The summative evaluation focuses on two project components: (1) an IMAX® Dome film, titled Coral Reef Adventure, and (2) an associated interactive exhibit, titled Weird, Wild and Underwater, intended to be displayed in museum and science center lobbies. The general goals for the summative evaluation study were to assess the appeal of "Coral Reef Adventure" film and the lobby exhibit; acquisition of scientific knowledge and understanding as related to the project’s learning goals and understanding of film topics; and the impact that the exhibit has on viewers of the film. A separate-sample
This article will discuss and comment some of the results obtained by the application of the questionnaire "Public perception of Science and Technology". The questionnaire is a translated and adapted Portuguese version from the original in Spanish produced by the group Centro de Estudios sobre Ciencia, Desarrollo y Educación Superior of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Carlos VogtRafael de Almeida EvangelistaMarcelo Knobel
n June, the 23rd of last year, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its Draft Report on the Environment, a report on environmental quality. The EPA is an autonomous federal agency known for its reliability on environmental studies and safeguards. Its Draft Report is considered by Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the nation’s most scientifically reliable analysis on environmental quality. The latest Draft Report makes no reference whatsoever to the changes in global climate.
In the field of scientific communication in Europe, science centres have gained increasing importance over the last ten years. Italy, beyond the City of Science in Naples, is also planning the set up of more science centres throughout the country. Their hands-on style makes them something between a museum and a fun fair and, beyond the issue of merit, no doubt the success of many science centres also depends on the fun offered. It is important then to be able to assess to what extent people can actually make use of the proposed themes. This report tries to point out the dialogue opportunities
Compared to expert-to-expert - or peer-to-peer - communication, the language of popular science is characterised by a wider use of figurative devices. This applies to all forms of verbal and non-verbal communication. Specialized texts are characterised by a restricted and rigorous lexicon both in spoken and - even more so - in written language. Namely, a widespread use of terms which are monosemic, unambiguous and non context-dependent terms, and a minimum amount of natural linguistic choices. The few polysemic, ambiguous and context-dependent words encountered in a scientific text are highly
In the last few years, a continuous series of food alerts have caught the attention of the media and the public in Europe. First, eggs and pork contaminated with dioxins; then, "mad cow" disease, while, all along in the background, a battle against genetically modified plants has been in progress. These food alerts have had complex repercussions on the perception of risks associated with food production. Experts have often been divided over these issues, and the uncertainty of scientific data has been indicated on more than one occasion as one of the factors that influence risk perception
In a brief article published by Science last October, British scientists stated that the expression "Public Understanding of Science" (PUS), which was traditionally employed in Anglosaxon societies to refer to the issue of the relationship between science, technology and society, is out-of-date. It should be replaced by "Public Engagement with Science and Technology" (PEST), a new acronym that clearly invites to reconceptualise the relationship between science and the public. The new approach involves the engagement of the public or rather the publics of science, through dialogue, in
In recent weeks, Britain’s Better Regulation Task Force report on scientific research regulation asked the Government to evaluate the risks associated with the development of Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. The Government was also asked to prove its implementation of a specific policy to protect human, animal and environmental safety, were it to be threatened by the development of this emerging field of knowledge. These requests may sound rather alarming. However, objectively speaking, the precautionary attitude of the Better Regulation Task Force does not differ greatly from that of the U
Multi-site evaluations are becoming increasingly common in federal funding portfolios. Although much thought has been given to multi-site evaluation, there has been little emphasis on how it might interact with participatory evaluation. Therefore, this paper reviews several National Science Foundation educational, multi-site evaluations for the purpose of examining the extent to which these evaluations are participatory. Based on this examination, the paper proposes a model for implementing multi-site, participatory evaluation.
In the spring of 1999, the Board of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) established an Informal Science Education Ad Hoc committee, co-chaired by Lynn Dierking and John Falk. The Committee's task was to focus on the organization's positioning in regard to out-of-school science education. After 2 years of work, the committee composed a policy statement, included below, that was presented to, and accepted by, the NARST board. The policy statement defines this arena of research, describes a variety of out-of-school environments in which science learning occurs
The first phase of the evaluation, a front-end visitor study, assessing visitors' knowledge of and interest in space science and the cosmos, was conducted in May and June of 2000 at Boston's Museum of Science (MOS). The evaluation's second phase, a formative evaluation of the exhibition prototype, was completed in February of 2001 at the MOS. This summative report represents the third round of the evaluation process conducted by PERG, and is an evaluation of the current Cosmic Questions exhibition and related activities, based on data obtained by evaluators at two sites Boston's Museum of
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Joan KarpJudah LeblangSusan Baker CohenHarvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
The Science Museum of Minnesota (SMM) contracted Randi Korn & Associates, Inc. (RK&A) to simultaneously conduct a remedial evaluation of the exhibition Tissues of Life and its associated elements: the Web site with the same name, presentations at the Demonstration Station, and the What is Life?, play. The National Institutes of Health funded all elements. Data collection took place between July and October 2003. Three data collection strategies were employed: timing and tracking observations, uncued exit interviews, and telephone interviews. Additionally, to understand presenters' experiences
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Randi Korn & Associates, Inc.Science Museum of Minnesota