opening minds to science - Saint Louis Science Center

Transcription

OPENING MINDS TO SCIENCE
The Saint Louis Science Center’s Report to the Community
2010-2011
OPENING MINDS TO SCIENCE
The Saint Louis Science Center’s Report to the Community
2010-2011
Co-Editors: Jennifer Heim, Sara Martinez, and Betsy O’Brien
Publication Design: Jason Cook
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Saint Louis Science Center would like to acknowledge the contributions of
the following individuals and groups in the creation and review of this report:
Saint Louis Science Center’s Division of Education, Exhibits & Programs*
Collections
Center for Science
Community Science
Design & Creative Services
Exhibit Electronics & Production
Public Programs
Research & Evaluation
School Programs
Science & Galleries
Challenger Learning Center~St. Louis
Research & Evaluation, Contributing Writers
Elisa Israel
Sara Martinez
Betsy O’Brien
Consultants
From the Chief Scientific Officer,
Carol Valenta
Dear Partners in Science Education,
It is my pleasure to present the Science Center’s fifth annual report on the
experiences of participants in our programs, Opening Minds to Science: The Saint
Louis Science Center’s Report to the Community, 2010-11.
This program year marked important transitions for the Science Center. Our
President and CEO for the past 15 years, Doug King, left in January 2011 to become
the President of the Museum of Flight in Seattle. Following Doug’s departure, Dr.
Phil Needleman served as interim President, guiding us through the transition to
new leadership.
In December 2011, we welcomed Bert Vescolani as our new President and CEO.
With a background in both formal and informal education, Bert most recently
served as Director at the John Ball Zoological Gardens in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
We look forward to working with Bert as we continue to deliver high quality
programs and increase our level of service to the community.
This report analyzes the experiences of participants in our programs through
both quantitative and qualitative methods. We attempt to show the breadth of
programs across the Science Center, as well as offer an in-depth look into three
programs that provide more sustained engagement. We hope you will find this
report useful to your work and we look forward to your feedback.
Sincerely,
Nadine Ball, PNC Grow Up Great Project Evaluator, 2010-2011
Marie Wohlert, PNC Grow Up Great Project Evaluator 2011-present
*For a complete list of Education, Exhibits & Programs staff, see the Appendix.
Cover photos (clockwise from top left):
Science Cafe; Algaepalooza; Youth Exploring Science (YES): Communicating Climate Change; Challenger Learning
Center~St. Louis Discovery Classroom: Great Rocket Design Challenge; Unplugged: Uphill Derby; Algaepalooza.
Unless otherwise noted, all photos by the Saint Louis Science Center.
Carol J. Valenta
Chief Scientific Officer
Saint Louis Science Center
Carol Valenta
Chief Scientific Officer
CONTENTS
Open Every Mind to Science
OPEN EVERY MIND TO SCIENCE
The Saint Louis Science Center’s Educational Philosophy and Practice
1
The Saint Louis Science Center’s educational philosophy and practice.
Methodology
3
How the Science Center collects and analyzes data describing our programs.
Overview of Programs at the Science Center by Department
The Saint Louis Science Center is a free-choice, informal learning environment where
people of all ages engage with science – directly and on their own terms. We seek
to engage the broadest audience possible through programs designed for: families,
school groups, educators, teens, community organizations, adults and the general
public visiting the Science Center.
Our mission is to ignite and sustain lifelong science and technology learning.
5
Analysis of programs as a whole, as well as by individual department.
Opening Minds to Science
Our exhibitions and programs take into account the complete visitor environment
– physical, social and personal. We believe that learning is best fostered through
programs and exhibitions that encourage visitors to:
Center for Science Department
8
Challenger Learning Center~St. Louis
9
• Make personal connections to their knowledge and experiences
Community Science Department
10
• Act on their own curiosity
Public Programs Department
11
• Form and ask questions
School Programs Department
12
• Engage in hands-on exploration and experimentation
Science & Galleries Department
13
• Embrace a spirit of play and discovery
• Cultivate science process skills
• Pursue science throughout their lives
PNC: Grow Up Great!
14
Positive experiences with Science Center exhibitions and programs will encourage
repeat visits and prompt visitors to interact with science beyond their visit.
Ultimately, we hope to motivate our visitors to think differently about science and
to empower them to make informed choices in their everyday lives.
HomeSchool Days & HomeSchool Labs
18
Learning in an Informal Environment
Unplugged: Uphill Derby
22
Free-choice learning “tends to be non-linear and personally motivated.” (Falk and
Dierking, 2000, p.13) In designing our programs and exhibitions, we strive to provide
multiple levels of interaction and engagement for diverse audiences. This translates
into experiences that are accessible, multi-sensory and meaningful to people with
a variety of abilities, cultural backgrounds, experiences with science, learning
styles and interests. We also seek to support social learning, experimentation
and investigation. We believe visitors should have fun, engaging, relevant and
successful experiences with science, whatever their level of knowledge. Science
Center staff play a key role in fostering a successful experience.
Program Spotlight
14
More in-depth analysis of the experience of participants in three Science Center programs.
Looking to the Future
25
Appendix
28
Sources
32
1
How We Develop Exhibitions and Programs
In order to develop exemplary exhibitions and programs, we ground our processes
in best practices in the field, current science content, current learning theory
and audience research. Clearly-articulated educational goals and objectives
drive the exhibition and program development process. As appropriate, we
correlate our offerings to national and state curriculum standards. Through frontend, formative and summative evaluation, we include our audiences and other
stakeholders in the program and exhibition development and revision process.
In developing these experiences, we seek to communicate clearly how we envision
visitors engaging with them, employing devices such as advance organizers and
tools to personalize the experience. We take risks with cutting-edge content,
ways to deliver that content and ways of including new audiences. The Science
Center supports these processes with adequate time, funding and staff.
Exhibitions at the Saint Louis Science Center capitalize on the power of
three-dimensional environments to engage our community with science. Our
exhibitions must engage a broad spectrum of visitors. We recognize that every
exhibit component cannot meet all the needs of all our audiences, but we seek
to create a balance of experiences within the exhibition as a whole.
We commit to developing exhibitions that:
• Provide multiple conceptual entry points and multiple outcomes
• Present current science information and can be adapted to stay current
• Facilitate conversations and encourage multiple groups to engage
with each other
Programs at the Saint Louis Science Center engage our community with science
via skilled, well-trained program developers and presenters. Often developed
based on the needs of specific audiences, programs both expand on conversations
begun in our galleries and incorporate topics and experiences beyond the scope
of our galleries. Consequently, programs increase our audiences’ engagement with
science and broaden the Science Center’s impact. Programs also increase the size
and diversity of our audience and generate revenue crucial to our ongoing work.
We commit to developing programs that are:
• Learner-centered
• Delivered by knowledgeable and well-trained presenters
• Facilitated in a manner that actively matches content and delivery
to the needs of the current audience
Thoughtful planning supports our exhibition and program development process.
A focused and fiscally sound plan, based on this learning philosophy, addresses
each of our audiences and content areas. A review process allows us to monitor
our impact and track our success toward opening minds to science.
2 Saint Louis Science Center
METHODOLOGY
Since 1997, the Saint Louis Science Center has collected information about the
experience of participants in our programs. At the Science Center, we define
programs as, “staff-led interactions scheduled for a specific audience with
written educational goals and objectives.” From 1997 through 2008, the Science
Center used the Better Education and Revenue Through Tracking (BERTT)
system to assess the experiences of program participants. Beginning in 2008,
the Research & Evaluation Department engaged in a systematic evaluation of
BERTT, with the goal of developing a new system that would more accurately
