Search for: All records

With funding from a National Science Foundation (NSF) Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL) grant #2005404, the Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History (NMAH) launched a bilingual exhibition project called Change Your Game / Cambia tu juego. The project developed a STEM exhibition for the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History on invention and technology in sports with embedded research into visitors’ exploration of inventive identity. This summative evaluation explores the impact of the exhibition on walk-in visitors and the project’s priority audiences: girls/young women ages 10-17; African American boys/young men ages 10-17; people with disabilities of all ages; and Spanish-speaking Latinx visitors of all ages. The summative evaluation of the Change Your Game / Cambia tu juego exhibition indicated that project team members did a good job at identifying stories that represent many different people and sports. Visitors found it novel to consider invention in relation to sports and games, thus serving as an entry point to inventive identity exploration in terms of ontological-epistemological beliefs within audiences’ role as a museum visitor. The exhibition was especially impactful for youth audiences; approximately half of visitors aged 10-17 said they felt more inventive after seeing the exhibit (p. 48). Beyond ontological-epistemological beliefs, the evaluation results are indeterminate about how the exhibition affected audiences in other areas of identity exploration. The evaluation raises questions about inventive identity to be considered along with the research findings for further exploration. We have shared the summative evaluation with the informal science learning (ISL) community at informalscience.org. 

Abstract Background Asymmetric gait post-stroke is associated with decreased mobility, yet individuals with chronic stroke often self-select an asymmetric gait despite being capable of walking more symmetrically. The purpose of this study was to test whether self-selected asymmetry could be explained by energy cost minimization. We hypothesized that short-term deviations from self-selected asymmetry would result in increased metabolic energy consumption, despite being associated with long-term rehabilitation benefits. Other studies have found no difference in metabolic rate across different levels of enforced asymmetry among individuals with chronic stroke, but used methods that left some uncertainty to be resolved. Methods In this study, ten individuals with chronic stroke walked on a treadmill at participant-specific speeds while voluntarily altering step length asymmetry. We included only participants with clinically relevant self-selected asymmetry who were able to significantly alter asymmetry using visual biofeedback. Conditions included targeting zero asymmetry, self-selected asymmetry, and double the self-selected asymmetry. Participants were trained with the biofeedback system in one session, and data were collected in three subsequent sessions with repeated measures. Self-selected asymmetry was consistent across sessions. A similar protocol was conducted among unimpaired participants. Results Participants with chronic stroke substantially altered step length asymmetry using biofeedback, but this did not affect metabolic rate (ANOVA, p  = 0.68). In unimpaired participants, self-selected step length asymmetry was close to zero and corresponded to the lowest metabolic energy cost (ANOVA, p  = 6e-4). While the symmetry of unimpaired gait may be the result of energy cost minimization, self-selected step length asymmetry in individuals with chronic stroke cannot be explained by a similar least-effort drive. Conclusions Interventions that encourage changes in step length asymmetry by manipulating metabolic energy consumption may be effective because these therapies would not have to overcome a metabolic penalty for altering asymmetry.