Making the Argument for Learning Science in Informal Environments - Math in zoos and aquariums
description
Transcript of Making the Argument for Learning Science in Informal Environments - Math in zoos and aquariums
Math in Zoos and Aquariums (MiZA)
Presentation Overview
• Project Overview
• Findings pertinent to professional development for informal educators
Project Goals
• Use mathematical learning as a tool to deepen the learning and experience of zoo and aquarium visitors
• Provide tools for informal educators through professional development
Project Assumptions
• Expand the use of living collections as teaching tools for concepts of conservation
• Mathematical explorations could support visitor engagement with conservation
• Zoos and aquariums can be a motivating context in which to highlight technical work and demonstrate how mathematics is applied in the real world
Project Assumptions, continued
• Mathematical reasoning about animal identification and behavior can support people’s understanding and caring about animals
• Involvement in these activities could lead to concern and empathy about animals and lead to further interest in the math and science of animals
Project Context
• Began in 2005• Limited professional development
opportunities for informal educators• Successful model of Math Momentum in
Science Centers project• Support participants first as math “learners,” then
as “facilitators”
• Provide structure and support for participants to customize tools
Project Details
• 21 workshops across US and Canada
• Reached over 400 staff members and 124 institutions
• Full-day workshop with individual follow- up by project staff
• Website with tools
Workshop Goals
• Help educators connect math and conservation to enhance programming
• Math “learners” first, then “facilitators”• Activities presented in a relevant context• Activities and support designed for
customization and ease of implementation
Workshop Structure• Establish reason for math as a focus
– Broader definition of math– How mathematical thinking progresses through
development– Why math learning is important
• Three math activities– Do the activity and reflect on personal learning– Group discussion to connect math to conservation
and activity within institutional context– Small group work to begin customizing activity
Workshop Structure
• Final action plan– Choose one activity to customize and
implement– Begin thinking through steps, obstacles,
resources– Set tentative timeline– Turn in plan to workshop staff
• Follow-up by project staff
Activities“Guess My Animal”
– Twenty Questions-type game using data– Sort and categorize data through numerical
reasoning and logic– Use observation skills, exploring biodiversity
and adaptations
Activities
“Be an Animal Scientist”– Observing animals and recording
behavioral data– Compile and analyze data
Activities“Finders/Keepers”
– Simulated fishing activity using paper fish– Fish are measured and compared to chart
to determine if they are “keepers”– Show how linear measurement is used in
fish management
Customization
Workshop success contingent upon successful implementation of activities– Model activity in zoo setting– Discussion focused on different ways to
modify based on collections– Planning guides and planning time helped
participants prepare– Follow-up from MiZA staff provided extra
guidance
Evaluation
• Evaluation conducted by Garibay Group• Designed according to IMLS Logic Model• Three main goals guided the evaluation
– Increased confidence in ability to incorporate math
– Increased ability to see connection among math, science, and conservation
– Successful implementation of one workshop activity
Evaluation Approach• Mixed methods approach (Green and
Caracelli, 2002; Johnson & Turner, 2002)• Quantitative and qualitative data
– Pre-workshop paper survey– Post-workshop paper survey– In-depth phone interviews (two rounds, 14 total)– Online survey at end of project (55% response rate)– Debrief data from follow-up calls– Workshop observations
Key Results- Short Term
• Increased math knowledge and confidence– 3.34 out of 6 raised to 5.28
• Lessons learned during workshop:– Gained ideas for incorporating math concepts into
programming (N = 111)– Expanded concepts about what math is and how it
can be applied (N=47)– Found that math concepts are easy to incorporate
(N = 24)– Gained ideas about math activities that are animal-
specific (N = 20)
Key Results – Short Term
• 60% of participants implemented one or more activities– Be an Animal Scientist – 45%– Guess My Animal – 38%– Finders/Keepers – 17%
• Challenges identified– Motivating other staff members– Finding time to prepare/adapt– Integration into existing programs– Adapting for specific age groups
Key Results – Short Term
Reasons people didn’t implement an activity– Not enough time (70%)– Inflexible curriculum (17%)– Activities did not fit with organizational
goals (17%)
Professional Impact
• Results measured after implementation and 6-12 months after workshop
• Majority said that MiZA increased their understanding of math, data, measurement, and logic.
• 22% said the most significant concept was a change in their perception of what math is and how to use it. Math:– can be fun and subtle– can be implemented in creative ways– can be adapted to a variety of topics– is part of everything
Professional Impact• 79% indicated increased understanding of how
math and conservation relate• 82% indicated that implementing activities
positively impacted their ability to integrate math• 80% indicated their new math activities had a
positive influence on engaging audiences more deeply
• 80% stated that MiZA was professionally valuable• 87% would likely participate in additional projects• 85% would recommend MiZA
Factors influencing outcomes
• Both individual and organizational factors influenced participant outcomes
• Exploration of these factors could have influence on professional development for the field
Individual Factors
• Goal-oriented participants were more likely to implement activities– Consistent with Activity Framework Theory
(Davydov, 1999)– Mental goal will influence meaning made
from a learning activity or event
• Speed and ease of customization meant more likely to implement
Organizational Factors
• These conclusions were drawn mostly from interview data
• Staff from both small and large institutions were able to implement activities, but for different reasons
• Institution size offers various advantages and disadvantages
Implications for the Field
• Focus on easily adaptable activities– Activities will be more likely implemented if
they can be customized to organizational goals
• Support structure for implementation• Help participants identify and link
activities to existing programming• Address organizational structure issues
before workshops
Acknowledgments
• MiZA Staff – Laura Martin, Andee Rubin, Jan Mokros,
Tracey Wright, Gabby Hebert
• IMLS
• New England Aquarium
• Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo
• Garibay Group