assess the impact of Science Center programs on participants.
In January 2009, after extensive development and testing, the Science Center
debuted the System for Assessing Mission Impact (SAMI). SAMI collects and
summarizes key performance indicators for Science Center educational programs.
SAMI tracks the following elements related to program performance:
• Average length of a program
• Number of times offered
• Number of interactions (an individual’s participation in a program)
• Total hours of interaction
• Average Knowledge, Enjoyment, Interest and Attitude ratings by
participants (each on a 4-point scale, with 4 as the highest rating)
• Participants’ descriptions of what they got out of the program
• Participants’ suggestions for improvement
• Impact Score (16-point scale, with 16 as the highest score)
SAMI tracks the following characteristics of program respondents, based on
their responses: gender, residency, membership status and visitation frequency.
Defining and Measuring Impact
On an individual level, impact results from a Science Center offering that
enables a participant to make personal connections between the content and
experience of the offering and their own knowledge and experiences.
In the short-term, this is illustrated by a change in knowledge, understanding,
enjoyment, interest or attitude. Over the long term (months to years), this is
illustrated by an incorporation of these changes into participants’ lives. The larger
effects of these long-term individual impacts are felt within the Science Center
and throughout the broader communities of which the Science Center is a part.
The Impact Score provides a numerical way to represent the impact that
participation in a program has on an individual. Program participants rate
four questions, which correspond to the four main components of the Impact
definition: knowledge/understanding, enjoyment, interest and attitude. The
Knowledge, Enjoyment, Interest and Attitude ratings are summed to produce the
Impact Score. The lowest possible Impact Score is four and the highest is 16.
3
Data Collection Process
Program staff distribute comment cards to a sampling of program participants.
Respondents are invited to answer four questions, based on the Impact definition,
which are rated on a 4-point scale where 1 is “No, not at all”, 2 is “Only a little”, 3
is “Quite a lot” and 4 is “Yes, definitely!”:
• Knowledge Rating: Measures a change in knowledge or understanding.
“Did you, or others in your group, learn content and/or skills from
this program?”
• Enjoyment Rating: Measures the degree to which participants enjoyed the
program. “Did you enjoy this program?”
• Interest Rating: Measures the influence of this experience on future
interest in science or technology. "Did this program make you want to try
another experience with science or technology?"
• Attitude Rating: Measures the reinforcement or increase of positive
attitudes toward science or technology. “Did this program reinforce or
increase any positive attitudes you have towards science or technology?”
Participants are also asked to respond to the following open-ended questions:
• “Please describe what you got out of this program.”
• “How could we improve this program?”
The responses to these questions are coded for analysis.
A version of the response cards with child-friendly language is distributed to
participants under the age of 14.
OVERVIEW OF SAINT LOUIS SCIENCE CENTER PROGRAMS
September 2010 to August 2011
Broad View of Program Interaction
From September 2010 to August 2011, the Saint Louis Science Center offered
approximately 150 distinct programs to a wide range of audiences including:
children, families, teachers, school groups and adults. These programs ranged
from one-time events such as HealthFest and Engineering Career Day to
recurring programs such as Summer Science Blast and Public Telescope
Viewings. Each time a visitor participated in a program offering, this was
recorded as an “interaction” for that particular program. “Interactions” varied
in length from a five minute Segway 5-4-5 offering to an eight-day International
Explorations trip. During the timeframe covered by this report, 400,145 program
interactions took place for a total of 372,150 hours of engagement. On average,
visitors spent approximately one hour participating in a program offering.
During many of the programs, participants were given the opportunity to fill out
a comment card and rate their experience. From September 2010 to August
2011, a total of 10,687 comment cards were collected from visitors for an overall
return rate of 3%. Respondents gave the following average ratings:
• Impact Score: 14.00 (out of 16)
• Knowledge: 3.50 (out of 4)
• Enjoyment: 3.66 (out of 4)
• Interest: 3.43 (out of 4)
• Attitude: 3.41 (out of 4)
Program staff enter the responses into a shared database. This database allows
the Research & Evaluation Department to calculate average length, interactions
and participant ratings for specific programs, departments and Science Center
program offerings as a whole. This information is analyzed and presented in
monthly, quarterly and end-of-year reports, in addition to this annual report to
our community stakeholders.
In addition to the ongoing program measures collected and reported monthly,
quarterly and annually, the Science Center also conducts more in-depth
evaluation of selected programs. Periodically, the Science Center contracts with
external evaluators to conduct front-end, formative and summative evaluations
on specific programs. This report contains findings from both internal evaluations
conducted by the Science Center’s Research & Evaluation Department as well
as evaluation studies conducted by external evaluators. Unless otherwise noted,
data and findings originate from the Research & Evaluation Department.
5
Characteristics of Program Respondents
ADULTS &
CHILDREN
Adults
Adults
Males 49%
49%
Adults
49%
%
3%
o4
ear
Analysis of Ratings by Age, Gender, Residence,
Membership Status and Visitation Frequency
GENDER
40%
Females
Children
60% Children
Females
60%
51%
51%
49% 49%
Another
State
Missouri
73%
Another
St. Louis
State City
14%
City
14%7%
St. Louis
Missouri
County
Illinois
Another
Illinois
Another
Missouri
73%
Other
73%
39%
20%State 20%
State
Local
30%
7%
7%
17%
Missouri
Illinois Illinois Missouri
73% 73%
20%
20%
By State
19%
30%
Males Males
40%
St. Louis
County
39%
7%
St. Louis
County
St. Louis
City
St. Louis
City
14%
14%
Other
39%Other
Missouri
Local
Illinois
Local
St.
LouisSt. Louis
73%
20%30%
City City30%
14%
Tourist14%
Tourist
St. 17%
LouisSt. Louis17%
County County
Other Other
39% 39%
Local
Local* vs.Local
Tourist
30% 30%
Tourist Tourist
VISITATION
FREQUENCY
17% 17%
MEMBERSHIP STATUS
First time First-time First-time
visitor
in 12 months visitor
60%
RESIDENCY
Another
State St. Louis
Tourist
Total equals 101% due to rounding.
First time First time
in 12 monthsin 12 monthsFirst-time
visitor
30%
First time
in 12 months
fourteen surrounding counties in Missouri and Illinois.
3 to 4 3 to 4
times atimes
year a year
St. Louis
County
Other
Local
30%
39%
Tourist
17%
As illustrated in the table below, respondents completing adult cards gave
significantly higher ratings than those completing child cards for all four questions,
resulting in a significantly higher Impact Score from adult cards (14.41) than from
child cards (13.61). Females gave significantly higher ratings than males for all four
questions and the Impact Score for females (14.11) was also significantly higher
than that of males (13.84).
Tourist respondents (program participants from outside the St. Louis metropolitan
area) gave significantly higher ratings for all four questions, when compared to
local respondents. The Impact Score for tourists was 14.33, compared to 13.96 for
locals. Within the St. Louis metropolitan area, residents of local Missouri counties
other than St. Louis City and St. Louis County had higher Impact Scores, on
average, than residents of Illinois, St. Louis City and St. Louis County. The Impact
Score for local residents from other Missouri counties was 14.25, compared to
13.97 for local residents from Illinois, 13.79 for St. Louis City residents and 13.90
for St. Louis County residents.
*The p-value is a measure of
significance. In general, p-values
of 0.05 or less are considered
statistically significant.
Members gave significantly higher ratings than Non-members for questions
regarding Knowledge and Enjoyment. The Impact Score for Members (14.19) was
also significantly higher than for Non-members (14.02). Membership status did
not significantly affect responses regarding Interest or Attitude.
There were significant differences based on visitation frequency. Those
respondents who reported being frequent visitors (three or more visits per year)
gave significantly higher ratings on all four questions than regular (one to two
visits per year) or infrequent (fewer than one visit per year) visitors. Frequent
visitors also had a significantly higher Impact Score (14.21) than regular or
infrequent visitors (14.07 and 13.87, respectively).
IMPACT SCORE KNOWLEDGE ENJOYMENT INTEREST
19%
19%
Members
Members
Members
30%
19%
23%
First time
First-time
23%
First time
First-time23%
in 12 months
visitor visitor
in 12 months
Non15%
NonNon15%
24%
24%
24%
members
members30% 30%19%
members
15%
24%
19%
77%
13%
Members
77%
77%
Members
13%
1 to 2
1 to 2 5 or more 5 or more
1 to 2
13% 23% 23% 1 to 2
times atimes
year a yeartimes a year
times a yeartimes a 5year
or more
times a year
times a year
3 to 4
Non3 to
4
15%
Non15%
24% 24%
members
times a yeartimes a year
3members
to 4
77%a year
times
13% 13%
77%
1
to
2
1 to 2
5 or more
5
or
more
*Residing within thetimes
St. Louis
metropolitan statistical area times
which includes
Louis City, St. Louis County and
atimes
year aSt.
year
atimes
year
a year
40%
Females
60% 60%
51%
7%
60%
40%
Females
Females
Children
Children
Males
Children
51%
Adults Adults
51%
Males
Males
40%
40% Adults
Females
49%
Overall, Science Center programs seemed to have the greatest impact on adults,
females, tourists and frequent visitors. Unless otherwise noted, all comparisons
presented here are statistically significant at p<0.05.*
Members Adults
23% Children
Females
NonMales
members
Tourists
77%
Locals
Members
Non-members
Frequent Visitors
Regular Visitors
Infrequent Visitors
14.41
13.61
14.11
13.84
14.33
13.96
14.19
14.02
14.21
14.07
13.87
3.62
3.39
3.54
3.45
3.59
3.50
3.57
3.50
3.55
3.50
3.49
3.71
3.62
3.68
3.64
3.73
3.66
3.69
3.66
3.70
3.67
3.65
3.53
3.32
3.46
3.37
3.52
3.40
3.46
3.44
3.49
3.45
3.37
ATTITUDE
3.55
3.28
3.43
3.38
3.50
3.40
3.47
3.42
3.47
3.45
3.37
7
“As a sci-fi fan I like to see
the science behind the
fiction.This program did it!”
– Adult participant, SciFest:
The Science of Avatar
“The magnitude of the
problem is astounding.
Dr. Cicerone did
an excellent job
explaining the problem
& the challenges with
solutions”
– Adult participant, Dr.
Ralph Cicerone Climate
Change Lecture
PROGRAM OVERVIEW BY DEPARTMENT
At the Science Center, programs are divided into six major departments: Center
for Science, Challenger Learning Center~St. Louis, Community Science, Public
Programs, School Programs and Science & Galleries. Following is an analysis
of program offerings based on these categories. Unless otherwise noted, all
comparisons presented here are statistically significant at p<0.05.
Center for Science
The Center for Science showcases the Science Center as a scientific information
resource for the community. Programs in this department feature cuttingedge science topics and opportunities to interact with scientists. Many of the
programs are designed for adults, while some are offered for middle and high
school students. A lecture series corresponding with the Body Worlds & The
Brain exhibition covered topics ranging from ADHD to Alzheimer’s Disease. On
the topic of climate change, the Science Center hosted a lecture by Dr. Ralph
Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences. Travel programs, such
as Science of National Parks, offer opportunities for authentic field work in
areas such as archaeology, paleontology and ecology.
Participants at Science Cafe Wicked Plants: The Sinister
Aspect of the Plant World discuss the history and science
behind poisonous plants.
(Photo: Saint Louis Science Center)
“I got to go out and
find dinosaur bones,
what could be cooler
than that?”
– Adult participant,
Paleotrek
Offerings: 12 distinct programs
Reported interactions: 49,338
Total hours of engagement with programs: 32,888
Average length of engagement with programs: 40 minutes
Range of program engagement times: 10 minutes to 8 days
Overall ratings (1,832 cards collected from Sept. 2010 to Aug.
2011; 4% return rate):
Of all respondents, 75% completed adult comment cards, 92% reported living
within the St. Louis Metropolitan Area and 34% reported visiting the Science
Center three or more times annually. Those completing adult cards had a
significantly higher Impact Score (14.05) than those completing child cards (12.34).
Members had a significantly higher Impact Score (14.13) than Non-members
(13.46). Visitation frequency also significantly impacted ratings. Frequent visitors
had a significantly higher Impact Score (14.00) than regular or infrequent
visitors (13.74 and 13.25, respectively). Respondents’ comments indicated they
gained a great deal of knowledge and skills from Center for Science programs.
Compared to comments from participants in other departments, Center for
Science program participants were more likely to mention a change in attitude
or increased interest in science due to their experiences.
Challenger Learning Center-St. Louis
Located in Ferguson, Missouri, the Challenger Learning Center provides a
variety of space and science education programs for schools, scouts, community
groups, corporations and the general public. The core programming at the Center
involves two space simulation environments: an “orbiting” space station and a
Mission Control room. The Center is part of the Challenger Center for Space
Science Education, an international, not-for-profit organization founded by the
families of the astronauts lost in the Challenger space shuttle mission in 1986. In
St. Louis, the Center is supported by a regional partnership of the Saint Louis
Science Center, the Ferguson-Florissant School District and the Cooperating
School Districts. Some of the programs offered in 2010-11 included: Voyage to
Mars, Aquatic Robotics and Corporate Teambuilding Missions.
Average length of engagement with programs: 2 hours and 15 minutes
Overall ratings (883 cards collected from Sept. 2010 - Aug. 2011; 4% return rate):
Overall, 83% of respondents completed child cards and 80%
were first-time visitors to the Challenger Learning Center.
Approximately 99% of respondents resided in the St. Louis
Metropolitan Area, with 50% residing in St. Louis County. There
were no significant differences in ratings based on gender,
residence or visitation frequency. Those who completed
adult cards gave significantly higher ratings for Knowledge,
Enjoyment, Interest and Attitude than those who completed
child cards, resulting in a significantly higher Impact Score from
adult cards (14.93) than from child cards (13.31). Participants
frequently commented on the knowledge and skills learned
from their experiences at the Challenger Learning Center.
“I learned how a space
shuttle works, and got
to experience what it's
like to go into space!”
– Child participant,
Student Mission:
Comet
“The need for good
communication in
a group dynamic is
critical for efficient
and effective work.”
Corporate Team
Building Mission
Students in the Discovery Classroom: Great Rocket
Design Challenge watch as the commander launches a
participant-designed rocket.
9
“I learned that if you
make math fun, it's not
really that hard.”
YES: Community
Partner Meetings
“That when a tree falls
it goes bad and breaks
up and turns into dirt
and grows plants and
gives oxygen.”
Summertime Science:
Rotting Logs
YES participants identify a catch in
Communicating Climate Change.
“I appreciate that
science is in everything
we do and eat and
drink.”
– YES participant, YES
Summer AgriScience
Challenge
Community Science Department
Public Programs Department
The Community Science Department cultivates relationships with communitybased organizations serving families throughout the St. Louis area, including
Herbert Hoover Boys and Girls Club, Girls, Inc. and Annie Malone Children’s
Services. Programs developed with these partners promote wellness, diversity
and education while integrating science, technology, engineering and math
concepts and curricula. Partner organizations also contribute to the Science
Center through participation in programs such as Minority Scientists Showcase
and through recruiting teens from their client base for the Youth Exploring
Science (YES) program.
The Public Programs Department offers programs both at the Science Center
and off-site, through ScienceOFFCenter, for a variety of audiences including:
adults, families, Scouts, children and home-school groups. School-age children can
participate in hands-on, engaging programs such as badge workshops, overnight
camp-in experiences or week-long day camps. Through the Science Center’s
Segway Tours, visitors learn how to operate the Segway and explore historic
sites in and around St. Louis. Other programs include: Summer Science Blast,
Holidazed Camps and specialized Camp-Ins focused on a theme such as space
and astronomy. The department also offers customized programming such as
team building, programs for older adults and specialized Scout badge workshops.
“Appreciation for the
wonder of science. I
work in the field of life
sciences. This brought
me back to the intrigue
& fascination I had as
a kid!”
Camp-In
Average length of engagement with programs: 2 hours and 40 minutes
Overall ratings (2,720 cards from Sept. 2010 - Aug. 2011; 10% return rate):
“How to correctly trim an
aircraft and the proper
assent/descent and turns
for a Cessna 172.”
Summer Science Blast:
Flight Academy
YES serves youth facing multiple risk factors and works with teens throughout the
course of their high school career. YES provides a work-based, inquiry-learning
environment focusing on science, technology, engineering and mathematics. As
part of the program, YES teens also take on teaching responsibilities, facilitating
