1

Introduction

In 2009, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) released the report Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits (LSIE) that tackled a critical question at the time: Do people learn science in non-school, informal settings? Such settings include everyday experiences (e.g., family discussions at home, gardening, walking in a park); designed settings (e.g., aquariums, botanical gardens, nature centers, museums, planetariums, science centers, zoos); programs (e.g., afterschool clubs, citizen science projects, summer science camps); and media (e.g., hand-held devices, Internet, radio, television) (National Research Council, 2009). The report provided substantial evidence from research and practice demonstrating that from early childhood to late adulthood, individuals learn science across a range of informal settings (National Research Council, 2009).

Additionally, the report presented a framework that articulated six interrelated strands for science learning in informal settings (see Box 1-1) and outlined a common agenda for a number of actors who play important roles in supporting science learning in informal settings. These actors include funders; leaders in research, policy, and practice; institution-based staff who are responsible for the design, evaluation, and implementation of practice; and individuals who work directly with learners, such as program leaders, club organizers, and frontline educators and staff in museums and science centers (National Research Council, 2009).

Lastly, the report highlighted that learning experiences in informal settings are associated with a diversity of goals and objectives, from sparking human curiosity and increasing public interest in and appreciation of science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) to addressing scientific knowledge needs and concerns of modern life (e.g., emerging biotechnologies, planetary health, a skilled STEM workforce) (National Research Council, 2009).

The release of LSIE helped to galvanize over a decade of expansion in programming and research focused on science learning in informal settings and learning in other disciplines, such as engineering and STEM more broadly. Since the release, new insights about ways to improve people’s learning in all settings have emerged. This collection of research and practice enacted by the range of actors who support science and engineering learning across all non-school, informal settings (as noted above) reflects the field of informal science and engineering education (ISEE).

With support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Overdeck Family Foundation, the Board on Science Education of the National Academies held the Convocation on the Status of Informal Science and Engineering Education on June 16 and 17, 2025, at the National Academies Keck Center in Washington, DC. Given the considerable growth in opportunities to learn science and engineering in informal settings and new

understandings from research and practice about how people learn, this convening examined the current landscape of goals, objectives, opportunities, and supports for learning science and engineering in informal settings since the release of LSIE, as a first step toward a more in-depth analysis of the state of the ISEE field.

GOALS OF THE CONVOCATION

The two-day convocation brought together representatives from key organizations and thought leaders in research, practice, and policy to take stock of the past 15 years of work in the ISEE field, as guided by the questions in the Statement of Task (see Box 1-2). Participants (i.e., convocation planning committee members, presenters, and attendees) considered the impacts of the 2009 National Academies report, reflected on trends in the field since the report’s release, discussed barriers to and opportunities for effectively serving learners of different ages and backgrounds, and identified gaps in understanding in order to bolster the impact of informal learning opportunities in science and engineering.

An independent planning committee organized the convocation in accordance with the procedures of the National Academies. The committee’s role was limited to setting the agenda and convening the convocation. (See Appendix A for the convocation agenda and Appendix B for biographical information for the planning committee members and presenters.) In designing the meeting, the committee was intentional about using multiple engagement formats to capture insights not only from invited presenters but also from in-person and online participants. These formats included a poster session, message boards (for resource sharing and connection), interactive polls, online chat spaces, audience discussion sessions following each panel, and small group table discussions. The dedication of time for community-wide sharing was consistent with the spirit of celebrating the many achievements and progress made in the field since the release of LSIE and ensured that a broad set of voices contributed to the overarching goal of determining the current status of research and practice in ISEE. Throughout the convocation, participants also identified pressing challenges to leveraging collective capacity of different actors and settings within the field, needed actions to maintain momentum, and promising directions forward in research, practice, and policy.

Kirsten Ellenbogen, chair of the planning committee and president and CEO of Great Lakes Science Center, stated that much of the current ISEE landscape has been shaped by LSIE. The committee that produced the report (of which Ellenbogen was a member) was charged to “describe the status of knowledge about science learning in informal environments, illustrate which claims are supported by evidence, articulate a common framework for the next generation of research, and provide guidance to the community of practice” (National Research Council, 2009, p. 20). The report established a practical and conceptual foundation for the informal science education field as a whole, synthesizing research and theory from a variety of sectors and disciplines and outlining a common agenda for the future. Laura Huerta Migus, former deputy director for museum services, Institute of Museum and Library Services, referred to LSIE as “a fundamental text and framework” that has provided important guidance for the ISEE field as well as evidence for the field’s existence and value. Ellenbogen added that the field has expressed increasing interest in updating this report; therefore, LSIE was an important part of the planning of the convocation and is informing the focus of a potential future consensus study in this area.

The convocation itself was framed by Ellenbogen—and other presenters—as an event that alone could contribute to the field’s evolution and growth. Convening this community, she said, substantiates the importance of LSIE, the existence of the field, and the community itself. The participants reflect the ISEE community that grew around LSIE, including members of the authoring committee and individuals whose

leadership has been shaped by the research and framework described in the report. Jamie Bell, senior advisor, Association of Science and Technology Centers, emphasized that the convening “represents a big-tent gathering”—a representation of the broad scope of the field. Ellenbogen noted that this sense of community was also present in the planning process, with the committee’s “generosity of spirit” helping to bring together a “terrific range of research, policy, and practice experts.” She added that the convocation also celebrates the field’s advancement, even while much work remains. Bell and others also spoke about “the good energy and optimism” and the collective sense of significance and even joy around gathering together as a field to celebrate past milestones and grapple in intentional ways with the future.

Lastly, Ellenbogen noted that the convocation would enable consideration of how the field could best meet the present moment given the recent shifts in federal priorities—that is, federal funding for research about and programmatic investment in ISEE had been significantly cut, creating uncertainty in the work of many researchers and practitioners in the field. She explained that the planning committee wrestled with how to discuss the status of ISEE in this context with the community and highlighted its willingness to engage in honest and difficult conversations when building the agenda. Heidi Schweingruber, director of the Board on Science Education, National Academies, emphasized the contrast between the time when the convocation Statement of Task was established two years ago and the time of the actual convening, and expressed gratitude to the committee for creating an agenda and participation opportunities that made space for timely and vital conversations. Schweingruber also stressed that the convening would provide an important opportunity for the field to understand how to continue the great work in the face of the dramatic changes in support that were occurring.

In addition to the goals described above, Ellenbogen raised more specific objectives for consideration during the two-day convocation:

• Consider the impact of ISEE and learning over the past 15 years since LSIE, and how the field has evolved;
• Identify new insights, trends, emerging directions, gaps, and ways to position the field as it matures; and
• Set priorities for moving forward, taking stock of the field in the present and deciding how to leverage its assets to realize those priorities.

She explained that the convocation was organized to cover a range of topics, including reflections on the field, goals and measurement, support for individuals who work in the field, the policy landscape, learning across the lifespan, the role of ecosystems, digital media for learning and

engagement, and cutting-edge work in the field. Ellenbogen shared her excitement about the conversations that would take place over the two days and her hope that they would be generative enough for participants to leave with strong convictions about next steps for the field.

ORGANIZATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS

This proceedings summarizes the discussions that occurred throughout the convocation and highlights key insights and themes that emerged from the moderated panel sessions, small group discussions among participants, large group reflection sessions, and commissioned white papers. This chapter outlines the scope of the convocation, including the overarching goals, guiding questions, and specific objectives. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the ISEE field, with a focus on its evolving goals and priorities, and the impacts of LSIE. Chapter 3 examines important capacities that are needed to advance ISEE, highlighting specific data on the state of the professional workforce that supports learning in different informal settings, and policy and funding for STEM education. Chapter 4 presents new insights from research and practice on supporting STEM learning and a diversity of learners across space and time, including a focused look at the ecosystem to STEM learning. Chapter 5 explores the affordances of digital media and innovative approaches to better connect science and engineering to the interests, goals, and needs of diverse populations of learners. It also discusses some of the trends in digital media use for learning as well as the unique challenges to understanding the impacts on learning in more nontraditional STEM learning spaces. Chapter 6 highlights participants’ ideas for next steps and highest priorities for the field.

In accordance with the policies of the National Academies, this proceedings was prepared by the rapporteurs as a factual summary of what occurred at the convocation. The convocation did not attempt to establish any conclusions or recommendations about needs and future directions. Statements, recommendations, and opinions contained in the proceedings are those of individual presenters and participants, do not represent the views of all participants or the planning committee, and are not necessarily endorsed or verified by the National Academies. They should not be construed as reflecting any group consensus.