Bioregional Community Dialogue: The Worldviews Network Toolkit for Educators

This page summarizes the article, which Taylor & Francis publishes at doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2015.1126060↗ (opens in a new tab). The article is © 2016 Museum Education Roundtable, so the body appears here in summary; the abstract, table, figure description, notes on funding and the references are complete. The figure is described in words.

Journal of Museum Education, vol. 41, no. 1, 2016, pp. 66–74. Section: Tools, Frameworks and Case Studies. DOI: 10.1080/10598650.2015.1126060↗ (opens in a new tab)

Abstract

Planetarium spaces offer many opportunities for inspiring learning about the cosmos, but they more rarely offer other science content or topics with specific local relevance. The Worldviews Network is comprised of institutions using an innovative approach to interpret topics related to human-induced global change. As a case study, the Worldviews approach provides a model that combines data visualizations with systems-based narratives that tell a story of social-ecological issues through cosmic, global, and local perspectives. Drawing from summative evaluation of the project’s eight institutional case studies, this article shares key insights about the Worldviews programming model, including how the process of adopting the model led to skill development for museum staff members and, in some cases, unprecedented community partnerships. For practical application, the article also outlines a toolkit of key factors and available resources for institutions interested in producing issue-based earth science presentations for their own immersive “bioregional community dialogues.”

Keywords: Data visualizations; planetariums; public engagement with science; systems thinking; partnership; museum education; evaluation

Background

From 2010 through 2013 the Worldviews Network (www.worldviews.net) brought together interdisciplinary advisors and eight informal science institutions (ISIs) to tell stories about human-induced global change in planetariums and portable domes. The programs used scientific data visualizations and storytelling to show the limits of a habitable Earth (“planetary boundaries”) from cosmic, global and local perspectives.

The partner sites were the California Academy of Sciences, Denver Museum of Nature and Science, American Museum of Natural History, Minnesota Regional Planetarium Network, University of Michigan Natural History Museum, Renaissance Computing Institute, Journey Museum, and Perot Museum of Nature and Science. Their shared goals: make data visualizations and storyboards for dome presentations, give informal science educators professional development, hold a Bioregional Community Dialogue (BCD) event at each site, and build partnerships with outside organizations.

The BCD answered a call in the field for visualization technology that reveals Earth’s processes through inquiry and systems-based learning. Earlier evaluations of Science On a Sphere® and of Uniview dome software suggested that large-scale and immersive data visualization can support learning, interest and engagement with complex geospatial topics. A typical BCD event was a dome presentation, with live narration by one to three presenters, followed by some form of audience engagement, from question and answer sessions to facilitated community dialogues.

The summative evaluation used a multiple-case study design. Evaluators interviewed the co-PI Leadership Team, staff at the partner sites and external advisors; surveyed staff and advisors on the web; gave questionnaires at events; observed events; and analyzed project documents. The findings describe each site separately and also draw general conclusions across all eight. This article presents the cross-case conclusions as guidance for other museums.

Implementation and the process model

The project changed as it went, learning from each site in turn. Midway through, the leadership and evaluators drew a detailed program logic model and added a layer showing the project’s overall theory of change (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Worldviews network theory of change model. Description: A cycle diagram. “Need” (motivation, coupled human-natural systems, boundary conditions) leads to “Resources” (host ISI, production team, community organizations), which lead to “Skill outcomes for ISI professionals” (technology: visualizations and display systems; pedagogy: live presentation about Earth; content knowledge: social-ecological systems) and then to “Outputs” (immersive visualization and the Bioregional Community Dialogue). Outputs lead to “Community-related outcomes” in Seeing, Knowing and Doing terms: ISI and planetarium professionals see the impacts of human decisions, know local issues and contacts, and do more programming; advisors see the ISI as an important community resource, know its capacity, and plan future social-ecological engagements; the influential public feels awe, inspiration and amazement, gains social-ecological literacy, and identifies proactive opportunities. These feed a “Long-term impact” box, “All participants enhance their own stature and effectiveness” (the host ISI gains stature, members and revenue; the production team augments core programming; community organizations gain members and collaborators), which loops back to resources. A footnote says that over time the network seeks to contribute to large-scale changes in how individuals and society deal with environmental challenges, with planetariums and ISIs taking a central role in that change.