hands-on science and math activities at community partner organizations. Overall,
the YES program allows participants to gain professional, academic and real-world
skills that assist in building self-confidence and achieving success. Through their
service, each individual teen greatly extends the impact of the Science Center
into the community. YES offers a number of programs, including: AgriScience,
Mystery of Matter and Robotics/Sea Perch.
Average length of engagement with programs: 1 hour and 45 minutes
Overall ratings (719 cards collected from Sept. 2010 - Aug. 2011; 5%
return rate):
Of all respondents, 53% completed child cards and 54% were male. Community
Science program participants were more likely than participants in other
departments to be Members of the Science Center (34%), to have visited the
Science Center three or more times in the last year (48%) and to reside in St. Louis
City (58%). In general, those who completed child cards gave significantly higher
ratings than those who completed adult cards, and females gave significantly higher
ratings than males. Consequently, the Impact Score from child cards (14.06) was
significantly higher than from adult cards (13.43), and the Impact Score for females
(14.21) was significantly higher than for males (13.41). Respondents’ comments were
positive and most frequently described knowledge and skills gained.
“Confidence. I'm
not too old to learn
something new.”
Segway 101
Overall, 61% of respondents completed child cards, 19% were Science Center
members and 81% were local residents. Those who completed adult
cards rated their experience significantly higher than those who
completed child cards in all areas, leading to a significantly higher
Impact Score from adult cards (15.00) than from child cards (13.67).
Tourists also gave significantly higher ratings than local residents in
all four areas. Consequently, the Impact Score for tourists (14.63) was
significantly higher than that of locals (14.23). Gender, membership
status and visitation frequency did not significantly affect ratings.
Respondents’ comments indicated they gained a great deal of
knowledge and skills from their experience. Respondents who
participated in Public Programs mentioned enjoying their experience
more than respondents from any other department.
Participants in Summer Science Blast: Physics Phun
work together to build a compartment to protect their
egg from a high drop.
11
“I learned a lot of
science, and also about
wind instruments! And
making sound with
the glass cup was
awesome!”
Science of Sound:
Instrument Making
Workshop
School Programs Department
Science & Galleries Department
The School Programs Department offers hands-on, inquiry-based science
workshops to area schools. These workshops take place both at the Science
Center and in school classrooms. The department also offers professional
development workshops for teachers and opportunities for parents to develop
skills in interacting with their children to facilitate science and mathematics
learning in the home. School Programs staff work directly with educators to
identify target areas and content focus and to design customized programs that
encourage both students and educators to take ownership of the experience. All
programs conform to Missouri and Illinois state standards. Programs delivered in
the 2010-11 year included: Earth Systems, Family Math in Your School, Science of
Sound and Our Solar System and Universe.
Programs offered through this department primarily occur within the Science
Center’s permanent galleries and are facilitated by the gallery staff. These
programs focus on the Science Center’s five main content areas: earth science,
emerging technologies, life science, physical science and aerospace science.
As appropriate for program content, some programs in this department may
be held at off-site locations. These programs are available for visiting school
groups as well as the general public. They range from daily, 10-minute Amazing
Science Demonstrations, such as “Cool, It’s Cryogenic” to annual events such
as NeuroDay. This department also offers early childhood programs through
the Discovery Room, such as A Sense of Me, and opportunities to engage in real
science experiments, such as DNA In-Depth, in the Life Science Lab Classroom.
Other programs within this department include: The Biology of The Giver, LEGO®
MINDSTORMS® and Family Med School.
Participants in Family Math in Your School explore math
in a hands-on way. (Photo: Saint Louis Science Center)
“I got to feel what
clouds were like and
it was one of the best
activities ever.”
Earth Systems: Water
Cycle Investigation
“I wasn't crazy about
science before, [but] now
I am eager to teach it.”
Professional
Development Workshop:
Inquiry Workshop
Average length of engagement with programs: 1 hour and 5
minutes
Overall ratings (1,032 cards from Sept. 2010 - Aug. 2011; 5%
return rate):
Of all respondents, 71% completed child cards and 86% were local residents.
Approximately 90% of respondents were Non-members, which was the highest
of any department. Those who completed adult cards gave significantly higher
ratings than those who completed child cards for all categories, resulting in a
significantly higher Impact Score from adult cards (14.48) than from child cards
(13.31). Female respondents gave significantly higher ratings than males in
Knowledge, Enjoyment and Interest and had significantly higher Impact Scores:
13.95 for females and 13.27 for males. Ratings were not significantly affected by
respondents’ residence, membership status or visitation frequency. In general,
comments from participants were positive and indicated a high level of learning.
Average length of engagement with programs: 40 minutes
Range of program engagement times: 10 minutes to 7 hours
Overall ratings (3,501 cards from Sept. 2010 - Aug. 2011; 1%
return rate):
“I learned a lot about
brains that I never
thought was possible. I
can't wait to go to school
and tell my friends.”
Family Med School
A participant in Algaepalooza looks at algae through a
microscope. (Photo: Saint Louis Science Center)
Overall, 58% of respondents completed adult cards and 25% were Members. A
higher percentage of respondents were female (68%) or tourists (28%) than was
reported for any other department. Those who completed adult cards gave higher
ratings in Knowledge, Enjoyment and Attitude than those who completed child
cards and had significantly higher Impact Scores: 14.46 from adult cards and 14.12
from child cards. Local residents gave significantly higher ratings for Knowledge
than tourists, and Members gave significantly higher ratings for Knowledge and
Enjoyment than Non-members. Frequent visitors had a significantly higher Impact
Score (14.58) than regular or infrequent visitors (14.23 and 14.25, respectively).
Respondents’ comments frequently noted content learned. A number also
mentioned enjoying the presenters or presentation methods.
“Great genetic start!
Awesome way to blend
science with literature!”
– Adult participant, The
Biology of the Giver
“I liked seeing first-hand
some of the processes
used to extract &
identify DNA”
Gene Shorts
13
PROGRAM SPOTLIGHT
This section highlights three of the approximately 150 programs offered during
the 2010-11 program year. The selected programs offer participants prolonged
engagement, ranging from multiple days to multiple months, with science and
technology content and experiences. In 2010-11 we highlight: PNC: Grow Up
Great!, HomeSchool Days & HomeSchool Labs and Unplugged: Uphill Derby.
Program Spotlight: PNC: Grow Up Great! (Science & Galleries)
Background
Grow Up Great!, funded by PNC Bank, is a partnership between PNC and several
St. Louis institutions. It is a local adaptation of a national early childhood initiative
by PNC. The Science Center joins Grace Hill Settlement House, the Saint
Louis Art Museum, the Missouri Botanical Garden, the St. Louis Symphony and
Maryville University to “provide exploration in the arts and sciences that inspires
in young children inquiry and problem solving, communication and expression,
and self-awareness and self-confidence.” (Nelson, 2011) In a press release from
September 2010, Roderick Jones, executive director of the Grace Hill Settlement
House stated, “All too often, field trips are planned in isolation to the overall
learning experience in the classroom with little thought about the long-range
educational impact they can have on the student and their future academic growth
and success. PNC: Grow Up Great! provides a multi-dimensional experience.
Research shows a greater transfer of learning when the field trip is related to
classroom teaching and the broader instructional program.” The 2010-11 academic
year was the second year for the program in St. Louis. Two schools associated
with the Grace Hill Settlement House – Carondelet and Howard Branch Head
Start – participated in the program. During the 2010-11 school year, the Science
Center worked with 260 students and 13 teachers.
Program Structure
Two young scientists from Grace Hill Carondelet Head
Start use science tools to sort and match. (Photo: Saint
Louis Science Center)
