To appreciate what a huge difference there is between the author of a peer-reviewed journal article and just about any other kind of author we need only remind ourselves why universities have their "publish or perish" policy: aside from imparting existing knowledge to students through teaching, the work of a university scholar or scientist is devoted to creating new knowledge for other scholars and scientists to use, apply, and build upon, for the benefit of us all. Creating new knowledge is called "research", and its active use and application are called "research impact". Researchers are
In the midst of a debate on access to information, the World Health Organization and the FAO have decided to develop a strategy to guarantee the right of poor countries to have free access to scientific publications. This right is often denied, mainly because of high subscription costs. For this reason, universities and research centres in southern countries must forego buying magazines, which are a valuable instrument for updating, and exchanging information on research and scientific issues. This choice has been made in an historical period when the industrialized world is marked by a
Some recent events have brought to the attention of the general public the issue of free access to scientific information. On many occasions basic scientific information has been said to be constantly available to scientists. In truth, a group of scientists (those who live in the developing countries) have long remained on the fringes of the international research community and in part still are, mainly because of the existing difficulties in accessing scientific publications. However, this fact has never been as blatant as it was with the Human Genome Project. Indeed, the project saw an
Peer review is the evaluation method that has characterized the scientific growth of the last four centuries, the first four of what is called modern science, indeed. It is matter of scientific communication inside scientific community, a subject too poorly studied in comparison with its critical importance for a scientific study of science (science of science). Peer review has been used for scientific paper evaluation before publication (editorial peer review) and for research proposal evaluation before financial support (grants peer review). Both cases present similar pros and cons, so I
A study of docent-led guided school tours at a museum of natural history was investigated. Researchers engaged in naturalistic inquiry to describe how natural history content was conveyed to students and what students gained from this model of touring. They also investigated how the content and pedagogy within the guided tour complemented recommendations from formal science standards documents and informal learning literature. About 30 visiting school groups in Grades 2-8 were observed. Teachers (n = 30) and select students (n = 85) were interviewed. Researchers found that tours were organized
This research illustrates the efficacy of a new approach for collecting and analyzing family conversational data at museums and other informal settings. This article offers a detailed examination of a small data set (three families) that informs a larger body of work that focuses on conversation as methodology. The dialogic content of this work centers on biological themes, specifically adaptation. The biological principle becomes visible when families talk about survival strategies such as breeding or protection from predators. These themes arise from both the family members and the museum
This article describes an evaluation project that measured the effectiveness of particular communication strategies in the Kelp Forest feeding program at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. During the Kelp Forest program a volunteer guide (docent) delivers a narration about the Kelp Forest exhibit and has a conversation with a diver feeding the fish in the exhibit. The program concludes with the diver and the volunteer taking questions from the audience. The communication strategies measured in this study were identified by The Ocean Project (TOP), a collaborative initiative where the Monterey Bay
Most free-choice science learning institutions, in particular science centers, zoos, aquariums, and natural history museums, define themselves as educational institutions. However, to what extent, and for which visitors, do these free-choice learning settings accomplish their educational mission? Answering this question has proven challenging, in large part because of the inherent variability of visitors to such settings. We hypothesize that the challenges of measuring free-choice science learning might be diminished if it were possible to pool populations during analysis in ways that reduced
Evidence from the data collected on the Midwest Wild Weather Project indicates that the teachers are very excited about its potential for increasing their students' science literacy and understanding of the scientific process, as well as increasing their knowledge of the weather and exciting them about science in general. Students are very focused, enthusiastic and excited when interacting with the exhibits and universally pleased with their exploration and explainer experiences. MWW is also effectively reaching the intended underserved and underrepresented students across the nine sites are
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Gregory AloiaSciTech Hands On Museum