The Science & Technology Program Work Team at Cornell University wanted to know what constitutes a fun, exciting, and successful science-based learning experience for young people. In 2002, 4-H Educators and youth were engaged in the Concept System process that generated 144 unique ideas. These ideas were distilled into 15 clusters, all of which linked to three principal elements of program design: Content, Context, and Delivery. Those results were translated into a checklist for planning science programs, available at . In 2005 and 2006, the team recommended adapting it to other interactive learning experiences and for program evaluation

Coffman, Charlotte W

Eames-Sheavly, Marcia

Gans, Jon

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 45 Number 4 Article 25 8-1-2007 What Makes a Great Science Experience? A Program Planning Checklist for Educators Marcia Eames-Sheavly Cornell University, me14@cornell.edu Jon Gans Cornell University, jag33@cornell.edu Charlotte W. Coffman Cornell University, cwc4@cornell.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Eames-Sheavly, M., Gans, J., & Coffman, C. W. (2007). What Makes a Great Science Experience? A Program Planning Checklist for Educators. The Journal of Extension, 45(4), Article 25. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol45/iss4/25 This Tools of the Trade is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. 	 JOEHOME JOURNAL GUIDELINES ABOUT	JOE CONTACT NATIONAL	JOB	BANKCurrent	Issues Back	IssuesAugust	2007	//	Volume	45	//	Number	4	//	Tools	of	the	Trade	//	4TOT2What	Makes	a	Great	Science	Experience?	A	Program	PlanningChecklist	for	EducatorsAbstractThe	Science	&	Technology	Program	Work	Team	at	Cornell	University	wanted	to	know	whatconstitutes	a	fun,	exciting,	and	successful	science-based	learning	experience	for	young	people.In	2002,	4-H	Educators	and	youth	were	engaged	in	the	Concept	System	process	that	generated144	unique	ideas.	These	ideas	were	distilled	into	15	clusters,	all	of	which	linked	to	threeprincipal	elements	of	program	design:	Content,	Context,	and	Delivery.	Those	results	weretranslated	into	a	checklist	for	planning	science	programs,	available	at<http://www.hort.cornell.edu/gbl/groundwork/activitychecklist.pdf>.	In	2005	and	2006,	the	teamrecommended	adapting	it	to	other	interactive	learning	experiences	and	for	program	evaluation.	Introduction	and	Background4-H	Youth	Development	in	New	York	has	several	program	areas	that	serve	as	focal	points	forproject	activities	and	as	points	of	convergence	for	staff	with	varied	subject	matter	interests,	yet	adesire	to	work	together.	One	of	these	program	areas,	Science	and	Technology,	has	generatedenthusiasm	and	commitment	from	a	number	of	dedicated	individuals	for	nearly	two	decades.Under	the	umbrella	of	science	and	technology,	Cornell	Cooperative	Extension	(CCE)	educators	andcampus-based	faculty	and	staff	have	planned	conferences	and	in-service	trainings,	collaborated	oncurricula	and	educational	materials,	and	learned	from	one	another's	trials	and	successes,	first	asan	informal	group	meeting	occasionally	over	lunch	and	then	as	an	official	program	work	team.In	2002,	members	of	the	4-H	Science	and	Technology	Program	Work	team	(PWT)	initiated	a	groupprocess	to	understand	more	about	what	constitutes	a	fun,	exciting,	and	successful	science-oriented	learning	experience.	While	historically,	project	efforts	have	been	based	on	assumptionsabout	what	makes	a	great	science	experience,	this	group	sought	to	move	beyond	theseassumptions	to	explore	the	question	more	seriously	and	reflectively,	using	well-establishedmethodology.	The	goal	was	to	compile	findings	into	a	program-planning	tool	that	would	assisteducators	in	being	more	deliberate	as	they	renew	existing	and	develop	new	science	andtechnology	programs.Methods	and	ResultsThe	PWT	employed	a	group	decision-making	tool	called	the	Concept	System®Marcia	Eames-SheavlySenior	Extension	Associate,	HorticultureME14@cornell.eduJon	GansProgram	Director,	Service	Learning	InitiativeCornell	institute	for	Public	Affairsjag33@cornell.eduCharlotte	W.	