Methods development for systematic investigation of factors driving outcomes in informal STEM environmental education programs

青年环境教育（EE）计划往往作为门户经验，其中不同的观众参与非正式的科学学习。虽然有证据表明，这些方案可以对参与者产生积极的影响，但很少有实证研究来确定是什么使一个方案比另一个方案更成功。为了能够进行这样的研究，这项探索性途径研究将（1）开发和统计验证方法，以衡量各种项目参与者的有意义的成果，（2）测试观察方法，使研究能够确定项目交付的哪些要素最有力地影响参与者的参与和学习成果。这些努力将包括与来自国家公园服务，自然中心和学术界的不同主题的专家进行磋商;与课后和自由选择EE计划的参与者进行调查研究;以及EE计划的观察，旨在微调计划交付元素和学生参与度的测量。制定有效和可靠的结果措施和观察协议将使更大的调查，将专门解决以下研究问题：什么样的程序特性导致最好的学习成果，为计划参与者在不同的情况下？ 这项研究将导致经验验证的指导方针，将使教育工作者设计和提供更有效的方案，为广大观众在广泛的背景。它由推进非正式STEM学习（AISL）计划资助，该计划旨在推进非正式环境中STEM学习的设计和开发的新方法和基于证据的理解。（和未来的AISL服务于实践的研究提案），以研究教学方法，参与者参与，在非正式的STEM为重点的青年EE计划的学习成果。更大的研究将涉及系统地观察大量的方案，以评估不同方法的使用，并通过观察和调查研究将这些方法与参与和学习成果联系起来。在目前的研究中，该团队将开发和完善横切结果测量，以确保有效性，可靠性和敏感性，通过借鉴文献和与关键利益相关者的协商，为后续的心理测量测试和修订开发一套指标。他们还将通过广泛测试评分员之间的可靠性来改进评估教学方法的观察技术。最后，测量参与者参与度的技术将得到改进，包括观察技术和回顾性参与者调查。这项工作将由克莱姆森大学和弗吉尼亚理工大学的研究人员与美国国家公园管理局、北美环境教育协会和美国自然中心管理员协会合作进行。这项工作代表了更长研究过程的第一步，该过程旨在确定在广泛背景下最能取得成果的“最佳实践”。

Youth environmental education (EE) programs often serve as gateway experiences in which diverse audiences engage in informal science learning. While there is evidence that these programs can have positive impacts on participants, little empirical research has been conducted to determine what makes one program more successful than another. To be able to conduct such research, this Exploratory Pathways study will (1) develop and statistically validate ways to measure meaningful outcomes for participants across a variety of programs and (2) test observational methods that will enable research that can determine which elements of program delivery most powerfully influence participant engagement and learning outcomes in different contexts. These efforts will include consultations with diverse subject matter experts from the National Park Service, nature centers, and academia; survey research with participants in afterschool and free-choice EE programs; and observations of EE programs designed to fine tune the measurement of program delivery elements and student engagement. Developing valid and reliable outcomes measures and observational protocols will enable a larger investigation that will specifically address the following research question: What program characteristics lead to the best learning outcomes for program participants in different contexts? This research will result in empirically tested guidelines that will enable educators to design and deliver more effective programs for a wide range of audiences in a wide range of contexts. It is funded by the Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) program, which seeks to advance new approaches to, and evidence-based understanding of, the design and development of STEM learning in informal environments.This effort will refine methods necessary to undertake an unprecedented study (and future AISL Research in Service to Practice proposal) to examine the linkages between pedagogical approaches, participant engagement, and learning outcomes in informal STEM-focused youth EE programs. The larger study will involve systematically observing a large number of programs to assess the use of different approaches and to link those approaches to engagement and learning outcomes through both observation and survey research. In this current study the team will develop and refine crosscutting outcome measures to ensure validity, reliability, and sensitivity by drawing upon the literature and consultation with key stakeholders to develop suites of indicators for subsequent psychometric testing and revision. They will also refine observational techniques for assessing pedagogical approaches through extensive testing of inter-rater reliability. Finally, techniques for measuring participant engagement, incorporating both observational techniques and retrospective participant surveys will be refined.The work will be conducted by researchers at Clemson University and Virginia Tech, in partnership with the U.S. National Park Service, the North American Association for Environmental Education, and the American Association of Nature Center Administrators. This work represents the first step in a longer research process to determine the "best practices" most responsible for achieving outcomes in a wide range of contexts.