National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25183.
×
Page R16

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design Committee on Designing Citizen Science to Support Science Learning Rajul Pandya and Kenne Ann Dibner, Editors Board on Science Education Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education A Consensus Study Report of  

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (#10002925), Howard Hughes Medical Institute (#10003301), and Simons Foundation (#10003402). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25183 Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Learning through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25183. PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.     PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.     PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

COMMITTEE ON DESIGNING CITIZEN SCIENCE TO SUPPORT SCIENCE LEARNING RAJUL PANDYA (Chair), American Geophysical Union MEGAN BANG, Northwestern University; Spencer Foundation DARLENE CAVALIER, SciStarter; School for Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University DANIEL EDELSON, BSCS LOUIS GOMEZ, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, UCLA JOE HEIMLICH, Center for Research and Evaluation; Lifelong Learning Group, Center of Science and Industry LEKELIA “KIKI” JENKINS, School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University BRUCE LEWENSTEIN, Department of Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University CHRISTINE MASSEY, Department of Psychology, UCLA JOHN MATHER, NASA JULIA PARRISH, University of Washington; The Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST) TINA PHILLIPS, Citizen Science Program, Cornell Lab of Ornithology KENNE DIBNER, Study Director HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Board Director, Board on Science Education KERRY BRENNER, Program Officer LETICIA GARCILAZO GREEN, Senior Program Assistant JESSICA COVINGTON, Senior Program Assistant FM‐v    PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATION ADAM GAMORAN (Chair), WT Grant Foundation MEGAN BANG, Northwestern University; Spencer Foundation SUNITA V. COOKE, MiraCosta College MELANIE M. COOPER, Michigan State University RUSH HOLT, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC MATTHEW KREHBIEL, Achieve, Inc., Washington, DC MICHAEL LACH, University of Chicago Urban Education Institute LYNN LIBEN, Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University CATHY A. MANDUCA, Carleton College JOHN C. MATHER, NASA TONYA MATTHEWS, Michigan Science Center, Detroit, MI WILLIAM PENUEL, University of Colorado Boulder STEPHEN L. PRUITT, Kentucky Department of Education (former) MIKE SMITH, Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching ROBERTA TANNER, Loveland High School (retired), Loveland, CO HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Director FM‐vi    PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

PREFACE It is a daunting to be asked to chair a committee for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. You are around the table with a room full of exceptionally smart people, at least one with a Nobel Prize, and taking your place inside an institution that stretches back to Abraham Lincoln. You must leverage all the voices and intellect in the room while also recognizing the voices and histories that are not in the room. Working with the committee, you strive to answer concisely a narrowly scoped charge while simultaneously unpacking the larger issues implicit in that charge. As chair, you aim for a consensus that is not overly obvious by exploring the boundaries of agreement and even flirting with disagreement, because that is where the meaningful parts of consensus lies. In the final product, your report, you aim to say something new without getting too far ahead of the evidence; something that is small enough to be precise, but big enough to inspire. Thankfully, you have the processes of the National Academies and the people on the committee to guide you. The process is designed to keep you focused on the topic and restrained by available evidence – our committee joked that we were not able to use the word “is” without a citation. There were times in our process that this demand for evidence was frustrating: sometimes we wanted to make a point about the way we would like things to be, engage in a speculative line of reasoning, or take an idea about education in citizen science and tease out its broader implications. In each case, though, an insistence on evidence and scope (often with some gentle or not-so-gentle guidance from the National Academies staff) brought us back to our task. The committee, especially in their willingness to respectfully pursue and reach consensus, also helped illuminate the way. Evidence might be the raw material of this report, but it was the committee members who built the report from those raw materials – they collected, evaluated, and synthesized the evidence. They served as the (citizen) scientists who collected the evidence, the story-tellers who wove that evidence into coherent narratives, and the arbitrators who evaluated the evidence to produce findings and recommendations. They were good scientists because they were experts in their fields and listened carefully to our many invited guests; they were good story-tellers because they could pull from and synthesize evidence across a range of disciplines and experiences; and they were good arbitrators because, to the person, they cared more about producing the best answer than they did about proving themselves right. One of the findings of the report is that the positive social interactions that are part of strong citizen science projects reinforce and create opportunities for learning. This was evident in our committee as well: we had fun together and we got to know one another, and those positive experiences helped us wrestle with necessary and productive disagreement. Learning, it turns out, involves not just new knowledge, but the integration of new and old knowledge and this process sometimes involves deconstructing some of that old knowledge. That part can be painful, especially in academic circles where knowledge is the currency of the realm, and the fact that we had fun together and trusted one another enabled necessary deconstruction. Excellent meals together helped as well. The committee itself, along with National Academies staff, also represented of one of the other findings of the report: people learn more and perform better in environments that welcome and integrate a diversity of experiences and perspectives. They were also, fittingly for a report on education, excellent teachers and learners. I learned as much about the science and practice of teaching and learning from watching them work together as I did from the evidence cited in the FM‐vii    PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

report. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to work with everyone on the committee and the staff at the National Academies, and richer for having done so. At the end of the day, a National Academies report is an integrative summary of what is known about a single topic: these reports are expansive, complete, and up-to-date about what is known, and reflective of what is possible. Our report, like all National Academies reports, is not meant to move the field forward as much as it is meant to provide a solid waypoint from which the field can move forward. We believe it is an important document. We aim to provide a common reference of strongly supported understandings that can be a driver for further innovation and creativity and for iteration and refinement by citizen science researchers, designers, educators, and participants. I hope, though I suspect it is impossible, that you can learn as much from this report, have as much fun thinking about its big ideas, and find as many new ways of doing things, as I did in working with the committee and staff at the academies to produce the report. Finally, some of the most exciting ideas discussed by our committee never made it to the final report. Although these ideas are not up to the standards of the report and go well beyond the scope of our charge, they are compelling. For me, the emergent line of reasoning goes like this: effective citizen science projects create a kind of negotiated space where scientists and non- scientists can work well together. That means the most effective citizen science projects create a space where all people are considered intellectual partners and contributors. In this way, they offer a vehicle to challenge historic, and unproductive, divisions between those who are part of science and those who are not. They become places to expand participation in science not only by inviting people to do science, but also by inviting communities to use science in service of their goals and priorities. Citizen science poses questions about who participates in science, what it means to participate in science, who gets to decide what scientific questions to investigate, and even what kind of knowledge and practice count as science. Raj Pandya Chair, Committee on Designing Citizen Science to Support Science Learning FM‐viii    PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the spirit of the social nature of much of citizen science, this report is the outgrowth of the tremendous work of many devoted individuals. We have learned quite a bit by having had the space, time, and resources to be proximal to one another’s expertise, and we believe that this report benefits from the rare opportunity to synthesize many voices into one – an opportunity uniquely afforded through the processes of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The Committee on Designing Citizen Science to Support Science Learning owes a debt of gratitude to a number of people for their support throughout this project. First, we wish to extend a thank you to this project’s sponsors: Janet Coffey from the Moore Foundation, Greg Boustead and Jill Blackford from the Simons Foundation, and Dennis Liu and Bridget Conneely from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI). At our first meeting, our sponsors were immensely helpful in establishing a tone for our investigations, and we are profoundly grateful for their support. Over the course of the study, we heard from many individuals who were able to shed light on different aspects of citizen science and science learning. At our first meeting, citizen science champions Rick Bonney of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and Sarah Kirn from the Gulf of Maine Research Institute offered framing perspectives on the potential of citizen science, and Leona Schauble of Vanderbilt University and Leslie Herrenkohl from the University of Washington provided insight into the landscape of science learning. At our second meeting, the Committee hosted a public meeting for extended consideration of specific issues related to citizen science and science learning. Cindy Hmelo- Silver of Indiana University and Joe Polman of the University of Colorado-Boulder offered insight into the science learning literature. Heidi Ballard of the University of California–Davis provided the keynote address with an overview on the potential of citizen science to support science learning, specifically the development of science identity. Bill Zoellick of the Schoodic Institute, Ruth Kermish-Allen from Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance, and Rebecca Jordan of Rutgers University conducted a panel on frameworks for designing learning opportunities in citizen science. Rob Dunn from North Carolina State University, Andrea Wiggins of the University of Nebraska–Omaha, Jennifer Fee from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and Linda Peterson of Fairfax County Public Schools, conducted a panel on citizen science in K-12 classrooms; Gwen Ottinger from Drexel University, Michael Mascarenhas of the University of California–Berkeley, and Muki Haklay of University College–London offered insight into citizen science and community learning outcomes. Karen Peterman of Karen Peterman Consulting and Cat Stylinski from the University of Maryland conducted a panel on assessing learning in citizen science, and Laura Trouille of Zooniverse and the Adler Planetarium, Kathryn “Kit” Matthew of the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences, and Sue Allen of Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance closed the event with a panel on citizen science in informal settings. As part of its attempt to learn about ongoing citizen science projects in the field, the committee held an expo event for outside exhibitors to present their projects and sign up potential participants. The committee wishes to sincerely thank the following individuals and citizen science projects for taking the time to describe their work: Steven Silverberg of Disk Detective, Katrina Theisz of the National Institute of Health’s citizen science efforts, Liz MacDonald of Aurorasaurus, Mary Clare Hano of Smoke Sense, Nadine Levick of Automated FM‐ix    PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

External Defibrillator Geolocation, Sophia Liu of Citizen Science During Disasters, Mark Kuchner of Backyard Worlds, Caroline Juang of Landslide Reporter, and Arielle Conti of Tree Inventory at Casey Trees. This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Angela Calabrese Barton, Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University; Steven B. Case, Center for STEM Learning, University of Kansas; Dianne Chong, Assembly, Factory & Support Technology (Retired), Boeing Research and Technology; Caren B. Cooper, Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University; Mary Ford, Education Programs, National Geographic Society; Leigh Peake, Education, Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland ME; Joseph L. Polman, School of Education, University of Colorado Boulder; Leona Schauble, Department of Teaching and Learning, Vanderbilt University; Jeremy W. Thorner, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley; and William Zoellick, Education Research, Schoodic Institute at Acadia National Park, Winter Park, ME. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Philip Bell, College of Education, University of Washington, and Eugenie C. Scott, retired, National Center for Science Education. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. The committee wishes to extend its gratitude to the staff of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE): to Heidi Schweingruber, Board Director of the Board on Science Education, who has provided ongoing wisdom and guidance as we navigated challenging intellectual and procedural terrain. To Anne Simonis, who joined our team en media res and who helped with critical drafting and editing processes. To Leticia Garcilazo Green, whose expert and efficient administrative leadership enabled smooth meetings and production, and Jessica Covington, who also entered a chaotic process and masterfully assisted in many of our administrative needs. Kirsten Sampson Snyder of the DBASSE staff deftly guided us through the Academies review process, and Laura Yoder provided invaluable editorial assistance. Yvonne Wise of the DBASSE staff oversaw the production of the report. Finally, the committee wishes to thank Raj Pandya, study chair, for his devoted, responsive, and impassioned leadership of this study. It has been both a pleasure and an honor to work closely with Raj, and this report is truly the better for his commitment. Kenne Ann Dibner Study Director, Committee on Designing Citizen Science to Support Science Learning FM‐x    PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

Contents Summary 1. Introduction Charge to the Committee Interpreting the Charge What Is Citizen Science? What Is Science Learning? Who is Learning? How Can Learning Occur Through Citizen Science? Framing Considerations What Counts as Evidence for Learning? Attending to Issues of Equity Advancing Science and Advancing Learning About this Report Addressing the Charge Report Audiences Organization of the Report References 2. Mapping the Landscape The History of Citizen Science: Evolving Definitions and Typologies Definitions and Typologies Summary Project Similarities and Variations Common Traits of Citizen Science Projects Citizen Science Projects Actively Engage Participants Citizen Science Projects Engage Participants with Data Citizen Science Projects Use a Systematic Approach to Producing Reliable Knowledge Participants in Citizen Science Projects Are Primarily Not Project- Relevant Scientists Citizen Science Projects Help Advance Science Participants in Citizen Science Can Benefit from Participation Citizen Science Projects Communicate Results. Summary Variation in Citizen Science Projects Duration of Participation Modes of Communication Online, In-person, and Hybrid Modes of Participation Individual to Community-Scale Activities Role of Location Free-choice, Voluntary, and Compensated Participation Citizen Science vs. Using Citizen Science Practices and Activities FM‐xii  PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

Longitudinal Monitoring to Experimental Science Community-Based Decision-Making vs. Citizen Science Summary Who Is Involved and How Are They Involved? Variations in Types of Participation Participant as Observer and Data Provider Participant as Competitor or Gamer Participant as Stakeholder/Partner Participants as Cultural Guides Summary Considering the Demographics of Citizen Science Summary References 3. Overview of Citizen Science as a Context for Learning Unique Possibilities for Learning Through Citizen Science Scientific Context and Supporting Learning The Nature of Participation and Supporting Learning Project Infrastructure and Supporting Learning What Are the Goals of Science Learning? Who Is Learning in Citizen Science? Broadening Understandings of Who Is Learning in Citizen Science: Learning in Communities An Asset-Based Approach to Learners in Citizen Science Summary References 4. Processes of Learning and Learning In Science Introduction Perspectives on Learning Processes of Learning The Role of Memory in Learning The Importance of Activity Developing Expertise Conceptual Change and Development Perceptual Learning Kinds of Learning in Science Learning Specific Scientific Disciplinary Content Using Scientific Tools and Participating in Science Practices Understanding and Working with Data The Importance of Motivation, Interest, and Identity Motivation Interest Identity FM‐xiii  PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

Scientific Reasoning, Epistemological Thinking, and the Nature of Science Summary References 5. Citizen Science as an Opportunity for Science Learning Proximal Learning Outcomes in Citizen Science Learning Motivation and Interest as Science Learning Outcomes in Citizen Science Using Scientific Tools and Participating in Science Practices in Citizen Science Learning Project Specific Disciplinary Content in Citizen Science Summary Distal Learning Outcomes in Science Developing Understanding of Explanatory Scientific Concepts in Citizen Science Identity in Science Scientific Reasoning Summary Summary References 6. Designing for Learning Know the Audience Adopt an Asset-Based Perspective Intentionally Design for Diversity Design with Stakeholders Capitalize on Learning Opportunities Associated with Citizen Science (Data Literacy, Real Worlds Contexts, and Community Science Literacy) Develop Data Knowledge Highlight the Authenticity of Participants’ Experiences Through Real World Contexts Design for Community Science Literacy Support Multiple Opportunities for and Multiple Kinds of Engagement Encourage Social Interaction Build in Learning Supports Give Participants Opportunities to Communicate and Apply What They Learn Give Participants Many Examples and Frequent Feedback Link the Project’s Scientific Goals with its Learning Goals Connect Science Process to Science Content Emphasize the Constructed Nature of Project Knowledge Evaluate and Refine Summary References FM‐xiv  PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

7. Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Characterizing Citizen Science Participation in Citizen Science Learning Through Citizen Science Community Learning Design for Learning Recommendations and Research Agenda Enabling Learning Building the Field References Appendixes A Demographic Analyses of Citizen Science B The Evolution of Learning for Design C Characteristics of Science Learning in Citizen Science Projects: An Ad Hoc Review D Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff FM‐xv  PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes BOXES 1-1 Statement of Task 1-2 What Are Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion? 1-3 Why Is Citizen Science Valuable for Science? 1-4 Listening Session at Citizen Science Association Meeting 3-1 Learning Through Citizen Science in Formal Education Settings 3-2 Processes of Community Learning 4-1 Recommended Principles for Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning with Corresponding Levels of Supporting Evidence 4-2 Example of Core Disciplinary Ideas adapted from A Framework on K-12 Science Education TABLES A-1 Percent of the Responding Population Indicating the Abundance of a Particular Demographic Class of Project Participants (e.g. Retirees) A-2 Demographics of Surveyed or Interviewed Participants in 48 Citizen Science Projects and/or Meta-Populations A-3 Amalgamated Gender Demographics of Bird-Oriented Organizations Inviting Public Involvement, Organized by the Degree of Expected Participation and Type(s) of Interaction FIGURES 3-1 Strands of Learning 4-1 Components of Data Modeling FM‐xvi  PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS 

Next: Summary »
Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design Get This Book
×
Buy Prepub | $64.00 Buy Paperback | $55.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In the last twenty years, citizen science has blossomed as a way to engage a broad range of individuals in doing science. Citizen science projects focus on, but are not limited to, nonscientists participating in the processes of scientific research, with the intended goal of advancing and using scientific knowledge. A rich range of projects extend this focus in myriad directions, and the boundaries of citizen science as a field are not clearly delineated. Citizen science involves a growing community of professional practitioners, participants, and stakeholders, and a thriving collection of projects. While citizen science is often recognized for its potential to engage the public in science, it is also uniquely positioned to support and extend participants’ learning in science.

Contemporary understandings of science learning continue to advance. Indeed, modern theories of learning recognize that science learning is complex and multifaceted. Learning is affected by factors that are individual, social, cultural, and institutional, and learning occurs in virtually any context and at every age. Current understandings of science learning also suggest that science learning extends well beyond content knowledge in a domain to include understanding of the nature and methods of science.

Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design discusses the potential of citizen science to support science learning and identifies promising practices and programs that exemplify the promising practices. This report also lays out a research agenda that can fill gaps in the current understanding of how citizen science can support science learning and enhance science education.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!