i ii New York Hall of Science • 47-01 111th Street • Queens, NY 11368

New York Hall of Science • The Science Career Ladder: 1986 – 2010

▶ ▶ ▶

iii iv

Contents

1 executive summary

7 Introduction

8 origins

13 The Establishment of the Science Career Ladder

15 Building the Base

17 Creating a Pathway to Science Teaching

19 the Model and the Program in 2010

21 Guiding Principles

23 The Structure of the Ladder

25 Recruitment and Selection

27 A System of Continuous Training and

Professional Development

34 Assessment and Certification of Explainers

35 A Community of Peers

40 Dissemination and scaling Up

42 evaulation Results

48 the Impact of the science Career Ladder Program

51 What Makes it Work

The New York Hall of Science thanks the following supporters for their generosity and commitment to the Science Career Ladder program:

The Achelis and Bodman FoundationsAlcatel-LucentThe Altman FoundationThe American Honda FoundationThe American Institute of PhysicsThe Arthur M. Blank Family FoundationThe Association for a Better New York FoundationThe Avon FoundationThe AXA FoundationThe Barker Welfare FoundationBlanche T. Enders Charitable TrustBristol-Myers Squibb FoundationThe Brooklyn Community Foundation Career Internship Network (CIN)Russell L. CarsonThe Clark FoundationChevron Community FoundationThe Citi FoundationThe Countess Moira Charitable FoundationCW11 Care for Kids, a fund of The McCormick FoundationIrene Diamond FundEducational Foundation of AmericaThe ExxonMobil FoundationFund for the City of New YorkThe Geraldine R. Dodge FoundationSibyl R. GoldenThe Grass FoundationThe Greenwall FoundationThe Hasbro Children’s FundThe Hearst FoundationThe Heckscher Foundation for ChildrenHebrew Technical InstituteThe Helena Rubinstein FoundationThe Henry Luce FoundationIBMInstitute of Museum and Library ServicesThe JPMorgan Chase FoundationThe Jean and Louis Dreyfus Foundation, Inc.The Jesse and Joan Kupferberg Family FoundationJuniper NetworksThe Laura B. Vogler FoundationThe Lily Auchincloss Foundation, Inc.The Litwin FoundationThe Louis Calder FoundationErica MuiNational Grid

National Science FoundationNational Endowment for the HumanitiesThe New York Community Bank FoundationThe New York Community TrustNew York State Education DepartmentNew York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic PreservationThe New York Mercantile Exchange Charitable FoundationNewsdayNortelNorthrop Grumman CorporationThe Novartis US FoundationNoyce FoundationThe Overbrook FoundationOSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Partnership for Afterschool EducationThe Picower FoundationThe Pinkerton FoundationThe Pumpkin FoundationThe Richard Lounsbery FoundationRichmond County Savings FoundationThe Solon E. Summerfield FoundationThe Stella and Charles Guttman FoundationJoan G. ScheuerRobert and Laura B. SillermanThe Starr FoundationThe Tides CenterThe Von Damm Family Evergreen FoundationThe Wallace FoundationThe Winston FoundationVerizon FoundationThe William T. Grant FoundationThe Xerox Foundation Major operating and capital support is provided by New York City through the Department of Cultural Affairs, the New York City Council, and the Office of the Queens Borough President.

Funding for the Science Career Ladder Dissemination Project has been generously provided by the Noyce Foundation.

v vi

VII 1

eXeCUtIVe sUMMARY

This report documents the development and dissemination of the Science Career

Ladder (SCL), the signature program of the New York Hall of Science (NYSCI).

Its intent is to inform other museums interested in starting or enhancing their own

Explainer programs, and to add to knowledge in the informal science field.

Development of the Model

SCL, established in 1986, is a system of graduated opportunities through which

young people advance as they interact with the public, helping visitors to feel

welcome and to understand the science behind the exhibits and demonstrations. In

the process, young people acquire communication skills, knowledge of science and

the scientific process, experience with inquiry, and a grounded experience of what

teaching and learning are about. They are introduced to career paths in science,

technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), including teaching.

From the beginning, the program was designed to be a career ladder. The initial

model involved undergraduates recruited from local colleges. Shortly after, the

program extended to high school students, and in 1997 it began engaging

middle school students from NYSCI’s after-school program. They move up from

Science Club Members to Explainer Volunteers to Explainer Interns (the first paid

position), and then to Explainers where they interpret exhibits and conduct demon-

strations. Program Explainers, the highest rung, oversee the exhibit floor, having

completed 300 hours of service and demonstrated mastery of all the exhibits

and demonstrations.

The model combines youth development and youth employment, giving young

people increasing levels of responsibility, pay and skill through a rigorous system

of training and assessment. Between 150 and 200 young people participate at any

given time. About 90 percent are minority—Hispanic, African American and Asian,

representing many nationalities, and they speak 29 different languages. In their red

2 3

aprons, the Explainers are the public face of NYSCI, greeting visitors, interpreting

exhibits, conducting science demonstrations, and helping to staff many of NYSCI’s

after-school and camp programs. Their influence goes beyond being a friendly face.

They model inquiry and know how to engage all ages in the content and process of

science. They speak the language of their visitors and are key to making NYSCI’s

diverse audience feel welcome.

Training and professional development opportunities are frequent and demanding,

with weekly sessions, brief daily meetings, and periodic special workshops.

Explainers learn how to communicate the big ideas, engage the learner, probe for

prior knowledge, and enable the learner to take the experience beyond the interac-

tion at the museum to continue the learning.

Early on, NYSCI recognized that “explaining” was really about teaching science.

A 1996 collaboration with Queens College involved science majors as Explainers;

the students received free tuition for courses leading to certification in return for

teaching for two years in the New York City schools. In 2006, with funding from

the National Science Foundation, NYSCI established the CLUSTER program—

Collaboration for Leadership, Urban Science Teaching, Evaluation and Research.

A partnership with the City University of New York and its Graduate Center, the

project is testing a model of teacher preparation that incorporates 1,000 hours of

Explainer experience into a pre-service teacher curriculum.

Dissemination

After nearly 25 years of development, SCL is a mature initiative that began scaling up

in 2006. The model has thus far been disseminated to 20 museums. Five science

centers— COSI Columbus in Ohio, the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History in

Connecticut, Discovery Gateway in Texas, Pacific Science Center in Washington, and

Thinktank Trust in Birmingham, England —have adopted the full SCL program. Like

NYSCI, these museums treat the SCL as a core effort of the institution, making struc-

tural changes in staffing and organization and funding it as an operational cost.

evaluation and Impact

Six evaluations have been conducted to date. Impact studies have assessed

effects of the program on the Explainers. Formative evaluations have informed the

structure of the model and efforts to disseminate the program.

From pursuit of higher education and careers to a range of youth development

outcomes—problem-solving, self-confidence, self-efficacy—the SCL has powerful

impacts on the Explainers. Of more than 2,500 alumni; 98 percent have completed

college and 60 percent have gone into STEM careers. The rate of college graduation

and entry into STEM careers among the alumni far exceeds local, state and national

percentages. The strongest areas of impact are increases in science content knowl-

edge, confidence in oral presentations, and problem-solving skills. Alumni of the

program have demonstrated a significant level of growth in communication abilities

and techniques, interpersonal skills, and leadership abilities.

The effects on the museum and its community are equally profound. The SCL has

created a diverse and knowledgeable staff for NYSCI from the floor up. Explainers

serve in nearly every department. The Education Department alone boasts 23 former

Explainers. The program is an integral part of the organizational structure, with

opportunities for young people to advance to higher levels of management.

What Makes It Work

The SCL is by all accounts a successful program within and beyond NYSCI. A

number of factors contribute to its effectiveness:

Reflective practice and use of research and data. Reflection permeates every activity,

from the training and assessment of Explainers to the response to external evalua-

tions. The staff, leadership and Explainers are knowledge seekers, combing the field

for the latest research, joining networks of best practice, and publishing their own

scholarly articles. Data drive program decisions, and recommendations based on

data shape program directions.

4 5

Intentionality in planning. Logic models, outcomes-based planning, and the codi-

fication of SCL best practices during the past ten years have resulted in heightened

outcomes for participants and a clear sense of how the program can respond to

what the community, public and stakeholders need.

A commitment to youth development and youth employment. The program

adheres to the principles of youth development: a welcoming environment with a

powerful culture of peer support and adult mentoring; incisive training and learning

opportunities; increasingly responsible roles for the youth as they progress through

the ladder; and continuity and support as they become adults (and often leader-

ship staff within NYSCI). It provides a paying job with opportunities for continuous

advancement and acquisition of 21st century skills.

High quality science and inquiry that enables visitors to access the science. NYSCI

keeps the public informed about the latest developments in science, and its exhibits

are of high caliber. The SCL, by extension, focuses not only on conveying accurate

science content but on communicating the evidence and process by which that

content has legitimacy.

Integration into the mission and structure of the museum. The SCL has never been

just another program. It is core to NYSCI. The SCL and its staff play a role in nearly

every activity and every department of the museum.

An environment of support. All of this is possible because NYSCI and the SCL have

created a culture of collaboration, exchange of expertise, and peer support. Each

rung of the Ladder is surrounded and mentored by the next, and these are situated

within an institution where the commitment to public understanding of science is

based on deep knowledge of science and deep knowledge of learning and cognition.

6 7

IntRoDUCtIon

This report documents the development and dissemination of the Science Career

Ladder (SCL), the signature program of the New York Hall of Science (NYSCI). Its

intent is to inform other museums interested in starting or enhancing their own

Explainer programs, and to add to knowledge in the informal science field.

SCL is a system of graduated opportunities through which young people advance

as they interact with the public, helping visitors to feel welcome and to understand

the science behind the exhibits and demonstrations. In the process, young people

acquire communication skills, knowledge of science and the scientific process,

experience with inquiry, and a grounded experience of what teaching and learning

are really about. They become savvy about organizations and the world of work, and

cognizant of the career paths in science, technology, engineering and mathematics

(STEM), including teaching. Since its establishment in 1986, the program has

become a model for the field and is currently being disseminated to science centers

in the United States and around the world.

SCL and NYSCI came of age together. The success of the program has in large part

been due to its integral role in the museum. In turn, the museum’s success with

the public, its standing as a leader in teacher professional development, and its

contribution to equity and addressing underrepresentation in STEM owes much to

the program.

NYSCI is located in Queens, the most diverse county in the United States. Over

100 languages are spoken within a five-mile radius of the museum. The Explainers

reflect this diversity. About 90 percent are minority — Hispanic, African American

and Asian, representing many nationalities. They speak 29 different languages from

Urdu to Haitian Creole. The staff of NYSCI, many of whom are former Explainers,

is also predominantly minority and multilingual, with significant representation in

management positions: 18 percent are Asian, 18 percent are Hispanic, 17 percent are

African American, 12 percent are Pacific Islander, 27 percent are members of more

8 9

than one ethnic or racial group, and 25 percent are white.

An instructive example of effective program development, SCL has lessons to offer

about engaging young people in powerful career building experiences, staffing a

science center with knowledgeable educators who understand scientific inquiry,

and attracting a diverse, multilingual public to science. Its impacts extend to the

Explainers, the museum, the public, and the field of science education.

A combination of continuous reflection and dedication to building a community of

learning and support has made the program a dynamic force in shaping lives and

affecting the course of an institution. The story that follows tells of people working

together — people of all ages and backgrounds — to create a remarkable experi-

ence for young people and an enduring legacy for the museum.

oRIgIns

When the New York Hall of Science (NYSCI) was established as part of the 1964

Worlds Fair in Queens, the science center field was in its nascent stages and NYSCI

was one of a few hands-on museums in the United States. From its beginning,

NYSCI served as a resource for the public and especially for New York City students.

As The New York Times reported during the protracted teachers strike

of 1968:

Three hundred high school seniors have just finished boning up on biology, physics

and mathematics at the city’s youngest, and in this case best equipped, museum —

the New York Hall of Science. Surrounded by full-scale space rockets, model computers

and simulated atomic reactors, the students tried to cram enough scientific information

into their heads to do well on the coming State Board of Regents and scholastic

aptitude tests.

—The New York Times, November 11, 1968

10 11

Plans by the Atomic Energy Commission to build an atomarium in the basement

of the museum to demonstrate how nuclear power works were publicized in 1971

(The New York Times, January 7, 1969), but the project was halted when NYSCI

closed for major renovations in 1979.

During the shutdown, a skeleton staff operated out of a space on Columbus Circle

in Manhattan, trying to keep the museum in the public consciousness. They did

outreach to schools, hired instructors, and conducted programs.

In 1984, the Board engaged Alan Friedman, a physicist, science museum director

and science educator to oversee the transition and reopening. Friedman was on

leave from his job as director of the Lawrence Hall of Science, helping the French set

up the Cité des Sciences et Industries (the City of Sciences and Industries), a hands-

on interactive museum in the Parc de la Villette in Paris.

Friedman found a shuttered building. “There was an inch of water on the floor. All

the exhibits had been given away. Even the light fixtures had been yanked out of the

wall.” With subsidies from the city and foundation grants, the building was restored

over the next two years.

From the outset, Friedman and co-director Sheila Grinnell had in mind the notion

of a student workforce. When Peggy Cole, a Bank Street developmental psychologist

who had met Friedman at la Villette, was hired as Director of Education, plans for a

floor staff began to take shape.

In 1985, a year before the formal opening, NYSCI borrowed the Science Circus

exhibit from the Ontario Science Center to show the public “we were coming back to

life,” said Friedman. There were lines outside and packed audiences for the exhibits.

The contacts with the schools paid off: “The schools were coming in droves,” said

Marcia Rudy, one of the original staff who remains with NYSCI today. “We reminded

the public that this is what a science museum was like — hands-on and interactive.”

To staff the exhibit, Cole hired 20 unemployed actors on the advice that it would be

12 13

easier to train performers about the science than to get serious science types to

be engaging communicators with the public. “That worked out pretty well,” said

Friedman, “except if they got a part in a play, they left.” Though an imperfect solu-

tion, it used communication as the strategy for engaging visitors.

NYSCI reopened in 1986 to strong reviews: “New York City has a science museum

again, and although it takes 40 minutes to reach the new New York Hall of Science

from midtown Manhattan, a traveler is amply rewarded for the inconvenience,” wrote

Malcom Browne in The New York Times. The elegant exhibition, Seeing the Light,

which the Exploratorium had created in 1985 for IBM’s Gallery of Science and Art on

Madison Avenue, was donated to NYSCI. In 1986, The New York Times said of the

exhibition: the “sparkling confection of prisms, mirrors, iridescent soap bubbles,

monochromatic light beams and trompe l’oeil trickery looks wonderful in its new

home (The New York Times, September 5, 1986). It was soon joined by exhibitions like

the Realm of the Atom — the realization of the earlier atomarium, and Structures. With

NYSCI’s growing collection of exhibits, the need for floor staff was ever more evident.

the establishment of the science Career Ladder

In 1986, informal science education was taking off as a field. The National Science

Foundation (NSF) had established the Division of Informal Science Education two

years earlier, funding programs in media, museums and community and youth

organizations. The Association of Science Technology Centers (ASTC) founded

in 1973 by 20 museums (including NYSCI), had grown to 170 members by 1984

(ASTC, 2009). The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

and its Office of Opportunities in Science (later Education and Human Resources)

under Shirley Malcom, had started the Linkages Project, bringing together scien-

tists, informal science institutions, and science educators to get science on the

public agenda. Programs to address underrepresentation in science were gaining

traction, with NSF authorized under federal law to allocate funds to meet the

mandate of equalizing opportunity.

14 15

While the need for floor staff was one reason for moving ahead, there were other

equally compelling forces driving the development. Equity concerns were para-

mount and NYSCI was reaching out to students and schools that were getting very

little in the way of high quality science education. The science and math education

reform movements were beginning, and science centers were acutely aware of

the gaps between how science is actually done and how it was being taught. The

shortage of science teachers, particularly minority science teachers, was already on

its way to becoming an acute problem in New York State.

After reopening, NYSCI looked to existing models among science centers for its

youth workforce. The Explainer Program at the Exploratorium involved high school

students giving demonstrations on the floor, the Lawrence Hall of Science used

Berkeley undergraduates to staff planetarium shows and hands-on labs, and the

Franklin Institute used high school and college students as docents and in a range

of other functions. All provided ideas for getting started, and like the Exploratorium,

NYSCI used the term “Explainers,” although the model that evolved was unique.

