In 2018, the Croucher Foundation conducted its third annual mapping exercise for the out-of-school STEM learning ecosystem in Hong Kong.
The study reveals a rich and vibrant ecosystem for out-of-school STEM in Hong Kong with over 3,000 discrete activities covering a very wide range of science disciplines. This third report indicates extremely rapid growth in available out-of-school STEM activities compared to 2016 and an even larger increase in the number of organisations offering out-of-school STEM activities in Hong Kong.
STEM educators are eager to foster long term collaboration with each other, and with schools. At the same time, good working practice by schools, teachers, STEM educators and institutions that involves and engages local communities was discovered, showing the diversified modes of connection which could enhance the sustainability of STEM ecosystem.
We trust that this three-year study with its associated digital maps, provides a useful resource for schools, teachers, students, parents, STEM educators and education policy makers in Hong Kong.
King et al. [2015] argue that ‘emphasis on impact is obfuscating the valuable role of evaluation’ in informal science learning and public engagement (p. 1). The article touches on a number of important issues pertaining to the role of evaluation, informal learning, science communication and public engagement practice. In this critical response essay, I highlight the article’s tendency to construct a straw man version of ‘impact evaluation’ that is impossible to achieve, while exaggerating the value of simple forms of feedback-based evaluation exemplified in the article. I also identify a
This article addresses some of the challenges faced when attempting to evaluate the long-term impact of informal science learning interventions. To contribute to the methodological development of informal science learning research, we critically examine (Falk and Needham (2011) Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48: 1–12.) study of the California Science Center's long-term impact on the Los Angeles population's understanding, attitude and interest in science. This study has been put forward as a good model of long-term impact evaluation for other researchers and informal science learning
Access to high quality evaluation results is essential for science communicators to identify negative patterns of audience response and improve outcomes. However, there are many good reasons why robust evaluation linked is not routinely conducted and linked to science communication practice. This essay begins by identifying some of the common challenges that explain this gap between evaluation evidence and practice. Automating evaluation processes through new technologies is then explicated as one solution to these challenges, capable of yielding accurate real-time results that can directly
Since 2000, the UK government has funded surveys aimed at understanding the UK public's attitudes toward science, scientists, and science policy. Known as the Public Attitudes to Science series, these surveys and their predecessors have long been used in UK science communication policy, practice, and scholarship as a source of authoritative knowledge about science-related attitudes and behaviors. Given their importance and the significant public funding investment they represent, detailed academic scrutiny of the studies is needed. In this essay, we critically review the most recently
In order to improve science, technology, mathematics, and engineering (STEM) learning, it is crucial to better understand the informal experiences that young children have that prepare them for formal science education. Young children are naturally curious about the world around them, and research in developmental psychology shows that families often support children in exploring and seeking explanations for scientific phenomena. It is less clear how to link children's natural curiosity and everyday parent-child interaction with more formal STEM learning. This collaborative project will team researchers from the University of California, Santa Cruz, the University of Texas, and Brown University with informal learning practitioners at the Children's Discovery Museum, The Thinkery, and the Providence Children's Museum in order to investigate how family interaction relates to children's causal learning, as well as how modifications to museum exhibit design and facilitation by museum staff influence families' styles of interaction and increase children's causal learning. This project is funded by the Research on Education and Learning (REAL) program which supports fundamental research by investigators from a range of disciplines in order to deepen what is known about STEM learning.
The project team will examine how ethnically and linguistically diverse samples of parents and children engage in collaborative scientific learning in three children's museums across the U.S. The research will combine observational studies of parent-child interaction in a real-world setting with experimental measures of children's causal learning. The investigators will examine how children explore and derive explanations for museum exhibits about mechanical gear function and fluid dynamics. In this way, the researchers will investigate the relation between styles of parent-child interaction and children's causal learning. The team will also investigate novel ways of presenting material within the exhibits to facilitate exploration and explanation. They will explore how signage, conversations with museum staff, parents' attitudes towards learning in museum settings, and parents' own prior knowledge about the exhibits can influence the parent-child interaction and subsequent causal learning. The project will advance the basic research goal of advancing what is known about what affects children's science content learning. It will also advance the practice-oriented goal of developing new strategies for the design of science museum exhibits and make recommendations for how parents can better talk to their children about scientific phenomena.
It’s important to communicate the excitement and value of NSF-funded research. This tool (formatted as a Prezi presentation) helps you do that with assistance from NSF public affairs experts, exploring options for communicating your research and broader impacts.
There are many lenses through which we can measure the value of a museum experience.
There is the satisfaction factor: Did visitors have a good time? Were they engaged? Do they want to return?
There are learning outcomes: Did visitors learn something new? How much did they learn? How did their experience compare to other types of learning experiences?
And there is also meaning-making: Did respondents have a meaningful experience? A memorable one? A connective experience that made them want more?
While all three of these lenses (and many others) are important, meaning-making is
People love stuff. It speaks to them; it reminds them of special moments or people in their lives. They collect it and they love to tell stories about it and show it off. Museums’ deepest roots are in the stuff of collections. But over the last 200 years, the value and importance of collections to effective science interpretation (including exhibits, education, and outreach) has waxed and waned. It is clear from recent studies that using collections in concert with media and interactivity in exhibits and programs yields an extremely effective visitor experience. The recent work of Reach
A collective mass of youthful exuberance pulses through our science centers and museums on any given day. As I visit our ASTC-member institutions around the world, I find it extremely rewarding to watch all that energy being transformed into focused, intense contemplation of specific topics or experiences.
I have always been fascinated by the concept of “dwell time” in our science centers and museums. Dwell time usually refers simply to the period of time visitors spend in an exhibition or at a specific exhibit or activity. This time period can be extended in ways that are not entirely
On the first day of the Science and Society course at the Cooperstown Graduate Program in Cooperstown, New York, I present the students with an incandescent lightbulb, with clear glass so one can easily see the filament inside. I ask the students how it works and they are able to tell me that the electricity comes in there, runs through the filament here, heats up, and produces light. Then I take out my iPhone and slide it across the table and ask, “How does this work?” Blank stares abound.
In the 1980s in the United States, the traditional science center business and mission models worked well. Science centers were the most prominent source for informal science learning with financial support from governments and donors and a quasi-monopoly on IMAX films, science store merchandise, and interactive exhibits. A science center’s exhibit department would devise interesting exhibits, and the marketing department simply advertised that content to whatever audience might be interested. From today’s perspective, those were relatively simple times.
Things began to change in the 1990s