Most people visit a science center in order to satisfy specific leisure-related needs; needs which may or may not actually include science learning. Falk proposed that an individual's identity-related motivations provide a useful lens through which to understand adult free-choice science learning in leisure settings. Over a 3-year period the authors collected in-depth data on a random sample of visitors to a large recently opened, hands-on, interactive science center; collecting information on why people visited, what they did within the science center, what they knew about the subject
Considerable time and effort have been invested in understanding the motivations of museum visitors. Many investigators have sought to describe why people visit museums, resulting in a range of descriptive categorizations. Recently, investigators have begun to document the connections between visitors' entering motivations and their exiting learning. Doering and Pekarik have proposed starting with the idea that visitors are likely to enter a museum with an “entry narrative” (1996; see also Pekarik, Doering and Karns 1999). Doering and Pekarik argue that these entry narratives are likely to be
Falk and Dierking’s Contextual Model of Learning was used as a theoretical construct for investigating learning within a free-choice setting. A review of previous research identified key variables fundamental to free-choice science learning. The study sought to answer two questions: (1) How do specific independent variables individually contribute to learning outcomes when not studied in isolation? and (2) Does the Contextual Model of Learning provide a useful framework for understanding learning from museums? A repeated measure design including interviews and observational and behavioral
Almost every metropolitan area has an informal science setting, such as a natural history museum, zoo, science center or planetarium (Laetsch et al, 1980). Visitor demographics over the years have consistently shown that family groups constitue approximately 60% of all visitors to these settings (Bickford et al, 1992; Balling et al, 1985; Alt, 1980; Laetsch et al, 1980; Ham, 1979; Borun, 1977; Cheek et al, 1976). U.S. Bureau of the Census statistics in 1984 indicated that museum-going was rapidly becoming the single most popular, out-of-the-home family activity in American and this was
As more and more people look to institutions of informal education os places where science education occurs (Kimche, 1978; Tressell, 1980), increased attention has focused upon assessing learning in these out-of-school settings. In particular, instituions such as museums, nature centers, and zoos have devoted considerable efforts towards developing evaluation techniques. A multitude of procedures and approaches have been tired. These include questionnaires (Eason & Linn, 1976; Borun, 1977), empirical testing designs (Screven, 1974; Snider, Eason, & Friedman, 1979; Wright, 1980), and various
This volume explores the integration of recent research on everyday, classroom, and professional scientific thinking. It brings together an international group of researchers to present core findings from each context; discuss connections between contexts, and explore structures; technologies, and environments to facilitate the development and practice of scientific thinking. The chapters focus on: * situations from young children visiting museums, * middle-school students collaborating in classrooms, * undergraduates learning about research methods, and * professional scientists engaged in
Children often learn new problem-solving strategies by observing examples of other people's problem-solving. When children learn a new strategy through observation and also explain the new strategy to themselves, they generalize the strategy more widely than children who learn a new strategy but do not explain. We tested three hypothesized mechanisms through which explanations might facilitate strategy generalization: more accurate recall of the new strategy's procedures; increased selection of the new strategy over competing strategies; or more effective management of the new strategy's goal
Current accounts of the development of scientific reasoning focus on individual children's ability to coordinate the collection and evaluation of evidence with the creation of theories to explain the evidence. This observational study of parent–child interactions in a children's museum demonstrated that parents shape and support children's scientific thinking in everyday, nonobligatory activity. When children engaged an exhibit with parents, their exploration of evidence was observed to be longer, broader, and more focused on relevant comparisons than children who engaged the exhibit without
Interactive museum exhibits have increasingly placed replicated and virtual objects alongside exhibited authentic objects. Yet little is known about how these three categories of objects impact learning. This study of family learning in a botanical garden specifically focuses on how 12 parent-child family units used explanations as they engaged with three plant types: living, model, and virtual. Family conversations were videotaped, transcribed, and coded. Findings suggested that: 1) explanations of biological processes were more frequent than other types; 2) model and virtual plants supported
As an increasing number of robots have been designed to interact with people on a regular basis, research into human-robot interaction has become more widespread. At the same time, little work has been done on the problem of longterm human-robot interaction, in which a human uses a robot for a period of weeks or months. As people spend more time with a robot, it is expected that how they make sense of the robot - their “cognitive model” of it - may change over time. In order to identify factors that will be critical to the future development of a quantitative cognitive model of long-term human
To help answer questions about the behavior of participants in human-robot systems, we propose the Cognitive Evaluation of Human-Robot Systems (CEHRS) method based on our work with the Personal Exploration Rover (PER). The CEHRS method consists of six steps: (1) identify all system participants, (2) collect data from all participant groups, including the system’s creators, (3) analyze participant data in light of system-wide goals, (4) answer targeted questions about each participant group to determine the flow of knowledge, information, and influence throughout the system, (5) look for
Two studies examined how parent explanation changes what children learn from everyday shared scientific thinking. In Study 1, children between ages 3- and 8-years-old explored a novel task solo or with parents. Analyses of children's performance on a subsequent posttest compared three groups: children exploring with parents who spontaneously explained to them; children exploring with parents who did not explain; and children exploring solo. Children whose parents had explained were most likely to have a conceptual as opposed to procedural understanding of the task. Study 2 examined the causal