Building the Base

From the beginning, the program was designed to be a career ladder, with advance-

ment and learning built into the structure. At every turn, NYSCI staff considered

what the museum needed, what young people would benefit from, and what would

engage the public. They sought data through evaluations and scanned the field for

relevant research and practice. They responded to opportunities from funders to

add new rungs and pursue new trajectories. As time went on, the planning became

more and more intentional but never lost its agility. And the goals have remained

the same: 1) to increase science literacy among the diverse NYSCI visitors;

2) to increase the participation of minorities and women in science professions;

and 3) to provide role models for the NYSCI audience.

The initial model involved undergraduates, recruited from local colleges. Seeking

16 17

funding from NSF in 1987, NYSCI was encouraged to add high school students,

an idea that made sense in their quest to involve younger students to consider

science careers.

The high school students worked out well. They were involved in presentations and

interacted with visitors around temporary exhibitions, preschool exhibits and the

science crafts area. For the next ten years, the program attracted a combination of

high school and college students who joined because it was a paying job and they

loved science.

When NYSCI created the After-School Science Club in 1997 for 100 students in

grades 5 through 8, they didn’t initially think of it as connected to the Science Career

Ladder (SCL). Held at the museum, the young people traveled from all over the

borough to participate in hands-on activities led by instructors and assisted by

Explainers. These young teens saw the Explainers as “smart, cool people,” a little

older than they but from the same backgrounds (Gupta and Siegel, 2007, p. 77).

It was a logical step to make the After-School Science Club the bottom rung of the

SCL. From that point on, staff actively encouraged the participants to consider the

Explainer program. Each year, about half the eighth grade graduates apply to

be Explainers.

Creating a Pathway to science teaching

Early on, NYSCI recognized that “explaining” was really about teaching science.

Using focus groups, staff explored Explainers’ interest in science teaching as a

possible career. They found a great deal of enthusiasm, but also concern. The

families from which the Explainers came, mostly first generation immigrants who

saw their children’s education as a path toward upward mobility, did not perceive

teaching as a means to this goal. The Explainers would need a strong support

system that included knowledge of opportunities, financing and ways to convince

their families.

18 19

In collaboration with Queens College, NYSCI created a project to develop this

system, with a grant to recruit minority teachers. Science majors from the college

enrolled in a pre-service education program, worked as Explainers at NYSCI, and

received free tuition for all courses required for teaching certification. In return, they

agreed to work in area schools for two years as science teachers. By the end of the

grant, several dozen Explainers had completed the program. At that point, NYSCI

expanded its outreach beyond Queens College, and began recruiting from colleges

across the city.

The track toward science teaching continued. The program created mentoring

experiences through the Outreach Lesson Modeling program, in which a NYSCI

instructor visits New York City school classrooms to work with teachers and

students conducting hands-on activities. Explainers began assisting the instruc-

tors, many of whom were themselves former Explainers, and were able to observe

a range of formal learning environments and compare teaching styles. NYSCI took

a similar approach with the After-School Science Program, having Explainers assist

instructors with middle school students, who in turn were mentored by

the Explainers.

When the National Science Education (NSF) Standards were published in 1996,

NYSCI immediately applied the standards on inquiry to the process of training

Explainers, which in turn fed into the efforts to create qualified science teachers.

A decade later, in 2006, funding from the NSF enabled NYSCI to establish the

CLUSTER program — Collaboration for Leadership, Urban Science Teaching,

Evaluation and Research. In partnership with City College of New York and the

Center for Advanced Study at the City University of New York Graduate Center,

NYSCI began testing a model of teacher preparation that incorporated 1,000 hours

of Explainer experience into a pre-service teacher curriculum. Students —

CLUSTER Fellows — take required courses for secondary science certification and

the partner institutions coordinate college course work with the NYSCI-based

Explainer experience. The Fellows take science methods courses at the beginning,

jointly taught by a college faculty member and a NYSCI educator. According to Gupta,

“Faculty from the college familiarize themselves with both the resources of the

science center — the unique environment that exists for teaching and learning — and

the program’s goals. The museum staff learns about the state approved elements of

each course syllabus, and becomes familiar with state and national standards neces-

sary for secondary science teaching” (Gupta, 2009, p 136).

Now, after nearly 25 years of development, the SCL is a mature initiative. The next

section describes the model and how it works.

tHe MoDeL AnD tHe PRogRAM In 2010

The Science Career Ladder (SCL) model combines youth development and

youth employment in a graduated system of advancement. It gives young people

increasing levels of responsibility, pay and skill through a rigorous system of

training and assessment. Between 150 and 200 young people participate in SCL

as Interns, Volunteers, Explainers and Program Explainers, in addition to the 300

elementary and middle school students who make up the first rung. Explainers

work year round, between seven and 20 hours per week, and the average length

of employment is two years, after which some graduate from school and go on to

full-time careers elsewhere, some go to school outside of New York, and some get

promoted into higher positions at the New York Hall of Science (NYSCI).

The Explainers are the public face of NYSCI, greeting visitors, interpreting exhibits,

conducting science demonstrations, and helping to staff many of NYSCI’s after-

school and camp programs. Their influence goes beyond being a friendly face.

They model inquiry and know-how to engage all ages in the content and process of

science. They speak the language of their visitors and are key to making NYSCI’s

diverse audience feel welcome.

20 21

the following are the program’s guiding principles:

organizational structure that is supportive of youth development. The program

is central to the institution’s mission, and the institution values and supports the

advancement of young people in developmentally appropriate ways.

A holistic approach that creates a sense of community and shared culture. The

design of the program draws Explainers into the fabric of the institution, while

creating their own space, activities and friendships.

opportunities for youth contributions. Explainers contribute ideas for projects,

prototype new demonstrations, and plan events. Leadership positions support

growth and increasing responsibility.

supportive relationships. From supervisors to colleagues to peers, relationships are

stable, long-term, constructive and responsive.

High expectations and responsibility. Skill development for essential tasks —

communication, how people learn, science content, process and pedagogy —

enables young people to perform at high levels.

engaging activities. Training reflects core principles of informal science education,

using inquiry and excitement to fuel interest in science, careers and education.

Continuity and opportunities for growth within the institution. The centerpiece of

SCL, young people advance into higher positions, long term employment is encour-

aged, and alumni stay connected.

22 23

the structure of the Ladder

SCL has evolved over time, adding or removing rungs, clarifying responsibilities,

and making the process of advancement more transparent. But the basic approach

has remained the same: continuous training, mentoring and support from peers

and supervisors, resources to build skills and capacity, reflective practice and feed-

back on performance, and promotions and opportunities. The rungs of the ladder

are currently as follows:

science Club Member

Elementary and middle school students come to NYSCI once a week as part of

the After-School Science Club. They participate in hands-on science activities, get

exposure to college Explainers, and become familiar with the museum environment.

They see the Explainers in action and staff encourages them to consider applying at

the end of their 8th grade year.

explainer Volunteers

High school students with an interest in working with the public can apply to

be Explainer Volunteers. They learn how to engage visitors in birthday parties,

sleepovers, craft projects, early childhood learning and special events.

explainer Interns

Paid positions as Explainer Interns are available to those students who have

successfully completed their volunteer training and have received a positive assess-

ment from supervisors. They continue with the same responsibilities as Explainer

Volunteers but can also handle cash transactions. Interns who demonstrate leader-

ship skills can fill the supervisory role of “floor captain.” This visitor service experi-

ence prepares Interns for Explainer roles.

explainers

Explainers interpret exhibits, conduct demonstrations, welcome school groups, and

assist with various education programs and events including After-School Science

24 25

Clubs and birthday parties. They undergo extensive training in science, education

and public speaking and are identified by their red aprons. Explainers are assessed

periodically and encouraged to learn new exhibits and demonstrations throughout

their work experience. Explainers are hired for a 150-hour probation period, and with

successful assessments may continue employment throughout their education.

High school Explainers work one weekend day each week and weekdays during the

summer. College Explainers must have a high school diploma and be enrolled in an

accredited college or university. College Explainers work seven to 20 hours per week

on the exhibit floor and with special events and after-school programs.