The model drew on three ideas. The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework (TPACK), from formal education, names three overlapping kinds of knowledge needed to teach with technology; the project used it to set the skills staff would need to produce BCD events. The Seeing-Knowing-Doing framework, from sustainability education, describes how people feel about, understand and act in the world; it shaped the narratives, visualizations and dialogues, which aimed to shift attendees’ views in all three. The third was a narrative structure that looks at one ecological issue from cosmic, global and local perspectives. Together these formed the theory of change and the basis of the evaluation’s analysis.

A common production process emerged, visible in the project’s document archive. With the Leadership Team’s help, each site chose a social-ecological topic relevant to its mission and community, outlined a cosmic-global-local narrative, found scientific advisors and data, and began building visualizations. External advisors from community organizations or research helped with the narrative, fact-checking and data, though how much they took part varied widely between sites. Site staff did most of the production work; the Leadership Team filled gaps, most often with technical troubleshooting for dome projection, and sometimes with science content, event coordination or logistics.

Outcomes and impact on ISIs

The intended outcomes for staff and institutions were more technical skill, more skill at teaching live and with the dome, more knowledge of local ecological issues, more connections with the community, and more programming about ecological issues. The evaluation found these achieved in several ways. Five of the eight sites said the project brought new collaborations with outside scientists, community groups and Leadership Team mentors. Two larger institutions reported new collaboration across departments (planetarium, education and research) that are usually separate.

Seven of the eight sites reported at least one longer-term institutional effect, measured one to three years after most sites’ first event. The most common was some institutional buy-in to telling Earth stories in the dome, often months or years in coming. Five sites had reused their visualization files for professional development, school groups, teachers or new venues; two kept using the Worldviews narrative approach in later shows; half had worked again with a BCD advisor or attendee. None had started new community partnerships yet, though four planned to.

Each site arrived strong in some TPACK areas and not others. Building a BCD event paired the team’s strengths with one-on-one mentoring from the Leadership Team in skills such as finding and preparing data sets, steering presentations in Uniview, and using storyboards. In follow-up surveys staff from seven sites reported significant gains in technological, pedagogical and content knowledge. Table 1 shows the largest gains were technical, from median ratings of 1 to 3 out of 7 up to 5 or 6; staff began with more content and teaching knowledge but still reported some growth.

*A p-value <0.05 indicates a significant difference between ratings of pre- and post-program skills.

The authors note (note 18) that the samples were small, so non-parametric statistics were used and the results should be read conservatively.

Institutional context shaped the outcomes. Larger museums, with separate departments and roles, found it harder to bring their own researchers into production, though repeated attempts sometimes eased the way. Smaller sites had fewer resources for an ambitious plan and did best when they scaled event size, presentation complexity and staff time to fit. The project tended to produce its largest gains where these barriers were greatest. Where institutional interest grew alongside staff gains, the program was usually aligned with a wider institutional goal, such as links to in-house research or an interpretive priority.

Lessons for application

The sites faced a steep learning curve, and their trials turned the leadership’s early vision into a defined process. The evaluation draws several guideposts from that experience.

Plan the event carefully, starting from the intended audience and its connection to the topic. Some sites invited stakeholders connected to the topic; others drew mostly general public. The mix affected reactions: general audiences sometimes found the content “over their heads,” while experts asked for more depth. It also affected the dialogues. Good dialogues had three things in common: enough knowledgeable people in the room to sustain conversation rather than slipping into Q&A, an experienced facilitator, and a facilitator at ease with the Worldviews model of design-oriented dialogue.

Start from what the institution already does well. The authors recommend TPACK as a self-assessment tool for finding strengths and the gaps that partnerships, templates or targeted training could fill. A museum strong in technical, teaching and Earth science knowledge might build an event almost from scratch; one with fewer strengths might partner or borrow. A site with weaker technical skills could adapt the “plug-and-play” visualization files on the project website (www.worldviews.net) to its own local story; a site with little Earth science expertise could ask local universities or researchers to advise on content and story. The website holds digital assets, storyboards, how-to guides, self-assessment tools and technical resources (www.worldviews.net/process/).