The program’s goal of helping preschool age children to “grow
up great,” allows for partner institutions to work not just with
the students, but also with parents and teachers. Maryville
University was involved with curriculum development, teacher
professional development, curriculum coordination and
program evaluation. Likewise, each partner institution used
its unique resources to facilitate inquiry with the children.
In particular, the Science Center held several professional
development workshops for teachers on science-related topics
such as “Color Mixing and the Scientific Method” and “Inquiry/
Open-Ended Questions”. The Science Center also provided
the classrooms with materials to better support science in the
curriculum. Students participated in programs about “Critters
and Simple Tools” and attended Discovery Room sessions at the Science Center.
Parents and guardians had the opportunity to join the students and teachers on
field trips. Families also received materials designed to facilitate exploration and
inquiry at home, including activity booklets.
Evaluation Methodology
Nadine Ball, Professor at Maryville University, was the Project Evaluator for PNC:
Grow Up Great! St. Louis. The evaluation of the program for the 2010-11 year
used a range of qualitative and quantitative methods to assess if the program
was meeting its objectives. Ball conducted surveys and interviews with teachers,
parents and partner institutions. Classrooms were observed in fall 2010 and
spring 2011 to assess teacher-student interaction and students’ participation with
and understanding of the content being explored. The observation protocol was
designed with Head Start Program Performance Goals, Missouri Pre-K Standards,
National Association for the Education of Young Children resources and PNC:
Grow Up Great! goals in mind.
The Science Center conducted a survey with teachers in spring 2011 to gather
feedback on the Center’s efforts during fall 2010. Questions were asked about
the impact of the workshops on teachers and the teachers’ perspectives of the
impact of the Science Center’s portion of the PNC: Grow Up Great! program on
their students.
Impact on Teachers
Building on program goals for teachers, the Science Center’s goal was to show
that science can be, and already is, an everyday part of the preschool classroom.
One teacher said, “After attending the workshops [offered by the Science
Center], I began to look outside of the box, with the materials we received.”
Teachers included the materials and the ideas for activities in their curriculum.
Another teacher stated, “That [incorporating science] was really simple, I think I
was over thinking science.”
As seen in the table below, teachers’ average ratings are relatively high (3.50 and
above). In particular, the Interest and Attitude ratings, which ask about increased
interest in science-related activities and increased positive attitude toward
science, are 3.75 and above. This indicates the workshops are sparking teachers'
interest in making science more relatable in their classrooms.
WORKSHOP
IMPACT SCORE KNOWLEDGE ENJOYMENT INTEREST ATTITUDE
“Color Mixing and Scientific Method”
14.63
3.50
3.63
3.75
3.75
“Magnets and Inquiry”
14.90
3.63
3.75
3.86
3.75
15
* All phrases in italics
represent criteria
identified in Nadine
Ball’s external evaluation
report: Grow Up Great:
St. Louis¸ Evaluation
Processes & Results
(August 2011).
Classrooms at both Carondelet and Howard Branch were observed to assess
changes made in response to the professional development workshops. Ball
reported that Carondelet classrooms improved in responding to what children
do and say by building upon their language.* To assess if teachers were using
skills taught in the professional development workshops, the evaluation used a
three-point scale to measure any demonstrated change in the teacher’s practice.
The observer would note 1 if they “rarely” saw a particular action occurring (for
example, asking open-ended questions) and 3 if they “often” observed that action.
During the fall 2010 observations, Ball reported 43% of Carondelet teachers
were “often” observed responding to what children do and say by building upon
their language and 57% were “sometimes” observed (a 2 in the three-point
scale). In the spring 2011 observations, all Carondelet teachers were observed
performing that action “often”. Howard Branch teachers demonstrated growth in
several criteria, most notably in having materials available to foster independent
exploration; 67% of teachers originally observed to “sometimes” have materials
available increased to being “often” observed.
Ball reported that in spring 2011, 77% of teachers indicated the use of literacy
materials from cultural partners in dramatic play areas was a practice that they
learned about for the first time, or that they understood or practiced more deeply/
effectively because of the Grow Up Great! program. The majority of teachers
(67%) indicated that they learned to introduce new vocabulary and concepts
before going on special field trips and to debrief and discuss with children what
they have learned after a field trip or other special activity.
Impact on Students
Teachers provided SAMI feedback on behalf of their students. For the fall
Science Center sessions, the overall Impact Score was 14.99 out of 16. The overall
average ratings were: 3.87 for Knowledge, 3.87 for Enjoyment, 3.46 for Interest
and 3.79 for Attitude.
SESSION TITLE
“Critters and Simple Tools”
14.87
3.87
3.87
3.38
3.75
Discovery Room Sessions
14.99
3.87
3.87
3.50
3.75
“Physical Knowledge”
15.12
3.87
3.87
3.50
3.88
Overall Fall 2010 Ratings
14.99
3.87
3.87
3.46
3.79
Head Start frames their curriculum around Creative Curriculum objectives,
which focus on helping children to develop process-oriented skills rather
than content knowledge. In spring 2011, the following actions increased from
“sometimes” to “often” observed in 77% of classes at Howard Branch: children
persisting in activities and children showing ability to solve problems. One
teacher articulated that the “Physical Knowledge” session, “Help[ed] them
to understand how to use magnets and microscopes. It also help[ed] them to
explore, to figure out how things worked on their own.” The classroom observer
gave children scores, measuring the effects of the program on the children’s use
of expanding expressive vocabulary, engaging in conversation, showing curiosity
and motivation and other possible effects. Children in both Head Start centers
showed an increase in scores between fall and spring classroom assessments.
Families
In the teachers’ survey distributed by Ball, some teachers related the impact of
the program on parents and families as a whole. “The program had a big impact
for my children and parents. Some of my families were surprised at what the
children could do, [for] example – talking and [the] manipulation of magnet[s]
and the outcomes of activities. The children would go home and talk about
their day, with excitement, not just saying [that they] played. They actually
talked about activities and what they did. It made me know, they were really
learning something.”
Conclusions
The PNC: Grow Up Great! program’s main goal is to help children of preschool
age to “grow up great.” Rather than focusing solely on the child’s development,
the program also provides professional development for teachers and shared
experiences for families. This allows for an increase in awareness of the need for
investing in their children’s experiences in and out of the classroom. Teachers
remarked on the benefits of adding new perspectives in science and being
able to see how science connects to everyday teaching. Additionally, teachers
made observable changes to their practice in response to skills learned in the
professional development workshops. Every partner institution focused on
getting children to explore, and getting families to see that inquiry is important
for children’s growth. As one teacher stated, children “learned that science is in
their daily lives and it is exciting to explore.” The Science Center’s contribution
to PNC: Grow Up Great! provided a new and rich opportunity for all participants.
Comments from teachers about their students focused not only on topics that
the students were learning in the sessions, but also acknowledged the comfort
level of children in exploring science. After a Discovery Room visit, one teacher
said, “Children enjoyed the Discovery Room. They learned various concepts
through play.” After attending the “Critters and Simple Tools” session, another
teacher noted, “[The] children were able to learn about bugs, and count and sort
at the same time. Incorporating Math and Science.”
17
Program Spotlight: HomeSchool Days & HomeSchool Labs
(Public Programs)
Background
HomeSchool Days (HSD) and HomeSchool Labs (HSL) are offered through the
Science Center’s Public Programs Department. Created for the homeschool
audience, HSD and HSL offer opportunities to expand curricula for students and
parents in math, science and technology. Since 2002, students in kindergarten
through 6th grade have participated in HSD. Led by program staff, students
explore a wide range of topics, such as biology and nanotechnology, through