Explainers who demonstrate strong leadership skills are invited to become Explainer

Floor Captains. They are responsible for supervising their peers and, with the assis-

tance of Leadership staff, managing challenges that arise during the day.

Program explainers

After completing a minimum of 300 hours and demonstrating overall mastery of

the exhibits and demonstrations, Explainers are invited to apply for the Program

Explainer position. Program Explainers oversee the exhibit floor, assist Leadership

staff, and implement special projects.

Recruitment and selection

A variety of tools and strategies ensure that NYSCI attracts an extraordinarily diverse

group of young people. A significant number of applicants come from within,

having participated in the After-School Program in their middle schools. NYSCI

has built strong relationships with area schools, colleges and community organiza-

tions, and presents at career and college fairs. Word-of-mouth is a major source

of applicants, and the 2,500 alumni and current Explainers connect the program

to their families and neighborhoods. Print materials, videos and the web site show

Explainers in action, and candidates can easily find someone who looks like them.

The interview process reflects the ethos of the program — rigorous and welcoming

— and mimics the skills Explainers will use in the program. Interviews are

conducted in groups, allowing for observation of group dynamics, social skills and

potential for leadership. Candidates are not in competition with one another, as

there is not a set number for hiring. The interview starts off with introductions —

who they are, why they want to work at NYSCI. This is followed by a group activity

in which they select an unfamiliar object and develop an “infomercial” about it, and

an inquiry activity in which the group has to solve a puzzle by making observations,

communicating with one another, drawing conclusions, and then presenting to the

other groups.

Interviewers, composed of staff and Explainers, look for ease in conversation, eye

contact, enthusiasm about some aspect of the job (children, science, NYSCI),

reliability and whether their availability matches what NYSCI needs. They think

about how the person interacted with the group, comfort in presenting, nonverbal

and verbal cues he or she gave, weaknesses and if the museum is able to accom-

modate those weaknesses, and whether the candidate shows “some sort of hidden

potential” (NYSCI, 2007, p. 26).

Selection is not based on grades, and the program works hard to convince schools

not to send just their best and brightest. “We’re looking for the student who has

26 27

become disengaged, the student who is scoring in the 80s but could be doing

better, the student who is shy,” said Preeti Gupta, a former Explainer who began

directing the program in 2001 and is now Senior Vice President for Education.

Once chosen, the Explainers enter a community in which their peers as well as the

adult staff are their mentors and guides as they acquire the essential skills, knowl-

edge and habits of mind to convey science to people of all ages and backgrounds.

A system of Continuous training and Professional Development

Professional development is designed to build understanding of science and

technology, the pedagogy of inquiry, and interactions with visitors. The training of

the Explainers is guided by the National Science Education Standards and seeks to

create a cadre of young people who:

• Experience the richness and excitement of knowing about and understanding the

natural world.

• Use appropriate scientific processes.

• Engage intelligently in public discourse and debate over matters of scientific and

technological concern.

• Increase their economic productivity through the use of the knowledge,

understandings, and skills of the scientifically literate person in their careers

(Gupta & Siegel, pp 73 – 74).

The opportunities for personal and professional growth are plentiful and designed

to accommodate the varied schedules of the Explainers. New Explainers start

with a five-day orientation held two to three times a year. Weekly one-hour training

sessions are scheduled every weekday and two per day on weekends. Brief daily

meetings are held at the beginning and end of each day. Four three-hour meetings

are held each year to provide special training and support. Career development is

available throughout the year, and includes help with resumes and workshops on

college preparation and financial aid.

28 29

Trips help Explainers understand the field of STEM education and careers.

Explainers visit other museums and science labs to see how other science rich insti-

tutions function and bring back fresh ideas to incorporate into their practice.

Several times a year, Program Explainers meet to discuss ways to improve the

program, putting them in the program developer role. They work on special projects

that require new skill sets, such as web site development. Explainer Extravaganzas

are celebratory events held twice a year to honor the Explainer Department;

Program Explainers are responsible for organizing and fundraising, again adding to

their skills.

Intensive effort has been dedicated to teaching Explainers how to promote inquiry.

Although the pedagogy of inquiry is widely acknowledged in the informal science

field, it is easy to say and hard to do. At NYSCI, a combination of factors has

resulted in a robust approach. Staff are knowledge seekers and scholars as well as

practitioners, and are constantly translating the theoretical into concrete strategies.

Over the years, NYSCI has become increasingly sophisticated about developing

exhibits that are not only interactive but constructivist and invite questioning, but

not all exhibits fall into this category. Staff and Explainers have analyzed each of the

exhibits using George Hein’s schema on constructivist exhibits (1998), and fine-

tuned strategies so that every exhibit produces an inquiry experience. And while

progress is celebrated, everyone — leadership, staff, young people — feels there is

more to learn and improve upon.

The way our training had worked for many years — a senior manager would wander

past a demonstration and say, “not enough science,” or “boring.” They were one-minute

observations. But when you have 150 Explainers on the floor, with different audiences,

you need trainings that make the learning consistent, that focus not only on the science

content, but also on the communication skills.

—Jennifer Correa, 7/1/10

30 31

The focus on supporting our Explainers to be real facilitators grows out of my training as

an instructor and my masters program. Because I went to the inquiry institutes

at the Exploratorium, and because I had mentors helping me think through student-

centered learning, I was able to translate that to the floor. But I still don’t think we do it

100 percent.

—Preeti Gupta, 5/13/10

The training centers on NYSCI’s exhibitions, each of which has one big idea with

several fundamental messages. Explainers are trained on all of the 450 exhibits at

NYSCI over the course of a 20-week cycle, which repeats continuously. Set up to

coincide with the school schedule, new Explainers who begin work mid-year, join the

cycle that is already in progress, and remain until they have covered everything.

Training groups include both novice and veteran Explainers. Novice Explainers use

this time to learn each exhibit and practice their job, while veteran Explainers get

new ideas, mentor, and share strategies. The training is facilitated by a seasoned

Explainer or Science Instructor. It is conducted in a peer-learning format that shares

the responsibility for learning, encourages scientific discussion and debate, and

promotes respect for each person’s learning strengths and needs. Explainers model

strategies for each other that they will use on the floor and give each other helpful

suggestions and positive reinforcement.

Explainers also staff labs such as the Discovery Labs and the rolling Wonder Carts.

The carts, developed in collaboration with Columbia University, are a particularly

good training ground for Interns, because they learn how to engage visitors in a

variety of science topics — from the science of sports and rocket science to nano-

technology and materials science.

Staff has integrated the Constructivist Science Education Framework from the

CLUSTER project into the Explainer training: “It helped us think about what’s

involved in a good interaction with visitors,” said Jennifer Correa, Senior Manager

of the Explainers.

The framework addresses:

• Communicating the big idea.

• Engaging the learner.

• Probing for prior knowledge and making thinking visible.

• Introducing new science ideas, and how to scaffold them into the interaction.

• Reflection and assessment: How you reflect back during the interaction the

information you’ve shared.

• Teaching for transfer: How the learner takes the experience and continues

the learning.

These principles are then translated into concrete strategies, including phrases

and “apron tools” — small props like magnifying lenses, colored filters and rubber

balls. These help Explainers promote open-ended questioning, increase their

content knowledge so scaffolding is possible, make a personal connection with the

visitors, and offer suggestions at the end of the contact for visitors to pursue their

inquiry.

Interactions with visitors at an exhibit are mini-inquiry experiences, ranging from 30

seconds to 15 minutes. The Explainers are trained to use effective interpretive techniques

for engaging with the visitor and attempting to address what they perceive as the needs

and interest of the visitor. Once engaged, the Explainer helps focus the “investigation”

by eliciting responses and reactions from the visitor. This helps turn the experience into a

visitor-centered inquiry. Through this experience, the visitor is in control and the Explainer

shares in the experience by assisting as needed, asking appropriate questions, and

creating a climate for scientific conversations.

—Gupta & Siegel, 2007, p. 75

32 33

The impact evaluations are full of comments by former Explainers about the value

of inquiry to the audience and the effects of inquiry on their own development:

“When you first start out, you’d just ask questions that were clueless, that had yes or

no answers. Then you learn to make your questions more open-ended, to ask better

questions and get the person involved.” (Female latina, 20 – 25, college student)

—Storsdieck et al, 2002, p. 13

“I find myself today explaining things to people just out of the blue. And I am always

asking what and why questions.” (Female caucasian, under 20, high school student)

—Storsdieck et al, 2002, p. 17.

