Final External Evaluation Report for Informal STEM Learning at Biological Field Stations, an NSF AISL Exploratory Pathways project, which studied the pedagogical and andragogical characteristics of informal educational outreach activities at field stations. This report summarizes the project team’s major research activities and the contextual factors that supported that work.
Appendix includes interview protocol.
In November 2016, within an Environmental studies course at the University of Venice, students carried out an experiment aimed at collecting scenarios of the Venetian coast's future starting from lessons learnt during the episode of storm surge 50 years ago (Aqua Granda ‘flood’). The students built scenarios able to anticipate the effect of sea level rise on coastal areas in Venice, based not only on scientific input but also on a methodology called “Futurescape city Tours” (FCT) involving inhabitants of the barrier islands of Lido and Pellestrina. This paper will explore three main questions
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
ALBA L'ASTORINAAlessia GhezziStefano GuerzoniEmanuela Molinaroli
Field stations across the United States provide learning opportunities to the general public through their outreach programming. With approximately 78% and 98% of the US population living within 60 and 120 miles of a field station, respectively, stations have the potential to be key providers of informal STEM education. We surveyed a sample of US biological field stations and asked them to describe their outreach programming and goals. Our findings indicate that field stations prioritize outreach by dedicating personnel and fiscal resources, but such initiatives are highly variable in
Human-induced global change has triggered the sixth major extinction event on earth with profound consequences for humans and other species. A scientifically literate public is necessary to find and implement approaches to prevent or slow species loss. Creating science-inspired art can increase public understanding of the current anthropogenic biodiversity crisis and help people connect emotionally to difficult concepts. In spite of the pressure to avoid advocacy and emotion, there is a rich history of scientists who make art, as well as art–science collaborations resulting in provocative work
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Jennifer HarrowerJennifer ParkerMartha Merson
This editorial provides an overview of the Journal of Science Communication, volume 16, issue 5. This issue of JCOM explores the question ‘what works in science communication?’ from a variety of angles, as well as focusing on the politically sensitive topic of climate change. In addition, the issue contains a set of commentaries that explore the sometimes conflicting roles of universities in science communication.
Whereas the evolution of snow cover across forested mountain watersheds is difficult to predict or model accurately, the presence or absence of snow cover is easily observable and these observations contribute to improved snow models. We engaged citizen scientists to collect observations of the timing of distributed snow disappearance over three snow seasons across the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. . The primary goal of the project was to build a more spatially robust dataset documenting the influence of forest cover on the timing of snow disappearance, and public outreach was a secondary goal
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Susan Dickerson-LangeKarla EitelLeslie DorseyTimothy LinkJessica Lundquist
This commentary explores a traditionally supposed boundary between science and politics, with particular attention to activist scientists who engage in public communication. Work in fields like science and technology studies shows that framing this boundary in terms of epistemological rules fails. Boundaries dictating proper scientific activities are at best pragmatic, context-dependent, and fluid. Certainly, certain kinds of politics can undermine the integrity of scientific knowledge, but it is imperative to recognize that all science is political. As we see with activist climate scientists
Taking a wider view, departing from the specific case of the Hamburg exchange between artists and climate scientists, this comment envisages some radical potential for the collaboration of artists and climate scientists: moving beyond the traditional boundaries of social systems, artistic research and climate science may engage in a shared transdisciplinary learning process. They may communicate with the rest of society by engaging with others to develop ‘spaces of possibilities’, thus nurturing the creative resilience of communities.
The notion of ‘artistic research’ is a buzzword in contemporary cultural policy, scientific and artistic discourses. This text is not trying to add another note to the polyphony of attempts to define the concept. Rather, it aims to trace and analyse some possible backgrounds of emergence, suggesting that the myriad of definitions and descriptions of artistic research is rooted in the most varying and to a point contradictory motivations.
Many climate scientists find themselves confronted with the challenge of purportedly “knowing better” — while this is a valid claim with respect to a small segment of reality, namely their narrow field of expertise, the public expectation often is that they know better about the “world’s problems”, and what to do about it, sometimes even with the rhetoric of “saving” the world. Artists may help in this situation by bringing forth different viewpoints, challenging hidden assumptions and suggesting surprising links; however, more often, the arts seem to be considered as a useful supporter in
To observe art and science in interaction offered a great opportunity for me as cultural anthropologist to learn about the production of climate knowledge. Like ethnographers, artists entered the world of science, observed climate scientists and participated in their daily routines. They dissected elements of the scientific process and focused on science as a social practice. For scientists and artists, a process of “self-identification via the other” [Kramer, 1993] was set into motion. The artwork reflects this process by “mimicking” scientific procedures and by linking human sentiment and
“I hope to offer a unique artistic perspective on a topic which is hidden from our everyday view” States my application. Will I be able to fulfil this task? Here is a short summary of my experiences as a visiting artist researcher