hands-on activities. HSL began in January 2011 as a way to reach homeschool
children ages 12 and older. The program exposes students to the scientific process
through experiences with lab procedures and designing their own experiments.
Program Structure
HomeSchool Days sessions occurred on the third Tuesday of each
month. Students participated in hands-on activities in topics such
as astronomy, food science and zoology. Classes were offered for
three age ranges: Kindergarten-1st grade, 2nd-3rd grade and 4th6th grade.
Erin Nolan works with two participants in HomeSchool
Labs: Electricity as they build circuits.
As an expansion of HomeSchool Days, HomeSchool Labs classes
were set up as a three-part series. Students’ learning built on skills
and knowledge gained in earlier classes. In 2011 there were three
series: “Electricity,” “Chemistry,” and “Anatomy.” Each series was
held over a six-week period, with one class every two weeks. The
first class in each series taught basic lab practices and introduced
new concepts. The next two classes reinforced and expanded on
the basic concepts.
Evaluation Methodology
HomeSchool Days
Twelve HSD sessions occurred between September 2010 and August 2011.
Monthly session participant attendance ranged from 15 to 51, with many students
participating in multiple sessions, resulting in 397 interactions. At the end of
five of the twelve sessions, child participants completed System for Assessing
Mission Impact (SAMI) cards. Children too young to write were assisted by
program staff. In those five sessions, there were 129 points of interaction and
a total of 81 SAMI cards collected, resulting in a 63% response rate. In March
2011, a parent survey was conducted on-site. Eight parents provided feedback.
In September 2011, a follow-up online survey for parents about their family’s
overall experience with HSD was sent to 24 parents who had provided email
addresses throughout the academic year. A total of 17 surveys were completed,
for a response rate of 71%.
HomeSchool Labs
SAMI cards were also collected from HSL student participants. A total of nine
SAMI cards were collected from two of the three series. In the series in which
SAMI cards were collected, “Chemistry” and “Anatomy”, there were a total of 39
interactions, for a response rate of 23%. In September 2011, an online follow-up
survey was sent to parents who provided emails during the “Anatomy” series.
Two parents out of four responded, for a response rate of 50%.
Characteristics of the Samples
HomeSchool Days
“Amazing Astronomy” and “Nano-Tech” had the highest attendance
of the HomeSchool Days with 51 students each. The highest
percentage of respondents from the online parent survey, 65%,
reported attending “Amazing Astronomy”; 65% of respondents
also reported attending “CSI: Einstein Enigma.” Of respondents
to the online survey, 18% reported only participating in the last
session, which took place in August 2011. Many parents (44%
of respondents) reported attending sessions before the 201011 academic year. One parent reported attending sessions prior
to 2006. In total, the parents who responded had 25 children
participate during the 2010-11 school year. Parent respondents
had children from pre-kindergarten to 6th grade participate in
the program. Parents who had Science Center memberships
accounted for 60% of respondents. None of the families that A participant in HomeSchool Days: Amazing Astronomy
creates a constellation cup.
responded were from St. Louis City; slightly less than 50% were (Photo: Saint Louis Science Center)
from St. Louis County, with the rest of the respondents residing
in other counties in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Frequent
visitors to the Science Center represented 81% of SAMI card respondents. Of
child participants who reported their gender, 63% were male participants; 38%
were female participants.
HomeSchool Labs
Of the SAMI card respondents, 33% were female and 67% were male. Frequent
visitors represented 78% of respondents; 67% of respondents were Members.
Unlike HSD, HSL did have participants from St. Louis City (22%), although the
majority of participants (66%) came from either St. Louis County or other
counties within the St. Louis metropolitan area. From the online survey, students’
ages ranged from 6th grade to 8th grade.
19
Impact of HomeSchool Days
Impact of HomeSchool Labs
Based on the data collected via the online survey for parents, the overall Impact
Score was 13.88 out of 16. The overall ratings were: 3.19 for Knowledge, 3.75 for
Enjoyment, 3.38 for Interest and 3.56 for Attitude. From the data collected from
the SAMI cards, HSD had an Impact Score of 13.86. The overall ratings were:
3.38 for Knowledge, 3.52 for Enjoyment, 3.62 for Interest and 3.35 for Attitude.
Children whose families had memberships had significantly higher ratings and
higher average Impact Score (15.00) than Non-members (11.65).
From the data collected from the parent survey, the overall Impact Score was
16.00. Knowledge, Enjoyment, Interest and Attitude categories all received an
average of 4.00 from parents. From the SAMI cards, HSL had an overall Impact
Score of 14.56. The students’ overall ratings were: 3.67 for Knowledge, 3.78 for
Enjoyment, 3.67 for Interest and 3.44 for Attitude.
SESSION TITLE
“Design it. Build it.”
12.78
2.91
3.26
3.57
3.04
“Go Green”
14.12
3.59
3.47
3.59
3.47
“Reflex Remix”
14.18
3.36
3.73
3.73
3.36
“CSI: Einstein Enigma”
14.43
3.71
3.71
3.43
3.57
“Code Breakers”
14.67
3.38
3.52
3.62
3.35
13.86
3.38
3.52
3.62
3.35
13.88
3.19
3.75
3.38
3.56
OVERALL
(SAMI Card)
OVERALL
(Parent Online Survey)
Parents rated specific aspects of HSD on a scale from 1 (“poor”) to 4 (“excellent”).
The overall ratings were: 3.56 for program content, 3.63 for the activities, 3.50 for
appropriateness for grade level and 3.75 for the instructors. When asked what
they (as parents) liked about the program, many parents cited enjoying having
an opportunity for their children to interact with other homeschooled children
while learning about science through hands-on activities and knowledgeable
instructors. One parent said “The instructors showed the kids a fun side of
Science…I liked that all of my children could participate at the same time…”.
Parents regarded the fit of the program to their curriculum as 2.94 on the 4 point
scale. Many parents commented that the programs did not completely fit their
curriculum because each homeschool will cover a topic at different times within
the year, “The Science Center Homeschool Days touches on different aspects
than we might be studying at the time, but the classes are very interesting for my
kids and worth it.”
PARENTS' RATINGS OF HOMESCHOOL DAYS
Program Content
Activities
Grade Level
Appropriateness
Instructors
Curriculum Fit
3.56
3.63
3.50
3.75
2.94
Students’ comments on SAMI cards focused on specific examples rather than
general statements; 75% of their comments were coded as a gain in knowledge.
For example, comments from students who attended “Reflex Remix” focused
on neurons, whereas participants of “Design it. Build it.” commented on
building structures.
SESSION TITLE
“Chemistry”
14.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
“Anatomy”
15.25
3.50
4.00
4.00
3.75
14.56
3.67
3.78
3.67
3.44
16.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
OVERALL
(SAMI Card)
OVERALL
(Parent Online Survey)
Similar to HSD, HSL parents rated certain aspects of the program on a 4 point
scale. Overall ratings were: 4.00 for program content, 4.00 for activities, 4.00
for appropriateness of grade level and 4.00 for instructors. Comments revealed
that parents liked the hands-on aspect of the program as well as the opportunity
for group collaboration. One parent wrote, “The hands-on experiments and
dissection are so awesome for learning as well as being in a group setting where
the kids can discuss and learn from each other. Also the teachers were great and
very enthusiastic about science and were really ready to take it where the kids
were ready to go.” Students’ comments focused on the knowledge they gained.
In the “Chemistry” series, for example, students commented on the elements
and the periodic table.
PARENT RATINGS OF HOMESCHOOL LABS
Program Content
Activities
Grade Level
Appropriateness
Instructors
Curriculum Fit
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.50
Conclusions
From 2002 to 2011, the Science Center offered programming for the homeschool
audience that provided an engaging experience. The addition of the HomeSchool
Lab series was well received by parents new to the Science Center's home school
programs as well as parents whose children had participated in HomeSchool
Days for many years. A high percentage of student respondents mentioned
knowledge gained. Parents in both programs mentioned the great opportunity
to have their children had learn science hands-on with other children and quality
instructors. As one parent wrote, “Any opportunity to collaborate and learn with
others is always an excellent addition to homeschooling.”
21
Program Spotlight: Unplugged: Uphill Derby (Public Programs)
Background
Unplugged: Uphill Derby is a summer day camp offered by the Science Center
via a grant-funded partnership with Missouri University of Science & Technology
and the Department of Energy. Offered for the first time in July 2011, participants
applied principles of simple machines and electricity to build a model car that
could race uphill. Part of a larger grant focused on communicating about energy
and electric vehicles to the public, Uphill Derby integrates an experience with
which many children are familiar—the Boy Scout Pinewood Derby—with science,
technology, engineering and math (STEM) concepts.
Program Structure
Participants in Unplugged: UpHill Derby prepare their
battery powered vehicles for the race.
The Uphill Derby is part of the Science Center’s summer camp
program, Summer Science Blast. Campers entering 3rd and 4th
grade participated in a week-long, half-day camp. Each student
built two types of cars—a gear car and a pulley car, both battery
operated. On the last day of camp, students raced these cars
on an uphill course. Each day, students engaged with energy
concepts. Hands-on activities connected the larger concepts of
energy to more specific topics such as car design, motors and
pulleys, electrons and electricity and gear systems. Students
designed their car shape, taking into consideration the principles
of aerodynamics. They also used K’NEX building toys to learn
about gears and driving systems, and used tools to cut and build
car components.
Evaluation Questions and Methodology
In its pilot year, the evaluation focused on:
• Was the camp appropriate for students entering 3rd and 4th grades?
• Was the difficulty level of the activities appropriate for the students?
• What aspects of the camp stood out most to the students?
• What did the students learn about building a car?
• How can this camp be improved?
To address these questions, both qualitative and quantitative methods were
used. Observations were conducted during two days of camp. In order to gauge
their familiarity with the topics being presented, participants were informally
asked to describe what they were learning while working on their cars. Modified
System for Assessing Mission Impact (SAMI) cards were passed out to each
student after they completed at least one round of racing on the final day of
camp. In addition to collecting ratings and responses to the questions, “What
did you get out of this program?” and "How could we make this camp better?",
the cards contained questions specifically relating to the camp. These questions
included, “What did you learn about building a race car?” and “What was your
favorite activity in the camp?”. Following the camp's conclusion, the instructor
was interviewed about her experience with the children and asked what went
well and what needed to be improved.
Characteristics of the Sample
A total of 15 cards were collected from 16 students, for a response rate of 94%.
Of those who reported their gender, 20% were girls and 80% were boys. Rising
4th graders represented 71% of the students and 20% of students were rising
3rd graders. Although the camp was intended for rising 3rd and 4th graders, 7%
of the students were rising 5th graders. Most of the children were infrequent
visitors (67%); 33% of the children who responded had family memberships.
Impact on Students
Based on the data collected via the SAMI cards, the overall Impact Score was
12.67. The overall ratings were 3.13 for Knowledge, 3.33 for Enjoyment, 3.07 for
Interest and 3.13 for Attitude. The Summer Science Blast average Impact Score
(14.13) was higher than the overall Uphill Derby Impact Score.
Uphill Derby
12.67
3.13
3.33
3.07
3.13
Summer Science Blast OVERALL
14.13
3.59
3.70
3.41
3.43
Girls participating in Uphill Derby gave higher ratings than boys in Uphill
Derby and thus had a higher Impact Score: 14.67 for girls and 12.17 for boys.
Girls in Summer Science Blast also provided higher ratings than boys and had
a significantly higher Impact Score: 14.67 for girls and 13.97 for boys. Children
in Uphill Derby with family memberships had a higher Impact Score (13.75)
than children whose families did not have memberships (12.25). Participants in
Summer Science Blast who were Members had a significantly higher Impact
Score (14.32) than Non-members (13.44).
UPHILL DERBY
Girls
14.67
3.67
4.00
3.33
3.67
Boys
12.17
3.00
3.17
3.00
3.00
Members
13.75
3.50
3.25
3.25
3.75
Non-Members
12.25
3.00
3.50
2.75
3.00
Campers' comments focused on enjoying the camp and the knowledge they
gained. One camper wrote that she “learned how to engineer and make a car.”
When describing what they learned about building their race cars, 50% of the
respondents commented on specific knowledge they gained, such as electrons,
circuits and motors on the cars. The race was the highlight for almost all of the
students. When asked what their favorite part of the camp was, 79% of the
23
students described racing their cars. One student wrote, “My favorite thing was
when my car won the race.”
Based on observations of students, children had varying levels of prior
experience with building cars and using tools. Although some had worked with
parents on model cars prior to the camp, others had never put together a model.
Students were observed using terminology taught in the camp. When asked
about the purpose of the axles, a boy responded “they’re axles, they’re going to
make the wheels move.” Some concepts proved difficult to convey in the post
camp interview, the instructor recommended teaching the concepts in a more
qualitative way, instead of using mathematical reasoning. For example, rather
than focusing on ratios when discussing gear efficiency, next year’s camp will
experiment with different sizes of gears. This technique may prove effective;
when asked what makes a car go faster, one student replied, “Smaller gears [will
make my car go faster], if the gear is smaller, it will go around faster.”
Conclusions
After its pilot year, the Uphill Derby camp has the potential to actively engage
elementary students with energy and other related science topics. Overall
children enjoyed their time in the Uphill Derby camp; their favorite part was
designing and racing the cars they built. In its current configuration, the camp
would be more appropriate for rising 4th and 5th graders who have been
introduced to the topic of energy. However, the 3rd and 4th grade students
were able to describe what they learned about making their race cars. Some
mentioned concepts of electricity and circuits; others mentioned that they
learned about batteries and motors. The camp will be restructured for the 2012
Summer Science Blast, but the exploration of energy and engineering concepts
will still be at the heart of the Uphill Derby.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE:
BECOMING THE CENTER FOR SCIENCE
In the 2009-10 edition of the Report to the Community, we described the Science
Center’s five-year strategic plan. At the core of the plan is a commitment to use
innovative methods to engage the public with science throughout their lives. As
the virtual world creates an overwhelming flow of information and contemporary
science becomes increasingly complex, people of all ages, backgrounds and
cultures need trusted, accessible and up-to-date science content.
They also need opportunities to interact with science in ways that are personally
relevant and meaningful. During the last program year, the Science Center
continued to refine our strategic plan, focusing on what it means to become the
Center for Science.
The idea of a Center for Science presents a vision for engaging the public with
science; we will be the place where science and the public meet. We will involve
our community with science in ways that are: vital and compelling, engaging and
approachable, relevant to people throughout their lives and participatory. The
Center for Science will connect the public with today's current science issues as
well as provide resources for individuals to pursue their own interests, supporting
their experience with science through lifelong learning.
In preparing to become the Center for Science, we have tested a number of
models. We have developed programs for adults, such as SciFest, Science Cafés
and travel programs, as well as offered programs aimed at multi-generational
audiences, such as Family Med School and Backyard Biofuels, a citizen science
project. Through NanoFutures Forums, we brought together local experts with
the public to discuss the impact of nanotechnology. We initiated and feature
the best of science from our own community a regular lecture series and will
continue to bring in leading scientists from around the country.
In these endeavors, collaborative, external partnerships have been key to our
success. An example is the Science Beyond the Boundaries Network which
connects more than 160 science centers and museums around the world. By
sharing educational materials and exhibitions, the network can potentially
reach over 67 million museum visitors annually with current scientific research.
Through this network, the Science Center plays an international leadership role
in facilitating the development of educational materials, sharing best practices,
evaluating impact and coordinating activities. This network provides us with new
programs and exhibits that enrich what we offer our visitors.
25
Our collaboration with the College of Education at the University of MissouriSt. Louis enhances the capacity of both institutions to reach area students and
teachers and improve the quality of STEM education. We have also formed
partnerships with scientists, convening advisory groups as content resources
and providing scientists with avenues to communicate their research to the
public. We will continue to develop these existing partnerships and cultivate
new collaborations which are key to increasing our reach and relevance.
NOTES
Becoming the Center for Science will also transform our ability to communicate.
We will use current technology to rapidly share information about current
events and bring programs to a wider audience. Ultimately, the Center for
Science will involve all aspects of the Science Center as we create a more
central presence in the daily lives of our public.
27
APPENDIX
Saint Louis Science Center Education, Exhibits & Programs Staff*
As of August 31, 2011
Alexis Abby*
Jasmine Billings*
Marguerite Choquette
Muhidin Abdimalik*
Jorden Blair*
Malik Chunn*
Derrick Adams Jr.*
Semilla Bland
Nia Chunn*
Adeola Adewale*
Alshon Blunt
Devin Clark*
Adeshola Adewale*
Nathan Bolden Jr. *
Stephanie Cole
Terrell Alexander*
Alan Bolden*
Javon Collard*
Dorsey Alford III*
Alex Bolden*
Justin Collard*
Ahmaad Ali*
Chevon Boyle*
Breonna Collins*
Marlow Allen Jr.*
A. Elaine Briscoe
Ra'Ner-Quant Collins*
Chris Allen
Bria Brown*
Isaiah Conner*
Joan Alter
Devonte Brown*
Kathryn Connor
Joel Anderson
Justin Burchfield*
Deion Cook*
Olamide Animashaun*
Lori Burns*
Jason Cook
William Anthony*
Tori Burns*
Nicole Cook
Authority Anue*
Christopher Burton*
Delamonte Cooper*
Tre'Sean Atkinson*
Korry Busch*
Kenneth Corcoran
Jamiah Austin*
Toni Butts*
Jermaine Cotton*
Jasmine Bailey*
Mariah Caine*
Jerricka Cotton*
Thomas Bailey*
Taylor Calicutt*
Todd Cowell
Audrianna Bain Ward*
David Callahan
Sydney Cowins*
Mariah Baker*
Paul Calloway*
Devorion Crawford*
Jon Baker
Robert Campbell*
Monikiah Cross*
Marvin Banks*
Christina Carlson
Marcus Daily*
Erin Barbee*
Monzera Carrillo*
Melissa Dalton
Dionne Barge*
Sara Carter
Autumn Davis*
Bryana Barnes*
Fredricka Caruthers*
Lans Davis*
Christina Bates*
Shawntella Caruthers*
Tiara Davis*
Thomas Becker
Jessica Castiglioni
Lacey Dean
Nyjah Bell*
Christopher Cella
Crystal Derring*
Ralph Bellamy Jr. *
Marlynn Chambers
Jasia Dickerson*
Emily Bermes
Christine Cheatham*
Tasha Dickerson*
Hal Bierman
Eldridge Cherry*
James Dixon IV*
Hilary Biggar
Jardin Cherry*
Kumar Diyali*
Raven Dodds*
Lynette Gayden
Karlyn Henry*
Reva Dodds*
Shawnicee Gentry-Pruitt*
Lucia Herleth
Pili Dressel
Lilian Getachew*
Cameron Herron*
Nadja Durham*
Heather Gibbons
Javier Herron*
Calloyd Edmondson*
Tiara Gibson*
Charles Heuvelman
Christa Edwards
Ron Giesler
Christopher Hicks*
Darius Ellerson*
Eugene Gilliam Jr. *
Courtney Hilliard*
Hannah Ellis
Timothy Glanvill*
Jalen Hinton*
Daphne Emrick*
Kat Golden
David Hoffelmeyer
Cindy Encarnacion
Ron Goldfeder
Cortez Hollman*
Toney Estes*
Khamrin Graham*
Rodney Holmes*
Yancy Evans II*
Tamika Graham*
Nona Holmstrom
Jasmine Evans*
Aijah Hagens*
Dylan Houston*
Tina Fanetti
Ramauda Green*
Jacora Houston*
Brandon Farbush*
Mosiah Greene*
Tyron Hubbard*
Andrew Farrar*
Shakur Gridiron*
Steven Hurst Jr.*
Rashaud Fenderson*
Kevin Griffin
Layne Ibel
Rashaun Fenderson*
Terris Grimes
Adna Ismajilefendic*
Queshontis Fields*
Eric Gustafson
Elisa Israel
Demetrice Fisher*
Irnes Hajruloski*
Jamar Jackson*
Jamaal Fisher*
Tiana Hall*
Taylor Jackson*
Jason Fivecoat
Tyrie Hall*
Delle Jackson
Cory Flanagin
Rudy Hamilton*
Steven Jamerson III*
Nehemiah Ford*
Demetrius Harper*
Breanna Jarrett*
Will Fort Jr.*
Andrea Harper
Janiece Johns*
Dorian Foster*
Alexandria Harris*
Damonte Johnson*
David Francis
DeVonte Harris*
D'Angelo Johnson*
Ligaya Franklin*
Eric Harrison*
Jalyn Johnson*
Jillian Franks*
Mia Harsley
Justin Johnson*
Shaniqua Frazier*
Sydney Hart*
Alexander Johnson
Paul Freiling
Natalie Hartmann
Lauren Johnson
Melinda Frillman
Fartun Hassan*
Benny Jones III*
Lee Fuqua II
Diontay Hatch*
Airea Jones*
Johann Galikin
Andreaunna Hawkins*
Brandon Deandre Jones*
Heather Gallagher
Andreielle Hawkins*
Danielle Jones*
Lawrence Galvin*
Jennifer Heim
Jovan Jones*
Gabrielle Gant*
Lea Heintz
Laron Jones*
Romiyus Gause Jr.*
Daunte Henderson
Michaela Jones*
29
Myesha Jones*
Charles McGill III*
Richard Osborn
Evin Russell
Breyonna Thomas*
Ben Williams Jr.*
Randy Jones*
Morgan McNair*
Tyesha Outlaw*
Oluwatomisin Salami*
Mara Thomas*
Melvin Williams Jr.*
Shaveal Jones*
Janet Medina*
Michelle Payne*
Brittani Savage*
Melissa Thomas
Dajae Williams*
Sarah Jordan*
Tavis Merriman*
Michael Peebles*
Dominic Schaeffer
Candace Thompson*
DeNeshia Williams*
William Kazban*
Elizabeth Merriman
Jamie Perkins*
Emily Scherer
Marwin Thompson
Gerald Williams*
Sherrisse Keeper
Marquise Middleton*
Brittany Perryman*
John Schmitt
Rebecca Thorn
Isaiah Williams*
Bill Kelly
Shawntice Midgett*
Christopher Peterein
Michael Schoenewies
Amanda Tinnin
Jazell Williams*
LeeAnna Kern
LaDaisha Miller*
Ronnesha Phillips*
Sarah Schoenlaub
Amanda Topping
Jeremy Williams*
Betsy King
Lamar Miller*
Charity Pikes*
Mary Schriewer
Tevin Tourville*
Jerrica Williams*
Maya Kirk*
Taylor Miller*
Justin Polacek
Doreysha Scott*
Torrniece Triplett*
Jerrick Williams*
Orville Kirk
Diane Miller
Brianna Porter*
Erin Scott*
Nautica Turner*
Kendra Williams*
Nicholas Klotz
Karalynn Miller
Beth Prakash
Brock Seals*
Nephreteri Tutwiler*
Lauren Williams*
Rodney Knight*
Lucas Miller
William Pratt III*
Jaysia Seals-Nelson*
Carol Valenta
Leslie Williams*
Morgan Koller*
Hilla Akbar*
Jessica Preston*
Joseph Seidler
Marcella Vamboi*
Reeana Williams*
John Lakey
Gywanna Montague
Billy Preston
Alik Shelton*
Latrina Vance*
Sharelle Williams*
Marcus Lamb*
Carl Moore Jr. *
Daevion Prewitt*
Sarah Shin*
Najwa Wakil*
Stephen Williams*
Kris Lane*
Devin Moore Pitts*
Som Pyakurel*
Vontel Silinzy*
Courtney Walker*
Ayinde Williams
Payton Lee Jr. *
Anthony Moore*
NeBria Ragland*
Lonnie Smith Jr. *
Romekia Wallace*
Aliyah Wilson*
Josh Linn
Ashley Moore*
Ieasha Randolph*
Alea Smith*
Stephvin Wallace*
Britney Wilson*
Kenny Loggins*
Jalen Moore*
Shannon Rapp
Arielle Smith*
Alexander Walters*
JayLynn Wilson*
Ronald London Jr. *
Jessica Moore*
Mehtab Rashidi*
Dennis Smith
Suzanne Walton
Nicola Wilson*
Viridiana Lopez*
Kaelan Moorehead*
Wesley Rayford*
Frieda Smith
DeVon Washington*
Tierra Wilson*
Robinique Love*
Jeremy Morgan*
Jamyia Reason*
Ian Smith
Antoine Watkins*
Colin Wilson
Christopher Lucas
Susan Morris
James Redelsheimer*
Philip Sortino
Tyra Watkins*
Al Wiman
Cimani Lumzy*
Raja-Niah Morrison*
Octavia Redmond
Briana Sowell*
Nathaniel Watlington II*
Scott Winstead
Tan Luu*
Sara Morrison
Tiara Redrick*
MyDestiny States*
Ar'Reon Watson*
Jared Witherspoon*
Frank Mack
Oluwatosin Mosuro*
Ashley Reekie
Steve Steadman
John Watson*
Alexandrya Wright*
Nicholas Mackey*
Koran Muhammad*
Janice Richard*
Aadaisie Stevens*
Ruth Watt
Blaine Wright*
Suman Magar*
Shaquil Muhammad*
Charles Richardson*
Matthew Stevens
Jasmine Welsh*
Diamond Wright*
Mike Malolepszy
Tim Mulhall
Siinya Riley-Dulaney
Kerry Stevison
Anna Werner
Bradley Wynn*
Aliyha March*
Julian Munson*
David Ritchey
Danielle Stewart
Hannah Wetzel
Darius Young*
Sara Martinez
Kathryn Nelson*
Riana Roberts*
Charlie Stockman
Alexis Wheeler*
Jeannie Young
Gregg Maryniak
Demisha Nettles*
Eboni Robinson*
Toni Stovall*
Da'Zaria White*
Fudail McCain*
Bre'Yanna Nicholson*
Jevone Robinson*
Taryn-Leigh Surtees
Khadijah White*
Ted McCorvey III*
Jasmine Noble*
Taylor Robinson*
Adtronique Swopes*
Rajae White*
Andrew McGarrahan
Erin Nolan
Christine Roman
Lal Tamang*
Rakelle Whitfield*
Olivia McGauly
Enrico Nolen Jr. *
Randy Ruffin*
Kurly Taylor Jr.*
Rashonda Whitfield*
Anniece McGhee*
Betsy O'Brien
Rodney Ruffin*
Michael Terry*
Jill Willhite
26
Louis Science Center
30 Saint
*Youth Exploring Science (YES) Teen
31
SOURCES
Ball, Nadine. “Grow Up Great: St. Louis¸ Evaluation Processes & Results.” Project evaluation report.
St. Louis, Missouri, August 2011.
Falk, J. and Dierking, L. 2000. Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning.
Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Nelson, Louise. “Grow Up Great in St. Louis, 2010-11 Goals.” Outline of project goals. St. Louis, Missouri,
September 2010.
PNC Bank. “PNC Grow Up Great and St. Louis Organizations To Help Underserved Preschoolers.”
September 16, 2010. http://pnc.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=731.
Printed with soy-based ink on
30% post-consumer recycled content.
Saint Louis Science Center, 5050 Oakland Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63110

opening minds to science - Saint Louis Science Center

Transcription

Similar documents

Summary for Theater

Central West End FOR LEASE

Rodeo Flyer Rolla 8/08 (Page 1)

castyour - Cancer Support Community Greater St. Louis

PDF File

2015 Reception Sponsors, advertisers and program participants!

Home Care Brochure

kudos - John Burroughs School

SCC Newsletter, 2011 #5 - the St. Louis Chapter of the Society of

Other Soulard Organizations continued