In recent years, transmedia has come into the spotlight among those creating and using media and technology for children. We believe that transmedia has the potential to be a valuable tool for expanded learning that addresses some of the challenges facing children growing up in the digital age. Produced by the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab and the Joan Ganz Cooney Center, this paper provides a much-needed guidebook to transmedia in the lives of children age 5-11 and its applications to storytelling, play, and learning. Building off of a review of the existing popular and scholarly literature
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Becky Herr-StephensonMeryl AlperErin Reilly
resourceprojectProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
The National Science Foundation (NSF) Climate Change Education Partnership Alliance (CCEPA) is a consortium made up of the six Phase II Climate Change Education Partnership (CCEP-II) program awardees funded in FY 2012. Collectively, the CCEPA is establishing a coordinated network devoted to increasing the adoption of effective, high quality educational programs and resources related to the science of climate change and its potential impacts. The establishment of a CCEPA Coordination Office addresses the need for a coordinating body that leverages and builds upon the CCEPA projects' individual initiatives. The CCEPA Coordination Office facilitates interactions to leverage a successful network of CCEP-II projects and individuals engaged in increasing climate science literacy. The efforts of the Coordination Office advance knowledge and understanding of how to effectively network related, but different, projects into a cohesive enterprise. The goal is to coordinate a functional network, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
The CCEPA Coordination Office at the University of Rhode Island is helping to move the CCEPA network forward on a number of key initiatives that strengthen it, reduce duplication, and enhance its overall impact. An important role of the Coordination Office is the facilitation of the transfer of best practices between projects. An effective network forges collaborations and establishes communities of practice through network working groups, building intellectual capital network-wide. The CCEPA Coordination Office has a key role in assisting the CCEPA project PIs and staff to disseminate the results of their work. Partnerships with other relevant societies and organizations assist the Coordination Office in identifying opportunities and synergies for sharing, disseminating, and leveraging network products as well as best practices that emerge as Earth system science education models and tools are evaluated. This endeavor broadens the collective impact of the individual projects across the country.
The most important consideration in evaluating chemistry outreach efforts is how to best use the evaluation to serve project needs. Evaluation should be about making programs more effective—at communicating ideas, changing attitudes, inspiring action, or reaching wider audiences, for example. A well-conducted evaluation typically contributes to the quality of a project by helping its leaders better define their goals, identify important milestones and indicators of success, and use evidence to support ongoing improvements. At its best, evaluation is an integral part of project design and
The National Research Council’s (NRC) Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology (BCST) and Board on Science Education (BOSE) received funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to develop a framework for effective chemistry communication, outreach, and education in informal settings, with the ultimate goal of increasing the effectiveness of such efforts in engaging the public with chemistry. BCST and BOSE are assembling a committee of experts to execute this work. To support their efforts, BCST and BOSE also commissioned this landscape study, which serves as background for the
This evaluator reflection was provided to stimulate conversation at the June 20-21, 2013 CAISE Evaluation Convening. It reflects on the nature of learning and challenges assumptions of outcomes from engaging in informal learning experiences.
This funder reflection was provided to stimulate conversation at the June 20-21, 2013 CAISE Evaluation Convening. It describes the importance of evaluation to funders, and provides some prompts and questions for thinking about evaluation with relation to funding.
This leadership reflection was provided to stimulate conversation at the June 20-21, 2013 CAISE Evaluation Convening. It provides an organizational leadership perspective on evaluation.
Scientists intermittently appear on television news as experts to inform and comment on current events. This study explores whether their appearance adds a critical measure of substantiated arguments and balanced judgements to public affairs reporting. An explorative analysis of a representative sample of news broadcasts from five public broadcasters in Western Europe in 2006 and 2007 suggests that this is to some extent the case. The implications of these findings for the deliberative quality of TV news are discussed, and a typology of scientific experts in the general news items is proposed.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Richard van der WurffPiet VerhoevenMaite Gadellaa
The explosion at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant highlighted serious social concerns about risk communications; the public found it difficult to take preventive actions based on scientific information of radioactive fallout. We investigated public perception of the risks from low dose radiation and the role of information providers through the Internet survey focusing on parents in four Japanese regional groups. Mothers felt more anxious than fathers in Fukushima but not in further groups, and that the furthest group felt the most ambiguous anxiety. Their anxiety derived from distrust of the
Scientific journalism ought to pay attention not only to the “products” of science, but also to the ways in which it operates in any given historical and political context. A critical analysis of the presently dominant rhetoric of innovation and unlimited growth is necessary to shed light on the relationship between science and democracy. Equally profitable would be a thorough investigation of past and present controversies on the role of scientists in decision-making.