Presentation and communication skills are heavily emphasized. Techniques for

public speaking, what level of content to share, how to connect with the audience,

how to use a microphone, and how to use your body and minimize distracting

movement are addressed along with the inquiry methods.

The program provides multiple opportunities for young people to assume leader-

ship roles at every rung of the Ladder. A former Explainer, interviewed during the

first impact evaluation in 2002, said,

“I always appreciated the fact that the students were given respect and responsibility

to explore the position and learn from it. Especially high school students were allowed

to make schedules and given leadership roles whether it was during training, as floor

captain, or in some other way and this allowed the students to learn leadership skills and

teaching skills and allowed the supervisors to recognize the ability of the Explainers.”

—Storsdieck et al, 2002, pp 29 – 30

Staff who facilitate the training meet weekly to coordinate their sessions, review big

ideas and discuss challenges. These weekly meetings help to maintain consistency

across the training groups. A constantly evolving Explainer training manual docu-

ments the approach and provides strategies and materials to ensure a coherent and

systematic process.

34 35

Assessment and Certification of explainers

“It was the inherent feedback system, the training and the demos. You know how you’re

doing, you could quantify how you were doing. I appreciated how clear it was and I

felt like, even in the work field, if I work hard, I will succeed. It was very reassuring.”

(Female alumna, 20 – 25)

—Sickler & Johnson, 2009, p. 37

SCL has a clear and direct path to promotion. Continuous assessment

is essential to growth, and over the years, NYSCI has developed a variety of

mechanisms — certifications, training feedback and periodic assessments — that

enable Explainers to improve their teaching skills, increase their content knowledge,

and receive constructive feedback from peers, trainers and supervisors.

Explainers are certified in public demonstrations. They are expected to learn a new

demonstration every 150 hours. To do so, they watch the demonstration, study the

script, practice with materials, complete a pre-certification checklist with a Program

Explainer, and interact successfully with the public as they facilitate audience inquiry.

Facilitators provide verbal training feedback at the weekly sessions. A rubric

measures how well the Explainer engages the public in active inquiry, the accuracy

of the science, and the ability of the Explainer to relate the exhibit to the interests

of visitors.

Periodic assessments by supervisors are conducted after every 200 – 300 hours of

work. The supervisor reflects on the Explainer’s interactions with visitors, and again

looks for the promotion of inquiry, accurate science and friendly engagement with

the public.

As part of their reflective practice and continuous self assessment, Explainers make

audio recordings of their interactions with visitors. “We do a number of things with

those recordings,” says Jennifer Correa, Senior Manager of the Explainers. “During

the assessments, we listen to two of their recordings and talk about how they

interacted with visitors. We also meet in groups of five or six Explainers and listen to

recordings and give feedback. Then we go out and re-record.”

This technique emerged from a method used as a pre-post measure by the evalua-

tors of the CLUSTER initiative. The evaluators recorded the CLUSTER Fellows’ first

interaction with students, with follow up audio recordings at six-month intervals to

assess if there were any changes resulting from their participation in the project.

Staff immediately saw how useful this could be in deconstructing and reconstructing

the Explainer visitor experience.

Explainers are eligible for promotion based on a points system. To qualify, they need

24 points. Seventeen of the points come from certifications, including demonstra-

tions, labs, carts and virtual visits that use videoconferencing to connect schools

and organizations with Explainers who conduct demonstrations, hands-on activities

and inquiry around exhibits. Seven of the points reflect leadership and expertise:

Explainers must receive a positive assessment and “expert buttons” that signify

mastery in a particular exhibition. Supervisory floor duties count for one point, as

does demonstration of leadership in an education workshop or special event.

Once a candidate has reached enough points for promotion, an interview is set up

with three members of the Explainer Leadership Team. With a positive interview

and approval from the Senior Vice President of Education, the candidate moves up

the SCL.

A Community of Peers

“You learn by explaining and teaching each other.”

(Female, 20 – 25, undergraduate student in health science)

—Sickler & Johnson, 2009, p. 51

36 37

“I was in 10th or 11th grade. We had older Explainers that would help us with our home-

work. If we had a problem, these were kids in engineering school or teaching school, and

they would say why don’t you try it this way?” (Female, 36 – 40, full-time engineer)

—Sickler & Johnson, 2009, p. 53

The camaraderie among the Explainers has always been a hallmark of the program.

The program has become increasingly intentional about the roles of Explainers

as peer teachers and learners. The Ladder is not just about individual advancement;

it is a community of practice. The structure of the training, the assessment on

the floor, the makeup of every group promotes peer interaction and the exchange

of expertise.

“There was something about being taught by people who were accessible. Most of the

time they were close to our age, usually our peers. And I learned a lot from the way they

taught. They started out with broad concepts and then got into the specifics, and

were always aware of the context within which they were teaching, and included real

world things.” (Female, 26 – 30, teacher)

—Storsdieck et al., 2002, pp 15 – 16

From the beginning, even before these practices became codified, the environment

made it natural for young people to turn to each other. “It wasn’t so much what our

staff did to create this, but what they did for each other,” said Alan Friedman.

“They started doing homework together, sharing strategies for solving problems.

There always was a lot of peer mentoring in the program. They talked about how if

you become too interested in science, you’re branded as a nerd. They helped each

other through all those things.”

The 2009 impact evaluation noted that the interaction among peers contributed

to Explainers’ sense of self as academic achievers. “Peers were reported to be

supportive of one another, helping by acknowledging achievements and encouraging

fellow Explainers to pursue their potential. One participant noted that the support

and encouragement of his co-workers in the SCL Program prompted him to further

38 39

his education and to pursue a career that would make use of his natural talents and

potential. He attributes this influence to a major shift in the course of his life.”

“It made me want to go back to school. I was originally going to settle down and get a

job, but a lot of people, they were going on about how I should get back in school and

that I have talent; I can write, I can draw, I can speak, and that they would kill to have

that. So I went back in . . . if I didn’t go though that at the time, I would not be able to see

the talents that I do have . . . I wouldn’t even have given school a second thought. I’d be

working and living paycheck to paycheck.” (Male, 26 – 30, undergraduate student in

art and art history)

—Sickler & Johnson, 2009, p. 18

The evaluation also found evidence to indicate that for participants who entered with

less defined educational goals, “the role models of fellow Explainers did encourage

further academic pursuits.”

—Sickler & Johnson, 2009, p. 2.

The support was not just about academics and advancement. The norms of the

social organization that Explainers had created valued an ethic of caring and a fierce

protectiveness:

I remember a very dramatic event, about two days after 9/11. We had been closed the

day after 9/11 — all the bridges and tunnels were closed. But we were eager to reopen

and were encouraged to do so by the City Department of Cultural Affairs, to restore a

sense of normality. The Explainers were working together, figuring out how they could

get in by subway, arranging carpools. A week after 9/11 there was an incident. One of

our Explainers was a young woman who wore a burka. She was a student at one of the

nearby colleges. She called to say she couldn’t come in because some boys in a car had

taunted her, called her an Arab terrorist. She was really scared — they drove up on the

sidewalk. And at her college, a professor made a comment about Arab terrorists.

We were having all-staff meetings every morning, and this situation was brought up by

the Explainers, and what could we do about it. I was still thinking about it when an

40 41

Explainer said, “We’re going to arrange an escort for her, who will go to college classes

with her, make sure she gets here, make sure she gets home safely.” The first group to

escort her was an Italian, a Jew, and an Indian.

—Alan Friedman, President and CEO, 1986 – 2006

DIsseMInAtIon AnD sCALIng UP

Initial dissemination of the Science Career Ladder (SCL) began in 1994, followed

in 2006 with a three-year project involving 20 sites. In 2009, the New York Hall

of Science (NYSCI) mounted a one-year intensive effort to support full imple-

mentation at a subset of those sites and to develop materials that would extend

the process of scaling up to science centers in the United States and around the

world. Five sites — COSI Columbus in Ohio, the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural

History in Connecticut, Discovery Gateway in Texas, Pacific Science Center in

Washington, and Thinktank Trust in Birmingham, England —adopted the full SCL

program. Factors that contributed to implementation of the model across the five

sites included:

• A compelling reason why this particular program would fulfill an institutional need.

