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
The measurement and analysis of people's knowledge on scientific topics, such as climate change, is challenging for researchers. One reason is that objectives are multi-dimensional and that probability is inherent. Moreover, uncertainties can exist on the individual's level among the public, but are rarely grasped by existing scales. Therefore, researchers must thoroughly consider what to measure and how. This paper theorizes five different dimensions of climate change knowledge. Three response scales including different degrees of confidence are applied on data from a German online survey (n
Mediators engage in peer-to-peer conversations with young adults visiting the art and science exhibitions at Science Gallery Dublin. Previous evaluation and anecdotal reports show that the interdisciplinary nature of these conversations fosters self-confidence and interest in academic careers. We used the Most Significant Change methodology to evaluate if working as a Mediator has an impact beyond these domains. The results show that civic engagement, interest in social justice and emotional empathy are domains of significant personal change strongly associated with the development of self
Despite low public knowledge of synthetic biology, it is the focus of prominent government and academic ethics debates. We examine the “NY Times” media coverage of synthetic biology. Our results suggest that the story about synthetic biology remains ambiguous. We found this in four areas — 1) on the question of whether the field raises ethical concerns, 2) on its relationship to genetic engineering, 3) on whether or not it threatens ‘nature’, and 4) on the temporality of these concerns. We suggest that this ambiguity creates conditions in which there becomes no reason for the public at large
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Yi-Lin ChungSara Giordano
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
Communicating about environmental risks requires understanding and addressing stakeholder needs, perspectives, and anticipated uses for communication products and decision-support tools. This paper demonstrates how long-term dialogue between scientists and stakeholders can be facilitated by repeated stakeholder focus groups. We describe a dialogic process for developing science-based decision-support tools as part of a larger sea level rise research project in the Gulf of Mexico. We demonstrate how focus groups can be used effectively in tool development, discuss how stakeholders plan to use
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Denise DeLormeSonia StephensScott HagenMatthew Bilskie
World’s Fairs and scientific-technological theme parks have been propitious places for the communication of science and technology through modernity. This work addresses the issue of the construction of public discourse about the future within these sites, as well as the changing role attributed to science and technology as mediators in the relationships between nature and society. In both fairs and parks, science and technology play a leading role in the construction of the discourse about the desirable and achievable future. The practices of science communication and technology have specific
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Susana Herrera-LimaDaniela Martin Segura
The National Center for Science Education’s Science Booster Club Program piloted a no-conflict approach to free, informal science activities focused on climate change or evolution, holding 64 community events at two sites over the course of 15 months, engaging with more than 70,000 participants. In the participating communities science literacy increased over time as did community engagement as measured by local financial support, requests for programming, and event attendance.
“Science crowdfunding” is a research funding system in which members of the public make small financial contributions towards a research project via the Internet. We compared the more common research process involving public research funding with science crowdfunding. In the former, academic-peer communities review the research carried out whereas the Crowd Community, an aggregation of backers, carries out this function in the latter. In this paper, we propose that science crowdfunding can be successfully used to generate “crowd-supported science” by means of this Crowd Community.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Yuko IkkataiEuan McKayHiromi Yokoyama
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
The first Japan Scicom Forum in Tokyo on April 20, 2018 gathered nearly 120 attendees to discuss the growing need and demand for English-language science communication in Japan and Asia. Keynotes and workshops addressed both the philosophy and motivations for scicomm in Japan and also the best practices for international outreach. Global science communication has reached a critical mass in Japan but securing sustainable funding, integrating the community and retaining momentum present ongoing challenges. As an online community and (hopefully) a recurring event, Japan Scicom Forum will foster a
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Ayumi KosoAmanda Alvarez
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
There are strong arguments for and against having either a dedicated funding scheme for science communication in the next European Framework Programme, or mainstreaming upstream engagement across all disciplines. How could both approaches be combined? The success of either will depend on its operationalisation.
We argue that the commitment to science-society integration and Responsible Research and Innovation in past European framework programmes has already made considerable progress in better aligning research and innovation with European societies. The framework programmes have important socialisation effects and recent research point to positive trends across key areas of Responsible Research and Innovation within academic organisations. What appears to be a step away from the concerted efforts to facilitate European citizens’ meaningful contribution to research and innovation in the upcoming
For decades the idea that scientists, policy makers and industry know best in research and innovation has been convincingly challenged. The concept of Responsible Research and Innovation [RRI] combines various strands of critique and takes up the idea that research and innovation need to be democratized and must engage with the public in order to serve the public. The proposed future EU research funding framework programme, Horizon Europe, excludes a specific program line on research in RRI. We propose a number of steps the European Parliament should take to institutionalize RRI in Horizon