualitative questionnaire and interviews of informal STEM educators. A change in
Feminist technoscience theory offers perspectives for science communication that both question common narratives and suggests new narratives. These perspectives emphasize issues of ethics and care often missing from science communication. They focus on questions of what is marginalized or left out of stories about science — and encourage us to make those absences visible.
This commentary introduces feminist standpoint theory and discusses its potential value in science communication. It offers two ways in which feminist standpoints can help in both research and practice. First, science communicators should aim to understand the perspective from which they understand and share scientific knowledge. Second, practitioners and researchers alike should seek insights from marginalized groups to help inform the ways the dominant view of science reflects hegemonic social and cultural norms.
As science communication develops as a field of both practice and research, it needs to address issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion across a wide range, including race, power, class, gender. Doing so will require deeper understanding of conceptual work and practical activities that address those issues. This brief comment introduces a series of commentaries that provide one approach: feminist approaches to science communication.
This report summarizes the ideas and conversations of the CAISE Broadening Participation Task Force, which was led by the authors, along with James Bell, Principal Investigator and project director of CAISE (see informalscience.org/bp-task-force). The task force was instrumental in identifying key ideas and challenges to the field, providing edits and input into the report, developing and drafting the associated practice briefs, and piloting the materials.
Across the nation, many are undertaking efforts to significantly transform who participates in science, technology, engineering, and
Informal STEM education institutions seek to engage broader cross sections of their communities to address inequities in STEM participation and remain relevant in a multicultural society. In this chapter, we advance the role that evaluation can play in helping the field adopt more inclusive practices and achieve greater equity than at present through evaluation that addresses sociopolitical contexts and reflects the perspectives and values of non-dominant communities. To do this for specific projects, we argue that evaluation should privilege the voices and lived experiences of non-dominant
Antarctic Dinosaurs: A Giant Screen Film and Outreach Project aims to leverage the popularity and charisma of dinosaurs to draw museum audiences into a captivating educational journey, revealing the history and transformation of Antarctica and the planet’s polar ecosystems, and exploring the forces that continue to shape the continent. In addition to bringing to life a wealth of unfamiliar dinosaurs, amphibians and proto-mammals, this project will journey beyond the bones to reveal a more nuanced, multi-disciplinary interpretation of paleontology and Antarctica’s profound changes.
Centered
Out-of-school settings promise to broaden participation in science to groups that are often left out of school-based opportunities. Increasing such involvement is premised on the notion that science is intricately tied to “the social, material, and personal well-being” of individuals, groups, and nations—indicators and aspirations that are deeply linked with understandings of equity, justice, and democracy. In this essay, the authors argue that dehistoricized and depoliticized meanings of equity, and the accompanying assumptions and goals of equity-oriented research and practice, threaten to
This article explores science communication from the perspective of those most at risk of exclusion, drawing on ethnographic fieldwork. I conducted five focus groups and 32 interviews with participants from low-income, minority ethnic backgrounds. Using theories of social reproduction and social justice, I argue that participation in science communication is marked by structural inequalities (particularly ethnicity and class) in two ways. First, participants’ involvement in science communication practices was narrow (limited to science media consumption). Second, their experiences of exclusion