• Willingness to make structural changes.

• A strong belief in youth development, and practices that support young people to

take on increasingly responsible roles within the institution.

• A viable financial strategy.

Successful approaches to implementation treat SCL as a core effort of the institu-

tion. Adoption was more likely when museums positioned the role of Explainers

as an integral part of their operations, and used operating funds or committed

development department resources to raise money to underwrite costs.

A host of tools and materials were developed for the dissemination effort that has

proven useful both to the field and to NYSCI. These include a video, Climbing the

Science Career Ladder; a guide, Science Career Ladder Best Practices: Training and

42 43

Technical Assistance for Developing a Youth Program (NYSCI, 2007); logic models

and outcomes from the museums that went to full implementation; and a guide

for monitoring planning and implementation of the model, Science Career Ladder

Program Assessment and Advancement Planning Guide.

eVAULAtIon ResULts

Six evaluations have been conducted to date. Impact studies have assessed effects

of the program on the Explainers. Formative evaluations have informed the struc-

ture of the model and efforts to disseminate the program. These evaluations have

had strong and continuing effects on the program development and on the dissemi-

nation efforts.

In 1991, Mark St. John and his colleagues at Inverness Research Associates

examined what was then called the Science Career Teaching Ladder, to assess

the program’s impact on expanding the educational role of science centers and

improving the process of recruiting and training teachers. Surveys were sent to 318

students with a return rate of 46 percent: 36 percent had become teachers, and

nearly three-quarters of those taught science. On the role of science centers, the

study noted that the relationship between the university courses and the Science

Career Teaching Ladder was tenuous at best. The program changed the timing of

the practicum so that it coincided with or preceded the students’ college physics

and biology courses. A more comprehensive response came 15 years later, with the

development of the CLUSTER project, which addressed both the structure and the

content of the university/museum relationship.

In 1994, Ilona E. Holland and Associates evaluated the first effort to disseminate

the best practices of the Science Career Ladder (SCL) to 12 science centers, and

looked for the program’s overall appeal, evidence of impact on alumni employment,

change in perceptions of science and science-related careers, and if and how the

program contributed to those who chose to pursue careers in education. A survey

was returned by 91 alumni, about 20 percent of the total at that time; 81 percent

had become teachers and 71 percent were in science-related careers. More than

three-fourths rated the program as being valuable to their professional lives, and

said it provided practical experience for teaching, improved communication skills,

increased their capacity to work with diverse groups, enhanced self-confidence,

and built a base of science knowledge. Nearly half said the program influenced

their career choice. Recommendations centered on creating better mechanisms for

Explainer input, better training, and opportunities to assume greater responsibility

at each rung of the ladder. The New York Hall of Science (NYSCI) took immediate

steps to respond, and the structure of the program reflects years of effort to act on

these findings.

In 2002, the Institute for Learning Innovation conducted the first of two studies

of impact on alumni. Surveys were mailed to 570 alumni, with a return rate of 19

percent, and to a control group of 67 young adults who participated in various

activities at NYSCI but were not affiliated with the SCL program. Interviews were

conducted with 16 participants out of a pool of 81. Given the low response rate, the

researchers took a conservative view of the data, but nevertheless concluded that

“the Science Career Ladder Program at the New York Hall of Science is a highly

successful program that fosters participants’ personal development” (Storsdieck et

al., 2002, p. 29). Participants were more willing than the average college graduate

to consider a career in teaching, and showed an increase in appreciation for the

teaching profession. They developed science knowledge, self-confidence, commu-

nication and teaching skills during a critical phase in their lives. “The impact of the

Program on its participants is directly linked to the participants’ real experiences

during their tenure in the Program. That is, participants were impacted in those

areas in which they actually worked, were trained in, gained experiences in, or which

allowed them to develop or practice their skills” (Storsdieck et al., 2002, p.29).

44 45

The results of this evaluation convinced NYSCI that the model was viable and the

program ready for scale up. At the same time, the evaluators made recommenda-

tions regarding the development of more inquiry-based training approaches.

In response to these recommendations, NYSCI established the Advanced Explainer

Training project in 2004, which was the subject of the fourth evaluation, in 2005, by

Kim Sabo Consulting. The evaluation investigated whether with training, Explainers

could engage in true inquiry with visitors around exhibits, and examined strategies

to reinvigorate Explainers who had worked at NYSCI for many years. “Advanced”

referred to Senior Explainers (no longer a separate category), Program Explainers,

and high school and college Explainers who had demonstrated expertise in key

areas. The project developed new approaches, including the apron tools and props

designed to spark inquiry in a short time frame. The evaluation found that there

were increases in Explainers’ skills and behaviors with respect to knowledge of

exhibits and curiosity about the subject matter, ability to identify multiple learning

styles, and capacity to teach a variety of learners, engage in dialogue, elicit ques-

tions from visitors, and refer visitors to other exhibits to address their questions.

All the participants stated that it made their jobs more enjoyable, gave them confi-

dence, and enhanced their teaching skills. But the project was just beginning to hit

its stride, and many of the props and strategies had not yet been tried with visitors.

The evaluator recommended continuing the process and the evaluation, and NYSCI

did just that, resulting in an especially robust approach to training and inquiry.

In 2007 and 2009, Mary Ellen Munley and her colleagues at MEM & Associates

conducted a formative evaluation of the SCL Dissemination Project. Their findings

shaped the project as it was in process, suggesting that overarching principles and

planning models were more useful to dissemination sites than

day-to-day practice.

In 2009, Jessica Sickler and Erin Johnson of the Institute for Learning Innovation

conducted a retrospective impact study of alumni. Data were collected across five

46 47

areas: academic achievement, career/professional development, skills and abilities,

science literacy and engagement, and program design. With a 27 percent response

rate, the evaluators again cautioned that the results be interpreted conservatively,

but concluded that:

These results demonstrate that the Science Career Ladder Program at the New York

Hall of Science has achieved its goals in the range of impact areas defined for this study.

It contributed positively to these participants’ academic and professional development…

The results showed that the program had a lasting impact on participants in each of the

targeted areas long after they leave the program.

—Sickler & Johnson, 2009, pp. 56 – 57

The evaluation found that the program attracts students who have some sense of

their career choice, but the program strongly influences their career decisions. For

some, the program reveals new directions; for others, it reinforces their interests in

the career of their choice.

All these examples highlight the strength of the SCL Program, which despite its

emphasis on science content and teaching skills provides support for individuals to

develop strengths, interests, and pursuits that are best suited to them. It seems as

though many individuals, through their involvement in the program, are able to develop

a better understanding of the subject areas, types of jobs, and areas of interest that

motivate them to pursue a career.

—Sickler and Johnson, 2009, p. 24 – 25

Students entering the program generally have already defined educational

goals, but the program supports them to attain graduation. Particularly

telling is that the program is successful at attracting underserved and

underrepresented populations, and the graduation rate for those in the

program is five times higher than their peers in New York City who are of the

same demographic.

The results show substantially greater academic achievement by program alumni in all of

these groups [Hispanic, African-American, Asian and Caucasian], most notably in those

who identify as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino. While only 14 percent of this group have

attained this level of education in the general population, 74 percent (n=27) of program

alumni representing this ethnicity have received a Bachelor’s degree or higher.

—Sickler & Johnson, 2009, p. 14

The strongest areas of impact are increases in science content knowledge, confi-

dence in oral presentations, and problem-solving skills. Alumni of the program have

demonstrated a significant level of growth in the following skill areas: communica-

tion abilities and techniques, interpersonal skills and leadership abilities.

Alumni repeatedly mentioned that the communication skills developed through the

program had a lasting impact on their lives. They reported that they draw on these skills

regularly. Many recognized the general, lifelong career value of having developed the

ability to communicate a message clearly and effectively, which they draw from their

experience as an Explainer.

—Sickler & Johnson, 2009, p. 34

The program develops a lifelong appreciation of science. Those who entered with a

dislike of science changed their attitudes, leading them to respect and enjoy science,

and seeing its relevance to their daily lives.

Key components of the program design that enable students to stay and prosper in

the program include the supportive and mentoring atmosphere from program lead-

ership, and the strong social network formed among participants.

