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