Skip to main content

Community Repository Search Results

resource evaluation Public Programs
This document summarizes lessons learned from implementing Leap into Science: Cultivating a National Network for Informal Science and Literacy (Leap into Science) from 2017-2023.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Sara Greller Karen Peterson Sheila James Erin Stafford Darryl Williams Emily Early Sharon Rollins Andrea Foster
resource evaluation Public Programs
The following summative report describes overarching evaluation findings from the evaluation of Leap into Science, including future considerations for the Leap into Science program team (program team). The report aims to summarize takeaways from 2018-2023 and report on overall insights pertaining to the core evaluation questions of interest.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
resource evaluation Exhibitions
This is a compilation of front-end, formative, and a partial summative evaluations, and an exploratory study using the xMacroscope, a data visualization technology developed for generating data from an exhibit using data captured from visitor actions.
DATE:
resource research Media and Technology
The executive summary of the Formative Research Report for the project: Fostering Joint Parent/Child Engagement in Preschool Computational Thinking by Leveraging Digital Media, Mobile Technology, and Library Settings in Rural Communities.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Janna Kook Camille Ferguson Lucy Nelson Marisa Wolsky Jessica Andrews
resource research Media and Technology
This is the formative research report for the project: Fostering Joint Parent/Child Engagement in Preschool Computational Thinking by Leveraging Digital Media, Mobile Technology, and Library Settings in Rural Communities
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Marisa Wolsky Jessica Andrews Janna Kook Lucy Nelson Camille Ferguson
resource evaluation Exhibitions
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.
DATE:
resource evaluation Exhibitions
Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Access from the Ground Up project at the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) seeks to better serve children with disabilities through a combination of partnerships with community, staff professional development and training, and the development of accessible STEM-focused exhibits and resources at the new JMZ facility, which opened in November 2021. This summative evaluation report seeks to answer the following evaluation questions: To what extent does the Access from the Ground Up project build or strengthen relationships with
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Maia Werner-Avidon Tina Keegan Lisa Erikson
resource evaluation Media and Technology
This paper reports on a new media-based tool designed to develop new knowledge about joint parent-child participation in science talk and practices using a second screen app synced with a television program, called Splash! Ask-Me: Ocean Adventures (Splash!).[1] With funding from the National Science Foundation, Splash! is an app designed to work in conjunction with a marine science-focused television program, Splash and Bubbles, for children 2-8 years old that premiered nationally on PBS Kids in fall of 2016. The free app includes a variety of "conversation catalysts" tied to the television
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Christine Paulsen Sharon Carroll Erin Carroll
resource evaluation Public Programs
The Brooklyn Botanic Garden (BBG) and Brooklyn Academy of Science and the Environment (BASE) contracted RK&A to conduct an evaluation of their partnership’s progress and outcomes over three years. The goal of the summative evaluation is to explore students, families, and teachers’ perceptions of and relationship to BBG and the BBG-BASE partnership. The evaluation also explored attitudes and understandings of how to engage in nature exploration, scientific inquiry, and environmental stewardship in a meaningful way. How did we approach this study? RK&A developed questionnaires to be
DATE:
resource evaluation Public Programs
Program evaluators from the Education Development Center (EDC) used a mixed-methods, quasi-experimental design to evaluate the impact on girls’ awareness and interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). After the final year of the project, EDC delivered a summative report to Techbridge Girls (TBG), which was based on data collected during the five-year grant period, with a particular focus on the final year that grant funds supported programming (2017-18). Data included pre- and post-surveys with TBG participants and comparison students, participant focus groups, and
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS: Ginger Fitzwater
resource evaluation Media and Technology
The independent evaluation firm, Knight Williams, Inc., developed a two-part post-program survey to gather information about the Year 1 SciGirls CONNECT2 outreach programs conducted by 14 partner organizations. The evaluation aimed for one educator from each organization to complete Part 1 of the survey, which consisted of program reporting questions. In all, one educator from 13 partner organizations completed Part 1, for a response rate of 93%. Part 2 of the survey asked for program reflections, with a focus on perceived program goals, impacts, highlights, and challenges. Given the
DATE:
resource evaluation Media and Technology
The independent evaluation firm Knight Williams, Inc. conducted a formative evaluation during Year 2 of the SciGirls CONNECT2 program in order to gather information about the partner educators’ use of, reflections on, and recommendations relating to the draft updated SciGirls Strategies. The evaluation aimed for two educators from each of 14 partner organizations – specifically the program leader and one educator who was familiar with the original SciGirls Seven – to provide reflections on their use of the draft SciGirls Strategies in their programs through an online survey and follow-up
DATE: