Measuring Science Capital in Informal Museum-Based Settings

• In Event: Transfer for Learning Outside the Classroom: Informal Contexts to Examine STEM Learning Skills and Strategies

Abstract

An increasingly popular framework for understanding differences in patterns of educational and career aspirations in STEM fields, the concept of science capital describes the science-related knowledge, attitudes, experiences, and relationships that, taken together, make up a person’s relationship to science (Archer et al., 2015). Early research on science capital has both connected the construct to science education and career aspirations and provided a lens for understanding the well-documented gaps in science persistence and achievement along racial and socioeconomic lines (Archer et al., 2015; Stets, Brenner, Burke, & Serpe, 2017). Current efforts to conceptualize science capital and translate that conceptualization into measurement efforts and instructional strategies have largely focused on formal education settings (Hayes, 2018). Educators and researchers in informal settings are eager for ways to adopt the science capital framework in suitable ways to help understand the relationship between informal science instruction and program outcomes.

This poster will present the results of a pilot study designed to frame elements of science capital as program outcomes and then measure them. The two programs are operating at a science museum in an east coast city. One program enrolls rising Kindergarten through 9th graders in a tuition-based week-long summer camp. The other program provides free science learning, college prep, and work experience to middle and high school students from traditionally underserved schools and communities from 6th through 12th grades year-round. The two different populations of these programs afford opportunities to explore how age, race, socioeconomic status, and program dosage interact with elements of science capital including future science job affinity, valuing science and scientists, valuing museums/museum experiences; science identity, and science self-efficacy.

Rather than present the particular outcomes of each of these programs, this poster is an exploration of instrument development. It will answer questions about the pros and cons of different types of survey administration (retrospective post-pre vs. traditional pre-post design) and whether an instrument can be designed that is sensitive enough to pick up changes over time in science capital related outcomes. Importantly, this work takes a needed step towards bridging the gap between instruments developed by researchers and logistical concerns encountered in field settings.

Authors

• Lisa Dillman, The Franklin Institute

• Alexis Clark, The Franklin Institute