Considering the responses of program alumni to all of these impact areas, an overarching

theme to emerge is the ability of the program to provide for the personal and profes-

sional development of individuals in a way that responds to each person’s strengths,

weaknesses, and needs. The supportive environment fostered by the program’s staff, the

variety of skills needed in the course of an Explainer’s responsibilities, and the emphasis

48 49

on training and encouragement in the program’s structure seem to create a dynamic

environment in which participants can develop skills that will help them achieve their

greatest potential. This program’s flexibility, its inquiry-based learning experiences, and

its supportive community network, all appear to be important elements to maintain for

the Science Career Ladder Program.

—(Sickler & Johnson, 2009, p. 59)

tHe IMPACt of tHe sCIenCe CAReeR LADDeR PRogRAM

The benefits of the Science Career Ladder (SCL) program accrue to the Explainers,

the museum, the public, and the field of science education. The evidence of impact

comes from evaluation studies, visitor studies by the Morey Group that have been

conducted since 2003, actions and reflections by staff and leadership, and standing

in the field.

From pursuit of higher education and careers to a range of youth development

outcomes — problem-solving, self-confidence, self-efficacy — SCL has powerful

impacts on the Explainers. Of more than 2500 alumni; 98 percent have completed

college and 60 percent have gone into science, technology, engineering, and math-

ematics-related (STEM) careers. The rate of college graduation and entry into STEM

careers among the alumni far exceeds local, state, and national percentages. The

Explainers gain 21st century skills, abilities, and behaviors in communication, collab-

oration and leadership. Its “true impact” is “not just funneling students into partic-

ular fields, but rather providing the supportive environment that allows students to

develop an understanding of the career path that is right for them, and gain confi-

dence to make and follow those decisions” (Sickler & Johnson, 2009, p. 30).

The effects on the museum and its community are equally profound. SCL has

created a diverse and knowledgable staff from the floor up. Explainers serve in

nearly every department. The Education Department alone boasts 23 former

Explainers. The program is an integral part of the organizational structure, with

50 51

opportunities for young people to advance to higher levels of management.

Visitors’ experiences are strongly affected by the presence and actions of the

Explainers. For example, on their red aprons, they will often wear buttons that

say, “I speak . . . (Spanish, Urdu, Arabic . . .)” and it will be written in the associated

language. Through mechanisms like this, Explainers are a bridge to the

local community and a bridge to science.

The program has been a major influence in the science center field, demonstrating

that not only could young people be involved in critical roles within the museum,

but that there is real benefit to the institution in creating a structure for moving up.

The work in teacher professional development has had direct impact on the supply

of science teachers within New York City, and on NYSCI’s continuing efforts to use

informal science institutions as centers for pedagogy and the practice of inquiry.

WHAt MAkes It WoRk

The Science Career Ladder (SCL) is by all accounts a successful program within

and beyond the New York Hall of Science (NYSCI). A number of factors contribute

to its effectiveness.

Reflective practice and use of research and data. “The Science Career Ladder is

really a work in progress,” said Preeti Gupta, Senior Vice President for Education

& Family Programs. Like good science, it never stops evolving and creating new

knowledge. The staff, leadership and Explainers are proud of what they have

created, but they are knowledge seekers, combing the field for the latest research,

joining networks of best practice, and publishing their own scholarly articles.

Reflection permeates every activity, from the training and assessment of Explainers

to the response to external evaluations. Staff takes advantage of new methods for

examining practice, as when they imported the audiotaping of interactions from the

CLUSTER evaluation. Data drive program decisions and recommendations based

on data shape program directions.

52 53

Intentionality in planning. Evaluations have been used to continuously improve

upon aspects of the program and over time, the use of evaluation data has became

more deliberate. Logic models, outcomes-based planning, and the codification of

SCL best practices during the past ten years have resulted in heightened outcomes

for participants and a clear sense of how the program can respond to what the

community, public, and stakeholders need.

A commitment to youth development and youth employment. SCL’s development

coincided with and took advantage of the burgeoning youth development move-

ment, which is now the foundation for all its activities and refinements. For NYSCI,

this means a welcoming environment with a powerful culture of peer support and

adult mentoring; incisive training and learning opportunities that impart neces-

sary content knowledge about science, cognition and development, and effective

communication strategies; increasingly responsible roles for the youth as they prog-

ress through the ladder; and continuity and support as they become adults (and

often leadership staff within NYSCI).

As a youth employment program, SCL provides a paying job with opportunities

for continuous advancement. Explainers gain 21st century skills in collaboration,

scientific and technological literacy and communication. Indeed, their ability to

communicate across cultures and boundaries stands them in good stead for the

increasingly global economy. They get practical experience in fields they might never

have considered, and get help choosing paths that make use of their talents. They

build connections and networks that can help them as they leave the program.

High quality science and inquiry that enables visitors to access the science. NYSCI

keeps the public informed about the latest developments in science, and its exhibits

are of high caliber. SCL, by extension, focuses not only on conveying accurate

science content but on communicating the evidence and process by which that

content has legitimacy. Staff admits that it has not always been easy to maintain a

balance between engagement and high-level content, but they and the Explainers

are always working hard to make complex concepts accessible to every age and

educational background.

Integration into the mission and structure of the museum. SCL has never been

just another program. It is core to NYSCI. SCL and its staff play a role in nearly

every activity and every department of the museum. They are the human link that

connects the exhibitions and the science to the public. They staff the floor and

constitute a large percentage of the staff in the Education Department as well as

other areas. The museum in turn assumes a responsibility to the Explainers and

the program that reflects the priorities of informal science, youth development, and

public education — to promote equity and address underrepresentation, to create

career paths that really lead to productive and satisfying employment, to meet the

critical need for qualified science teachers, and to engender scientific literacy and

lifelong science engagement.

An environment of support. All of this is possible because NYSCI and SCL have

created a culture of collaboration, exchange of expertise, and peer support. The

learning community can be thought of as a series of concentric circles: each rung of

SCL is surrounded and mentored by the next, and these are situated within an insti-

tution where the commitment to public understanding of science is based on deep

knowledge of science and deep knowledge of learning and cognition.

As NYSCI approaches the 50th anniversary of its founding, SCL represents an

enduring legacy and a model for the field. The evolution of the program will

continue as the museum embarks on bold new directions, ready for the future

of science.

54 55

Profile: Preeti gupta

I got involved when I was 15, in 1989. Peggy Cole came to my school, Jamaica HS,

to talk with students from the Gateway to Higher Education program [an acceler-

ated program in math and science that began in 1988 and continues today].

Peggy had asked the coordinator of Gateway to gather a bunch of students, and the

coordinator invited students who were scoring 90 or above. I had an 88 average,

but when I found out a friend was going to this after-school meeting, I confronted

the coordinator and said, “Can I go too?” That was my personality — What’s going

on and why am I not invited?

So I went to the meeting and there was Peggy offering us $4 an hour. “Come in for

an interview,” she said, and five of us decided to go. We got lost and were late. We

walked through the Central Hall and I said, “What is this fantastical place with all

these colors and smelling of bubbles? Am I going to get to work here?” Although

they were irritated that we were late, they had already decided they were going to

take us. My parents said, “Why are you doing this? You don’t need to do this. Don’t

let your grades get worse.”

I did not take the job seriously at all. I enjoyed the museum and had a lot of fun.

The Explainers were all college students and they made us feel welcome. One of the

other high school students was a boy I had a crush on. For four or five months I did

very little work but acted like I was doing something. Then my supervisor, Carlos,

came up to me one day and said, “You better shape up or you won’t be working

here any longer. You haven’t learned any demonstrations.”

So I picked the laser demonstrations and did it for an audience and Carlos said,

“That was one of the best demonstrations I’ve ever seen.” That turned my life

around — that one line. I replied back to him, “You thought that was good. I can do

better.” So I learned and learned all through 11th and 12th grade. I got a promotion

to the Explainer rung.

For college I went to Columbia Engineering School, where I struggled to stay in.

I continued to work at NYSCI, and looked forward to Sundays, to NYSCI, a familiar

place where people cared about me, where I was good at what I did, a relief from

college. When I was a junior in college, I got promoted to Senior Explainer. I

remembered crying because someone noticed my hard work — at college no one

noticed that.

I made it through college, got an engineering degree and did some internships in

bioengineering — it was all in labs and research. I was alone for months in the lab,

and I was depressed at graduation at the prospect of spending my life doing that.

A friend said “Why don’t you get a job at the museum?” I said, “That’s only for

students, not a career.”

That following Sunday, as fate would have it, there was a posting on the job board

for a science instructor. I asked Carlos and he had me talk to the person who was

vacating the position. What she described, I said to myself, I can do that for now,

and it’s a way to figure out what I really want to do. I applied, and my parents were

like, “Are you kidding?” They offered me the job. About a month into it, I thought,

this matches who I am. I learn stuff and then I get to teach it.

All the time I was hiding my enthusiasm from my parents. After a year I told them,

“This is what I want to do.” My parents said, “Oh no.” They relented and said, “At

least get a masters degree.” So I applied to the GW distance learning program—this

was 1998, one of the earliest online programs. I got my master’s and was promoted

to supervisor.

Preeti Gupta went on to get her Ph.D. from the Graduate Faculty for Urban Education

at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Today she is Senior Vice President

for Education & Family Programs for the New York Hall of Science and a major force in

the informal science education field.

56 57

Jennifer Correa

I started here 12 years ago (1998). I was going to a high school for pregnant and

parenting teens. I was in my third year, which was when I graduated — the school

pushed us to graduate because they were concerned that once the baby was born

we wouldn’t be able to finish.

The school gave us a lot of support for job opportunities, with Saturday classes

on how to dress for an interview, write a resume, answer questions. At the

end of the program, they gave me a summer internship. The only one that was

available was in Queens — at the New York Hall of Science. I had no idea where

it was, and my image was that it was some type of hall with science terms on

the wall. I had no idea about science museums. I thought they’d have me

selling tickets.

To my surprise, it was in the park I grew up in. But I had no idea the building

existed. The first day I came in for the interview I was wowed by what was inside. It

was so cool and colorful and the people were so friendly. Before that, my jobs had

been at Carvel, or bagging groceries in supermarkets. Now I found myself in a place

where I could learn stuff.

It was only supposed to be for summer but they asked me to stay on. I was so shy —

I could barely talk to visitors. I have no idea why they asked me to stay on.

Being here pushed me to continue my education. I got my associate degree from

LaGuardia Community College, and my bachelor’s degree from Queens College. I

was able to get promoted through the rungs of the ladder. I started off as Explainer,

got promoted to Program Explainer, where I supervised and was a floor captain. I

was in that position for four months. Then a part-time position opened up in the

library, and so I worked in the library for two years.

Then a position opened up for Senior Explainer (we don’t have that role anymore)

while I was still going to school. At the time, I was aiming for a career in media,

hoping to work for Sesame Street. But as soon as I graduated, a full-time position

as Explainer Coordinator was created — the timing was pure luck.

Shortly after, the supervisor of the Explainers left and I got promoted. I’ve been in

the supervisor or manager role for five years now. When I got the position of over-

seeing the program, I was nervous, not sure I was ready to take on all that responsi-

bility. But there was all this supportive staff who provided me with opportunities to

build my skills and networks.

Preeti invited me to apply for the Association of Science Technology Center’s

(ASTC) Diversity Fellowship. I went to the ASTC conference and saw how working

in museums is a profession, not just a job. I also became a Next Generation Getty

Leadership Fellow. All these experiences made me realize it was something I could

do as a career.

That inspired me to get my master’s in public administration, so I could learn how

to take this program from where it is and make it something even bigger.

Today, Jennifer Correa has a master’s in public administration from Baruch College, City

University of New York and is senior manager of the Explainer Program.

58 59

Antonio Renovales

When I was 10 my mother left my family, so I was forced to grow up at a very young

age. I never had the chance to get any work experience because when I was not in

school; I was at home taking care of my little sister. At the age of 20 my girlfriend

became pregnant. I tried very hard to find a job but my lack of experience made it

difficult.

One day my best friend, an Explainer at NYSCI, asked me to go with him to the

grand opening of the North Wing of NYSCI. I knew as soon as I saw my first

Chemistry Demonstration that I wanted to work here.

One of the best things about the Explainer program is they give almost anyone a

chance to work here. All you need is to be willing to work and learn. They allowed

me to work around my school schedule and I was able to finish college and still

support my family. I was actually the first person in my family to attend and graduate

from college.

A lot of the skills I learned as an Explainer will help me no matter what career choice

I make. I have had the privilege of talking to people from different parts of the world.

I now have the confidence to be able to talk to people regardless of who they are or

where they come from.

Last year I was promoted to the Professional Development Department. As a

part-time science instructor, sometimes I end up teaching teachers that have been

teaching for more than 15 years. Using what I learned as an Explainer, I make those

teachers feel that I am someone who wants to share some new things and also

learn some new things as well.

Today, Antonio Renovales is a science program assistant in the Formal and Informal

Teaching and Learning Department.

Jennifer sharma

I’m a student at Queens College, with a major in geology and a minor in fine arts and

secondary education. I was raised in New York City in a half-Indian, half-Puerto-Rican

family. Growing up with three languages and two sets of cultural traditions have

given me a unique outlook on life, which carries over to my work as an Explainer. A

recent visitor interaction is a good example of that.

While explaining in The Search for Life Beyond Earth, I met a young girl who was

struggling to understand an exhibit. She had difficulty pronouncing some words and

reminded me of myself when I was her age. I have non-English speaking parents

and it seemed like she did too. As we explored an exhibit together, new words like

“microbe” were tough for her. She noticed the “m” word repeated several times, and

tried each time to pronounce it. Afterwards, her classmates approached one of the

exhibits, and before I could say anything, she gave them the whole explanation about

microbes. I was so proud of her because that meant that she really understood what

I taught her, and hopefully gave her greater confidence and a new outlook on science.

Before working at NYSCI, I was very shy and soft-spoken. At first, I did not like the

idea of teaching. After working at NYSCI for two-and-a-half years, I learned what

it means to communicate with others. I joined the CLUSTER program, which is a

science teacher-training program funded by the National Science Foundation. After

a year in CLUSTER, I realized that I love the idea of teaching and that I am good at it.

Through my work at NYSCI, I am now proud of who I am, what I have accomplished,

and what impact I have on others.

60 61

ASTC. 2009. Science Center History FAQ. http://www.astc.org/about/pdf/Backgrounders/ScienceCenterHistory2009.pdf

Blakeslee, S. “First Atomarium Planned Here: A Hot Reactor Open to Public.” The New York Times, January 7, 1969.

Browne, M.W. “City Again Boasts a Science Museum.” The New York Times, September 5, 1986.

Gupta, P., 2009. Identity development in pre-service teachers who are explainers in a science center: Dialectically developing theory and praxis. Unpublished dissertation, submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Urban Education, The City University of New York.

Gupta, P & Siegel, E. 2007. Science Career Ladder at the New York Hall of Science: Youth facilitators as agents of inquiry. Yager, R., & Falk, J., eds. Exemplary Science in Informal Education Settings: Standards-Based Success Stories. Arlington VA: NSTA Press. Pp. 71-83.

Holland, L., Flagg, B., Davies, H., Slechta, D. 1994. New York Hall of Science Career Ladder final report. New York: Ilona Holland and Associates.

Kim Sabo Consulting. 2005. New York Hall of Science Advanced Explainer Training Evaluation Report.

Leon, B., Plude, D., Anderson, A. 2009. Science Career Ladder Program Assessment and Advancement Planning Guide. Lake Forest Park, WA: Geo Education & Research.

MEM and Associates. 2007. Science Career Ladder Dissemination Project: Findings report #2, Year One: Mid-year review. Oak Park, IL: Author.

MEM and Associates. 2008. Science Career Ladder Dissemination Project: Nine-month follow up report on Year 2. Oak Park, IL: Author.

Morey Group. 2009. Visitor Survey Report, Summer 2009.

Sickler, J. and Johnson, E. 2009. Science Career Ladder Retrospective Impact Study: final Report. Edgewater, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.

St. John, M. Tibbitts, F., Heenan, B., McClaskey, B. 1991. A study of the Science Teacher Career Ladder program. Inverness, CA: Inverness Research Associates. Storsdieck, M., Haley-Goldman, K., Jones, M. C. 2002. Impact of the New York Hall of Science Career Ladder Program on its former participants. Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.