Computational Thinking (CT) is a relatively new educational focus and a clear need for learners as a 21st century skill. This proposal tackles this challenging new area for young learners, an area greatly in need of research and learning materials. The Principal Investigators will develop and implement integrated STEM+C museum exhibits and integrate CT in their existing engineering design based PictureSTEM curriculum for K-2 students. They will also pilot assessments of the CT components of the PictureSTEM curriculum. This work will make a unique contribution to the available STEM+C learning materials and assessments. There are few such materials for the kindergarten to second grade (K-2) population they will work with. They will research the effects of the curriculum and the exhibits with a mixed methods approach. First, they will collect observational data and conduct case studies to discover the important elements of an integrated STEM+C experience in both the formal in-school setting with the curriculum and in the informal out-of-school setting with families interacting with the museum exhibits. This work will provide a novel way to understand the important question of how in- and out-of-school experiences contribute to the development of STEM and CT thinking and learning. Finally, they will collect data from all participants to discover the ways that their activities lead to increases in STEM+C knowledge and interest.
The Principal Investigators will build on an integrated STEM curriculum by integrating CT and develop integrated museum exhibits. They base both activities on engineering design implemented through challenge based programming activities. They will research and/or develop assessments of both STEM+C integrated thinking and CT. Their research strategy combines Design Based Research and quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the materials for learning CT. In the first two years of their study, they will engage in iterations on the design of the curriculum and the exhibits based on observation and case-study data. There will be 16 cases that draw from each grade level and involve data collection for the case student in both schools and museums. They will also use this work to illuminate what integrated STEM+C thinking and learning looks like across formal and informal learning environments. Based in some part on what they discover in this first phase, they will conduct the quantitative assessments with all (or at least most) students participating in the study
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
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.
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.
Many people believe that both public policy and personal action would improve with better access to “reliable knowledge about the natural world” (that thing that we often call science). Many of those people participate in science education and science communication. And yet, both as areas of practice and as objects of academic inquiry, science education and science communication have until recently remained remarkably distinct. Why, and what resources do the articles in this special issue of JRST give us for bringing together both the fields of practice and the fields of inquiry?
The fields of science education and science communication share the overarching goal of helping non-experts and non-members of the professional science community develop knowledge of the content and processes of scientific research. However, the specific audiences, methods, and aims employed in the two fields have evolved quite differently and as a result, the two fields rarely share findings and theory. Despite this lack of crosstalk, one theoretical construct—framing—has shown substantial analytic power for researchers in both fields. Specifically, both fields have productively made use of
The ever-changing nature of academic science communication discourse can make it challenging for those not intimately associated with the field ― scientists and science-communication practitioners or new-comers to the field such as graduate students ― to keep up with the research. This collection of articles provides a comprehensive overview of the subject and serves as a thorough reference book for students and practitioners of science communication.
STEM learning ecosystems harness contributions of educators, policymakers, families, businesses, informal science institutions, after-school and summer providers, higher education, and many others towards a comprehensive vision of STEM learning for all children. This paper offers evidence of the impact of cross-sector partnerships on young people, and a logic model template for communities so they may further develop the attributes, strategies, and measures of progress that enable them to advance opportunities for all young people to succeed. Further research will help us expand the promise
This set of comments reports experiences from a recent “science-meets-arts”-project in Germany, in which students from the University of Fine Arts in Hamburg (HFBK) shared day-to-day life in climate research groups for several months. The project was envisioned as a process of mutual inspiration with the aim of producing a joint exhibition and symposium at the end. This paper introduces the project as well as the subsequent commentaries and also presents some of my own observations.
Different stakeholders in research-practice partnerships often come from various institutions with distinct vocabulary, communication structures, and professional practices. To ensure that partnerships are mutually beneficial and equitable for educators and researchers alike, partners Jean Ryoo, Michelle Choi, and Emily McLeod from the California Tinkering Afterschool Network co-developed this resource for building equitable research-practice partnerships. This resource describes what equitable collaborations look like and offers guiding questions for group members to ask themselves in order
Puppet interviews can be helpful for getting feedback from young children in informal learning environments like libraries, museums, or afterschool programs. While puppets are a standby for interviewing children in clinical settings and are being used more frequently in some areas of qualitative research, they tend to be under-utilized in informal learning environments - natural settings for puppets because of their connections with play (Epstein et al., 2008). Our team developed a puppet interview protocol for the Gradient research project (Gender Research on Adult-child Discussion in