Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:10:46.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Science Saturdays: A Simple Science Outreach Model to Achieve Broad Impact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2011

Ainissa G. Ramirez*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520
Get access

Abstract

The National Science Foundation (NSF) evaluates grant applications based on two criteria: intellectual merit and broader impact. The broader impact criterion (BIC), or the science outreach criterion, is intended to connect science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) research to the general public, and has grown in its relevance for successful grants. A method to increase the competitiveness of a grant application and, in turn, the quality of science outreach programs is to suggest successful science outreach models for connecting scientists to the public. Science Saturdays is a fun science lecture series for the general public that is a simple, scalable, and transferable model. Its main mission is to introduce participants to excellent communicators of science and to shatter stereotypes about those who do science. It aims to inspire and motivate children as they traverse the STEM pipeline by emphasizing that science is fun. This paper discusses the elements needed to create this outreach program and the lessons learned from its development.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. National Science Foundation, NSF, merit review Broader Impacts Criterion: Representative activities. 2007; Available from: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf.Google Scholar
2. Holbrook, J.B., Assessing the science-society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation’s second merit review criterion. Technology in Society, 2005. 27(4): p. 437451.Google Scholar
3. Alpert, C.L., Broadening and deepening the impact: A theoretical framework for partnerships between science museums and STEM research centres. Social Epistemology, 2009. 23(3-4): p. 267281.Google Scholar
4. OECD, PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. 2006, Paris: OECD Secretariat.Google Scholar
6. PCAST Report, Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) for America’s Future. 2010.Google Scholar
7. Editorial, Encouraging Science Outreach. Nature Neuroscience, 2009. 12(6): p. 665.Google Scholar
10. George, Y.S., Audrey, B. Daniel, Worthington, Valerie L., and Malcom, Shirley M., Black Church Health Connection Project Manual: Hands-on Life Science Activities. 1996, Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
11. McKee, R., Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting 1997, New York: It Books (Harper Collins).Google Scholar
12. Olson, R., Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style. 2009, Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
13. Ramirez, A.G., Scientists Speak about Nano: Nanotechnology as a Catalyst for Change. ASTC Dimensions, 2008. (January/February)(8).Google Scholar
14. Strube, P., Narrative in the science curriculum. Research in Science Education, 1994. 24(1): p. 313321.Google Scholar
15. Crone, W.C., Bringing Nano to The Public: A Collaboration Opportunity For Researchers and Museums., in Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network, Koch, S.E., Editor. 2006, Science Museum of Minnesot: St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar