澳门跑狗论坛

At the Golden Gate Bridge, a set of exhibits is being built to educate millions of annual visitors on the science and engineering behind the San Francisco landmark. In Washington state, local Girl Scout troop leaders are getting trained to teach children about scientific inquiry. And a giant-screen film titled that debuted in March鈥攁nd is being accompanied by a comprehensive outreach program鈥攁ims to help audiences explore the science behind severe weather events.

Those disparate enterprises to advance public understanding of science鈥攁long with hundreds of others over the years鈥攈ave been fueled by the federal at the National Science Foundation.

Federal agencies have long supplied money and overseen initiatives that support learning outside the classroom. They include the U.S. departments of Energy and Agriculture, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Institute for Museum and Library Services. The U.S. Department of Education also supplies some dollars that reach science-focused after-school activities through the .

But many experts assert that the National Science Foundation stands apart in the role it has played in advancing the field often referred to as 鈥渋nformal science鈥� learning.

鈥淭he heart of the federal government that has really shown leadership over the years is the National Science Foundation,鈥� said Kevin J. Crowley, a professor of education and psychology at the University of Pittsburgh who directs the university鈥檚 Center for Learning in Out-of-School Environments. 鈥淭hey鈥檝e really transformed the field.鈥�

鈥淚t has been absolutely essential,鈥� Alan J. Friedman, the former longtime director and chief executive officer of the New York Hall of Science, said of the science agency鈥檚 role. 鈥淭he growth of the field of informal science learning has been hugely influenced, accelerated, and quality-controlled by NSF. It has been the single major factor.鈥�

鈥楢nywhere, Anytime鈥�

The NSF first launched a program for informal science learning in the 1950s. At the time, it was called Public Understanding of Science. In 1983, that initiative was replaced by the the Informal Science Education program, which is the main but not only source of NSF funding in this domain.

The agency provides about $65 million a year through the program, which supports a wide variety of activities, including the production of films and community projects, traveling museum exhibits, after-school initiatives, and cyber-enabled learning. Of that amount, about $25 million is available for new awards, while most of the rest goes toward the continuation of prior grant commitments.

Every project grant requires an evaluation to assess impact. The science foundation also provides grants specifically for research and has helped support the establishment of organizations such as the Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education, a partnership of several institutions that aims to improve informal-science-education practice, document evidence of its impact, and communicate the contributions of the field.

The emphasis of the NSF鈥檚 Informal Science Education program is learning outside formal school settings.

鈥淭he way we describe informal science education is ... anywhere, anytime, lifelong learning,鈥� said Alphonse T. DeSena, a program director at the NSF. 鈥淪ometimes it happens in school, but it鈥檚 not part of the curriculum.鈥�

The agency, he said, tries to have a broad reach in terms of content, audience, and the nature of the learning experience.

鈥淚n all of this, we鈥檙e trying to promote successful interactions with the public and improvements in how to do that,鈥� Mr. DeSena said, adding that 鈥渆ducational innovation is a key element for any award that we make.鈥�

Martin Storksdieck, the director of the Board on Science Education at the National Academies, said he appreciates the way the NSF has pushed grant applicants. It doesn鈥檛 simply underwrite good ideas, he said; rather, it insists that any new grant support an idea that somehow advances the field and moves beyond current practices.

鈥淚 like the idea of the NSF saying: Make the case for me why this is important. Build on what鈥檚 been done before. Create partnerships that work, and ask yourself if what you鈥檝e created is effective,鈥� Mr. Storksdieck said. 鈥淭he culture of that type of thinking has been created by NSF.鈥�

Observers note that the agency鈥檚 work in informal science has evolved over time, and that over the past decade or so, it has ratcheted up requirements for evaluating the impact of projects.

Sue Allen, the director of the NSF鈥檚 division of learning in formal and informal settings, said she sees a number of important changes over time in the agency鈥檚 work.

鈥淲hat it takes to get funded gets harder and harder,鈥� she said. 鈥淣SF has been moving the bar higher in terms of evaluation, disseminating and learning from prior work, and connecting with other research areas and traditions.鈥�

She added: 鈥淲e鈥檙e pushing for a more compelling and nuanced rationale for what [applicants] do.鈥�

Some Grants Questioned

To be sure, the NSF鈥檚 work has faced criticism at times.

Last year, some bloggers who have been critical of the Obama administration blasted the science agency for committing $700,000 for an experimental theater troupe in New York City to produce a musical on climate change and conservation. Critics called it a questionable use of public money, especially in light of the severe federal budget deficit.

Mr. DeSena of the NSF defends the project, saying that it was highly rated by external reviewers and that 鈥渢he use of dramatic techniques in informal science learning has a very long and solid history.鈥�

Meanwhile, according to Mr. Storksdieck, some institutions that pursue informal science learning have been disappointed that the NSF has been so focused on research and the development of new ideas, rather than continued support for established programs or practices.

鈥淥nce you develop the new idea, you have to let go鈥� of the federal funding, he said. The NSF is 鈥渘ot there to sustain funding.鈥�

Moreover, he said: 鈥淭here are people who complain that spending 10 to 20 percent [of a project grant] on research or evaluation is a waste of money.鈥�

Also, some observers have expressed disappointment that funding for the NSF鈥檚 Informal Science Education program has not kept pace with the fairly robust growth over time in the agency鈥檚 overall budget, which climbed from about $4.4 billion to nearly $7 billion from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2010.

鈥淏asically, the NSF budget for Informal Science Education has experienced no appreciable growth for at least five years,鈥� said Anthony 鈥淏ud鈥� Rock, the chief executive officer of the Association of Science-Technology Centers, in Washington. His group received startup funding from the NSF that helped expand the presence of science centers around the country.

The Informal Science Education budget has seen a couple of significant bumps since the mid-1990s, but has changed little more recently, rising only about 5 percent over the past five budget years. It was $66 million for fiscal 2010.

Even that growth, however, could be reversed, given the current push in Washington to scale back federal spending. For example, the Republican-led House approved a fiscal 2011 budget plan in February that would cut the NSF鈥檚 budget, which includes the Informal Science Education program, by $166 million or about 20 percent.