CoffmanSenior	Extension	Associate,	Fiber	Science	&	Apparel	Designcwc4@cornell.eduCornell	UniversityIthaca,	New	York<http://www.conceptsystems.com/ConceptMapping/ConceptSystem.cfm>	to	structure	the	processin	order	to	better	understand	the	audience	and	to	begin	with	a	question	of	general	interest.	Thistool	employs	a	group	process,	decision	support,	and	a	software	package/program	to	assist	groupsin	moving	from	an	individual	to	a	collective	understanding	of	questions	and	issues.	The	processwas	administered	online,	allowing	participants	at	a	distance	to	provide	input.To	begin	the	process,	the	PWT	invited	Extension	educators	and	staff	to	complete	the	followingprompt	during	an	on-line	group	brainstorming	process:"One	specific	technique,	tool,	approach	etc…	that	I	employ	to	engage	the	young	peoplein	my	program	in	a	science-oriented	learning	experience	is…"Simultaneously,	children	and	youth	were	invited	to	respond	to	a	slightly	different	prompt	throughseveral	facilitated	group	discussions:"One	specific	thing	that	makes	science	fun	and	interesting	is…"More	than	220	statements	were	generated	and	distilled	(edited	for	content	and	duplication)	into	afinal	list	of	144	unique	ideas.	Ideas	were	ordered	randomly	from	1	to	144	and	grouped	into	15clusters.	Each	idea	was	rated	from	1-5	to	demonstrate	its	importance	or	prioritization	relative	toother	statements	in	the	same	cluster.	Table	1	demonstrates	how	five	ideas	were	rated	andgrouped	into	the	Real	World	Science	Cluster.Table	1.Real	World	Science	Cluster	IdeaNo. Idea Rating16 Relate	science	concept	to	an	everyday,	familiar	thing 4.16113 Link	kids'	research	with	"real"	research 3.34109 Explain	how	science	affects	technology	and	medicine 3.2513 Do	something	with	real	scientists 3.21128 Encourage	a	science	focus	on	the	power	of	youthcampaign3.00	 Average	Rating 3.39The	end	result	was	the	Final	Cluster	Rating	Map	(Figure	1),	which	depicts	15	groupings	of	ideas.Each	small	square	within	the	clusters	represents	one	of	the	144	ideas	generated	by	thebrainstorming	activity.	The	relationship	of	any	one	idea	to	the	rest	of	the	ideas	in	the	map	isdetermined	by	how	close	that	idea	is	to	the	others;	ideas	that	are	closer	together	are	conceptuallymore	similar	than	ideas	that	are	further	away.The	orientation	of	the	map	is	not	relevant	because	the	distance	of	any	one	idea	to	the	rest	wouldremain	the	same	if	the	map	were	rotated	or	flipped.	The	cluster	layers	represent	the	groupprioritization	of	the	ideas	as	an	average;	the	more	layers	to	a	cluster,	the	higher	the	prioritizationof	the	ideas	in	that	cluster	relative	to	the	other	clusters.	The	legend	in	the	bottom	left-hand	cornerof	the	figure	provides	the	range	for	the	average	priority	of	the	cluster	layers	expressed	on	a	1	to	5scale.Figure	1.Final	Cluster	Rating	Map	Translation	of	Results	into	a	Checklist	Tool	for	ProgramPlanningTo	interpret	these	results,	PWT	members	reviewed	the	ideas	located	in	each	cluster	and	studiedthe	relationships	between	clusters.	What	stories	describe	these	relationships?	What	is	meaningfulabout	the	location	of	each	cluster	or	set	of	ideas	relative	to	the	other	clusters?	How	might	theseresults	be	used	to	contribute	to	the	planning	efforts	of	the	PWT?	How	can	4-H	educators	benefitfrom	this	study?The	PWT	members	noted	that	all	15	clusters	fell	within	three	broad	principles/elements	of	programdesign:	Content	(science),	Context	(audience	and	environment),	and	Delivery	(educators).	Contentrefers	to	the	learning	objectives	of	the	program/activity	and	how	to	achieve	them.	What	is	thepurpose	of	the	program/activity?	How	can	educators	ensure	that	the	learning	objectives	areachieved?	The	context	is	the	environment	for	the	learning	objectives.	In	most	cases,	the	audienceis	paramount	when	thinking	of	the	context,	but	the	atmosphere,	tone,	and	approach	will	affect	theoverall	experience	of	the	audience.	Delivery	refers	to	the	manner	in	which	the	learning	objectivesare	achieved.	The	educators	are	critical	to	ensuring	that	the	integrity	of	the	content	and	thecontext	are	maintained.Although	it	is	important	to	note	that	the	ideas	within	the	clusters	fell	neatly	into	the	programdesign	principles	of	content,	context,	and	delivery,	the	Science	and	Technology	PWT	was	reluctantto	further	consolidate	the	findings	as	might	have	been	the	case	had	the	committee	wanted	toidentify	and	set	committee	priorities.	Given	the	time	dedicated	to	this	effort	and	the	depth	ofinformation	in	the	findings,	the	PWT	chose,	instead,	to	develop	the	information	into	a	checklist	toassist	Extension	educators	in	the	planning	and	delivery	of	science	programming.Using	the	ChecklistThe	checklist	was	posted	online,	introduced	at	4-H	science	and	technology	events,	explained	ineducator	trainings,	and	distributed	via	newsletters.	The	intention	was	that	educators	would	referfrequently	to	this	checklist	as	they	developed	new	programs	and	planned	new	events,	makingneeded	adjustments	to	ensure	that	their	science	offerings	were	indeed	fun,	exciting,	andsuccessful.A	2005	survey	of	24	New	York	4-H	educators	showed	that	most	recognized	its	validity,	but	felt	theyhad	internalized	the	ideas	and	did	not	need	to	constantly	refer	to	the	checklist.	The	checklist	wasmost	frequently	used	when	training	new	volunteers	and	staff.	Some	respondents	suggestedshortening	the	checklist	or	adapting	it	for	other	types	of	programs.	Others	wondered	if	thechecklist	might	also	be	an	effective	evaluation	tool.In	2006,	at	the	New	York	statewide	4-H	educator's	conference,	participants	were	asked	to	use	amodified	version	of	the	checklist	to	reflect	on	a	program	or	project	of	importance	in	their	counties.This	program	did	not	have	to	be	about	science.	The	purposes	were:	1)	to	evaluate	theprogram/project	in	terms	of	content,	context,	and	delivery,	2)	to	align	the	program/project	with	atleast	one	of	the	National	4-H	priorities,	and	3)	to	generate	discussion	about	the	effectiveness	ofthe	checklist	as	a	planning/evaluation	tool.ConclusionsThe	What	Makes	a	Great	Science	Experience	checklist<http://www.hort.cornell.edu/gbl/groundwork/activitychecklist.pdf>	is	a	useful	tool	for	4-Heducators	who	are	developing	a	new	program	or	adapting,	revising,	or	evaluating	an	existingprogram.	Designed	specifically	for	science	experiences,	it	can	be	used	for	other	activity-basedlearning	with	modest	modifications.	Readers	are	invited	to	access	this	tool	online	and	suggestways	to	increase	it	usefulness.AcknowledgmentsThe	authors	gratefully	acknowledge	all	our	survey	respondents,	the	Program	Work	Team	members,and	Craig	Cramer,	who	assisted	with	graphics.Copyright	©	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Articles	appearing	in	the	Journal	become	the	property	of	theJournal.	 Single	 copies	 of	 articles	 may	 be	 reproduced	 in	 electronic	 or	 print	 form	 for	 use	 in	 educational	 or	 trainingactivities.	Inclusion	of	articles	in	other	publications,	electronic	sources,	or	systematic	large-scale	distribution	may	bedone	only	with	prior	electronic	or	written	permission	of	the	Journal	Editorial	Office,	joe-ed@joe.org.If	you	have	difficulties	viewing	or	printing	this	page,	please	contact	JOE	Technical	Support©	Copyright	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Copyright	Policy

What Makes a Great Science Experience? A Program Planning Checklist for Educators

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4304&context=joe

What Makes a Great Science Experience? A Program Planning Checklist for Educators

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints