{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02815884476534296, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0010830324909747292, 'mean_word_length': 6.292105263157895, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Space education: challenges and strategies in teaching space policy to technical university students

Law and policy provide the foundation for space actors engaging in space activities. Likewise, various levels of policy and regulation apply internationally, domestically, and even institutionally to both governmental and nongovernmental entities. Consequently, teaching the policy frameworks for space regulations and best practices is essential for a comprehensive university curriculum in space education. Challenges arise, however, when instructing technical and non-policy university students in humanities-centered topics. Reading comprehension, writing ability, critical thinking, and communication skills are critical elements of policy education, yet many technically oriented students struggle with these requirements. Given these are fundamental skillsets necessary for success in both academia and a dynamic space work force, adapting traditional teaching methodologies may be required to optimize desired learning outcomes for technical student audiences. Customizable strategies exist that can combine and scale these fundamental skillsets with substantive content and materials, providing a range of teaching and learning modalities for study, assessment, and experience. This presentation will highlight potential learning approaches tried at one aeronautical university to address these challenges. For instance, overarching strategies may include commencing with a visual of the student journey (much like a user journey in an investment pitch) delineating the value-added experience for students engaging in course content, and building substantive skill-based learning components which are introduced sequentially and with increasing level of difficulty. Examples of learning methodologies include applying Bloom’s Taxonomy in assignment creation. Most importantly: 1) Knowledge: involves identifying, understanding and remembering core content (e.g. pop quizzes, reading quizzes, cumulative review quizzes, question bank assessments); 2) Analysis: involves reading comprehension, interpretation, evaluation, analysis (e.g. essays, summaries, case studies); 3) Application: involves investigation, research and designing research projects (e.g. research articles, posters, digital presentations, short videos). Scaffolding assignments and artifacts into manageable pieces throughout the semester is key to guiding students towards success and reducing potential for ‘expert blind spots.’ Lastly, an end-of-course review and self-reflection of the student journey is helpful in underlining the critical thinking process and provide a visual review of the student journey in acquiring substantive knowledge, skills, and experience throughout the term