On March 14-15, 2013, representatives of eight members of Coastal America’s Coastal Ecosystem Learning Center (CELC) network met at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, California. The primary goal of the workshop was to explore ways of energizing all, or portions, of the network to engage, educate, and empower the public on major coastal, ocean and environmental issues. The particular issue that was used as the point of departure was “Increasing Community Resilience to Extreme Weather-Related Events.” Support for the workshop was provided by the NOAA Office of Education.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Jerry SchubelJerry EnzlerAllen MunroeThomas Schmid
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.
This practitioner reflection was provided to stimulate conversation at the June 20-21, 2013 CAISE Evaluation Convening. It discusses improving practice through reflection.
The Summative Study of the Nano Mini-exhibition took place during the spring and summer of 2012. After being observed during their Mini-exhibition experience, 455 visitors across six different partner institutions participated in surveys and interviews with NISE Net evaluation team members. This report begins by describing the key findings of the study in detail, with additional information about study methods, instruments, and two exploratory sub-studies found in the Appendices.
Listening to and empowering children is a main objective of the EU project SIS Catalyst – Children as Change Agents for Science in Society. Within this frame, a training workshop was held with researchers from the University Innsbruck (Austria) who are involved in the children’s University Junge Uni Innsbruck. We analysed the discussions of the scientists about the reasons why they engage in science in society activities, and why they think that children are interested in participating in such activities, and we compared these outcomes with similar discussions carried out by children in the
Three possibilities are suggested by the author that aims to improve the quality of Science Communication. These are quicker responses to the contemporary issues, adding more short articles so as to enrich and enlarge information, and focuses on some special issues aiming to discuss one topic from different perspectives. The author also gives two examples of special issues of science communication.
JCOM can enhance its contribution to the science communication community by greater rigour in selection and editing and by opening up to reader comment.