Finally, the approach stretched ideas about what stories a planetarium can tell. Lasting institutional change took patience, efforts to engage colleagues, and alignment with larger institutional goals. Where the approach took hold, it was through one or two staff advocates who experimented, showed proof-of-concept programs, and kept making the case for the medium’s value to storytelling, audience engagement and mission.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the co-PI team who conceived and led the Worldviews Network: Rachel Connolly, Ned Gardiner, Healy Hamilton, David McConville, Ryan Wyatt, and Ka Chun Yu.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This project was completed with support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association Environmental Literacy Grants program (NOAA grant number NA10SEC0080011).

About the authors

Jessica Sickler was, at publication, program manager of the Science & Engineering Ambassadors Program of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering in Pittsburgh, PA, and an independent research and evaluation consultant. Her work covers public engagement with science, authentic data in museum and school learning, and evaluation capacity-building.

Donnelley Hayde was a Research Associate with COSI’s Lifelong Learning Group, with a background in applied social science, market research, classroom teaching and museum evaluation. She works with science centers, art museums and other informal learning programs.

References

• Goldman, Kate Haley, Cheryl Kessler, and Elizabeth Danter. Science on a Sphere®: Cross-Site Summative Evaluation. Technical Report. Edgewater, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation, 2010.
• Hamilton, Healy, Ka Chun Yu, Ned Gardiner, David McConville, Rachel Connolly, and Lindsay Irving. “The Worldviews Network: Transformative Global Change Education in Immersive Environments.” AGU abstract #ED21B-0574. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2011, San Francisco, CA, December 5–9, 2011.
• Hoffman, Martos, and Daniel Barstow. Revolutionizing Earth System Science Education for the 21st Century: Report and Recommendations from a 50-State Analysis of Earth Science Education Standards. Cambridge, MA: TERC, 2007.
• Mishra, Punya, and Matthew Koehler. 2006. “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge.” The Teachers College Record 108, no. 6 (2006): 1017–1054.
• National Climatic Data Center. “Climate Timeline Information Tool: Exploring Weather & Climate Change Through the Powers of 10.” Last modified 2003. Accessed March 22, 2010. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/↗ (opens in a new tab)
• O’Sullivan, Edmund. 1999. Transformative Learning: Educational Vision for the 21st Century. London: Zed Books.
• Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart Chapin, Eric F. Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton et al. “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Nature 461, no. 7263 (2009): 472–475. doi:10.1038/461472a↗ (opens in a new tab)
• Sickler, Jessica, and Donnelley Hayde. Bringing the Planetarium to Earth: Summative Evaluation of the Worldviews Network Project. Technical Report, Columbus, OH: Lifelong Learning Group, 2014.
• Sterling, Steven. “Transformative Learning and Sustainability: Sketching the Conceptual Ground.” Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 5 (2011): 17–33.
• Sterling, Steven. “At Variance with Reality: How to Re-Think our Thinking.” Journal of Sustainability Education 6 (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/content/at-variance-with-reality-how-to-re-think-our-thinking_2014_06/↗ (opens in a new tab)
• Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. New York: Sage Publications, 2013.
• Yu, Ka Chun. “Digital Planetariums for Geology and Geography Education: Earth Visualizations at the Gates Planetarium.” The Planetarian 36, no. 3 (2009): 6–12; 64.
• Yu, Ka Chun, Rachel Connolly, Healy Hamilton, Kathi Koontz, David McConville, Jessica Sickler, and Ryan Wyatt. “The Worldviews Network: Digital Earth for Ecological and Resilience Education.” Paper presented at the 8th international symposium on digital earth 2013, Kuching, Malaysia, August 26, 2013.
• Yu, Ka Chun, Healy Hamilton, Rachel Connolly, David McConville, and Ned Gardiner. “The Worldviews Network: Planetariums for Ecological Literacy,” ASTC Dimensions May/June (2012): 42–43.
• Yu, Ka Chun, Robert G. Raynolds, David H. Champlin, Deirdre A. Goldsworth, and Marieke Dechesne. “Immersive Digital Earth Visualizations for Enhancing Public Understanding of Earth Resource and Climate Issues.” Paper presented at the proceedings of the 6th international symposium for digital earth. Beijing, China, September 9–12, 2009.