No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Toward a Methodology for Informal Astronomy Education Research
3.Broome, E. C. 1902, “A Historical and Critical Discussion of College Admission Requirements,” Unpublished PhD dissertation, Columbia University.
5.Dierking, L. D. 1991, “Learning Theory and Learning Styles: An Overview,” Journal of Museum Education, 16, 4.
6.Dierking, L. D. , Falk, J. H. , Rennie, L. J. , Anderson, D. , & Ellenbogen, K. 2003, “Policy Statement of the ‘Informal Science Education’ Ad Hoc Committee,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40(2), 108.
7.Fadigan, K. A. , & Hammrich, P. L. 2004, “A Longitudinal Study of the Educational and Career Trajectories of Female Participants of an Urban Informal Science Education Program,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., 41(8), 835.
8.Fraknoi, A. 1995, “The State of Astronomy Education in the U.S.,” in Astronomy Education: Current Developments, Future Coordination, Proceedings of ASP, J. Percy (Editor), San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 9.
9.Good, T. L. , Slavings, R. L. , Harel, K. H. , & Emerson, H. 1987, “Student Passivity: A Study of Question Asking in K–12 classrooms,” Sociology of Education, 60(3), 181.
10.Greenwood, D. J. , & Levin, M. 1998, Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
11.Groome, M. , Rivet, A. E. , & Suh, Y. 2005, “Providing Students with Question Asking Alternatives in the Middle School Setting,” paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Dallas, TX.
13.Keeves, J. P. 1997, Educational Research, Methodology, and Measurement: An International Handbook, 2nd ed., Oxford: Pergamon.
14.Keeves, J. P. 1998, “Methods and Processes in Research in Science Education,” in International Handbook of Science Education, B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Editors), London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1127.
15.Koch, J. 1990, “The Science Autobiography,” Sci. Child., 28(3), 42.
16.LeCompte, M. D. , & Preissle, J. 1993, Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research, 2nd ed., San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17.Marché, J. D. 2001, “Sputnik, Planetaria, and the Rebirth of U.S. Astronomy Education,” The Planetarian, 30(1), 4.
18.Marché, J. D. 2002, “Mental Discipline, Curricular Reform, and the Decline of U.S. Astronomy Education, 1893–1920,” Astronomy Education Review, 1(1), 58.
19.National Educational Association. 1899, “Report of the Committee on College-Entrance Requirements,” Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Thirty-Eighth Annual Meeting held at Los Angeles, California, July 11–14, 1899, 632.
20.National Research Council. 1996, National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.National Science Teachers Association. 1998, “Informal Science Education,” J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 28(1), 17.
22.Rorer, J. T. 1906, “The Need of a Revival of Interest in Astronomy in Our Schools and Colleges,” Popular Astronomy, 340.
23.U.S. Bureau of Education. 1893, Report of the Committee on Secondary School Studies Appointed at the Meeting of the National Educational Association, July 9, 1892 with the Reports of the Conferences arranged by this Committee and held December 28–30, 1892, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
24.van Zee, E. H. , Iwasyk, M. , Kurose, A. , Simpson, D. , & Wild, J. 2001, “Student and Teacher Questioning during Conversations about Science,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., 38(2), 159.
25.Wolcott, H. F. 1990, “On Seeking-and Rejecting-Validity in Qualitative Research,” in Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate, E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Editors), New York: Teachers College Press, 121.
As the astronomy education community develops, a need has arisen for concrete research and evaluation methodologies, especially within informal educational settings. We propose one such methodology, action evaluation, which attempts to demystify the process of research∕evaluation and recruit as partners those who are traditionally left out of this process. Based on the tradition of action research, this methodology incorporates research∕evaluation into the fabric of programs and places the researcher∕educator in a centralized role. We provide concrete examples of tools that we have used to enact this methodology and elaborate using three case studies from our work in a museum.
Full text loading...
Most read this month