by Vera Michalchik and Lawrence Gallagher

Abstract

Researchers and practitioners concerned with STEM learning (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) occurring outside the institutional boundaries of schools recognize the need for assessment approaches that accommodate the characteristics of informal learning. These approaches, to be viable, must align with the activities, goals, roles, and outcomes we find in informal settings. A plausible starting point is in making use of naturalistic assessments—people’s own on-going, developing awareness of who can do what under which circumstances. People regularly and informally assess one another to shape and support learning activities, goals, and outcomes. This article seeks to make a case for developing a new research program for assessing learning outcomes by capitalizing on people’s everyday attunements, which are already in place, and by getting more value out of the cultural apparatus that exists for recognizing one another’s capabilities.

Get the full article.

• Vera Michalchik (vera.michalchik@sri.com) is a Senior Social Scientist at SRI International in Menlo Park, California.
• Lawrence Gallagher (lawrence.gallagher@sri.com) is a Research Social Scientist at SRI International in Menlo Park, California.

by Andrew Shouse, Bruce V. Lewenstein, Michael Feder, Philip Bell

Abstract

In this article, the editors of the recent National Research Council report Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits discuss the report’s implications for museum professionals. The report is a synthesis of some 2,000 studies and evaluations of learning in non-school settings such as museums. Here we focus on three specific topics discussed in the full report, which we see as particularly important for museum professionals. These are: a framework for developing and studying science learning experiences; cultural diversity as an integral resource for learning; and assessment of learning. Many museums include “learning” among their goals and many researchers concern themselves with how museums and other settings can be organized to support learning. Yet this wealth of research is rarely brought into focus and offered as guidance to the museum community.

Get the full article.

• Andrew Shouse (awshouse@uw.edu) is associate director of the Institute for Science and Mathematics Education and visiting assistant professor of Educational Psychology, University of Washington. 
• Bruce V. Lewenstein (b.lewenstein@cornell.edu) is professor of science communication, Cornell University.
• Michael Feder (mfeder@nas.edu) is a senior program officer with the Board on Science Education, National Research Council.
• Philip Bell (pbell@uw.edu) is director of the Institute for Science and Mathematics Education and associate professor of the Learning Sciences, University of Washington, 1100 NE 45th Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA, 98105.

by Andrew J. Pekarik

The ways that museums measure the success of their exhibitions reveal their attitudes and values. Are they striving to control visitors so that people will experience what the museum wants? Or are they working to support visitors, who seek to find their own path? The type of approach known as ‘‘outcome-based evaluation’’ weighs in on the side of control. These outcomes are sometimes codified and limited to some half-dozen or so ‘‘learning objectives’’ or ‘‘impact categories.’’ In essence, those who follow this approach are committed to creating exhibitions that will tell visitors what they must experience. Yet people come to museums to construct something new and personally meaningful (and perhaps unexpected or unpredictable) for themselves. They come for their own reasons, see the world through their own frameworks, and may resist (and even resent) attempts to shape their experience. How can museums design and evaluate exhibitions that seek to support visitors rather than control them? How can museum professionals cultivate ‘‘not knowing’’ as a motivation for improving what they do?

Get the full article.

• Andrew J. Pekarik (pekarika@si.edu) is Program Analyst in the Office of Policy and Analysis, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

by PINO MONACO AND THEANO MOUSSOURI

Recently, the Smithsonian Institution addressed the challenge of coordinating the articulation of intended learning outcomes for educational programs. Pino Monaco, and Theano Moussouri, got together to discuss the Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs), and a similar framework proposed by the National Science Foundation in the U.S., as concrete guidelines to provide tangible and assessable shapes to learning outcomes.

Issues discussed and still open for elaboration rotated around the concept of intentionality – why is the informal education community still discussing whether we should or should not have intended outcomes in mind when we facilitate a learning experience?

Furthermore, after presenting examples of how outcome-based evaluations could be integrated within our current practices, the authors recognized the need for further pondering, especially concerning the issue of “measuring learning outcomes.”

• Isn’t a measurement in contrast with a free-choice learning experience?
• How do we measure fun and enjoyment?
• Instead of measuring, could we gather and describe?

Feel free to join the conversation in the Forum by adding your comments below.