The Center for Integrated Quantum Materials pursues research and education in quantum science and technology. With our research and industry partners, the Museum of Science, Boston collaborates to produce public engagement resources, museum programs, special events and media. We also provide professional development in professional science communication for the Center's students, post-docs, and interns; and coaching in public engagement. The Museum also sponsors The Quantum Matters(TM) Science Communication Competition (www.mos.org/quantum-matters-competition) and NanoDays with a Quantum Leap. In association with CIQM and IBM Q, the Museum hosted the first U.S. museum exhibit on quantum computing.
DATE:
-
TEAM MEMBERS:
Robert WesterveltCarol Lynn AlpertRay AshooriTina Brower-Thomas
Focusing on climate change and its impact on coastal zones and marine life, Visualizing Change will build educator capacity in the aquarium community and informal science education field. Building on NOAA datasets and visualizations, we will provide interpreters with strategic framing communication tools and training using the best available social and cognitive research so that they can become effective climate change educators. Objectives are to (1) Develop and test four exemplary interpretive "visual narratives" that integrate research-based strategic communication with NOAA data visualization resources; (2) Test the application of the visual narratives in a variety of geographic regions, institution types (aquarium, science center, etc.), and using multiple technology platforms (Science on a Sphere, Magic Planet portable globe display, iPad/tablets, and video walls); (3) Build a professional development program for climate change interpretation with data visualization; and (4) Leverage existing networks for dissemination and peer support.
In this book, Brian G. Southwell discusses how disparities in information-sharing arise and what can be done to alleviate them. In all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reasons, people have always sought to share information among their family and other social networks. However, this sharing has never been equal: inevitably, some people are better-informed than others and some are more socially-connected than others. At first glance, the plethora of communication tools and technologies available nowadays should help democratise information and reduce disparity but differences in how, when and
This project takes an ethnographic and design-based approach to understanding how and what people learn from participation in makerspaces and explores the features of those environments that can be leveraged to better promote learning. Makerspaces are physical locations where people (often families) get together to make things. Some participants learn substantial amounts of STEM content and practices as they design, build, and iteratively refine working devices. Others, however, simply take a trial and error approach. Research explores the affordances are of these spaces for promoting learning and how to integrate technology into these spaces so that they are transformed from being makerspaces where learning happens, but inconsistently, into environments where learning is a consistent outcome of participation. One aim is to learn how to effectively design such spaces so that participants are encouraged and helped to become intentional, reflective makers rather than simply tinkerers. Research will also advance what is known about effective studio teaching and learning and advance understanding of how to support youth to help them become competent, creative, and reflective producers with technology(s). The project builds on the Studio Thinking Framework and what is known about development of meta-representational competence. The foundations of these frameworks are in Lave and Wengers communities of practice and Rogoff's, Stevens et al.'s, and Jenkins et al.'s further work on participatory cultures for social networks that revolve around production. A sociocultural approach is taken that seeks to understand the relationships between space, participants, and technologies as participants set and work toward achieving goals. Engaging more of our young population in scientific and technological thinking and learning and broadening participation in the STEM workplace are national imperatives. One way to address these imperatives is to engage the passions of young people, helping them recognize the roles STEM content and practices play in achieving their own personal goals. Maker spaces are neighborhood spaces that are arising in many urban areas that allow and promote tinkering, designing, and construction using real materials, sometimes quite sophisticated ones. Participating in designing and successfully building working devices in such spaces can promote STEM learning, confidence and competence in one's ability to solve problems, and positive attitudes towards engineering, science, and math (among other things). The goal in this project is to learn how to design these spaces and integrate learning technologies so that learning happens more consistently (along with tinkering and making) and especially so that they are accessible and inviting to those who might not normally participate in these spaces. The work of this project is happening in an urban setting and with at-risk children, and a special effort is being made to accommodate making and learning with peers. As with Computer Clubhouses, maker spaces hold potential for their participants to identify what is interesting to them at the same time their participation gives them the opportunity to express themselves, learn STEM content, and put it to use.
Through a comparative case study, Sheridan and colleagues explore how makerspaces may function as learning environments. Drawing on field observations, interviews, and analysis of artifacts, videos, and other documents, the authors describe features of three makerspaces and how participants learn and develop through complex design and making practices. They describe how the makerspaces help individuals identify problems, build models, learn and apply skills, revise ideas, and share new knowledge with others. The authors conclude with a discussion of the implications of their findings for this
In this essay, Erica Halverson and Kimberly Sheridan provide the context for research on the maker movement as they consider the emerging role of making in education. The authors describe the theoretical roots of the movement and draw connections to related research on formal and informal education. They present points of tension between making and formal education practices as they come into contact with one another, exploring whether the newness attributed to the maker movement is really all that new and reflecting on its potential pedagogical impacts on teaching and learning.
This project entails the creation of a coordinated colony of robotic bees, RoboBees. Research topics are split between the body, brain, and colony. Each of these research areas is drawn together by the challenges of recreating various functionalities of natural bees. One such example is pollination: Bees coordinate to interact with complex natural systems by using a diversity of sensors, a hierarchy of task delegation, unique communication, and an effective flapping-wing propulsion system. Pollination and other agricultural tasks will serve as challenge thrusts throughout the life of this project. Such tasks require expertise across a broad spectrum of scientific topics. The research team includes experts in biology, computer science, electrical and mechanical engineering, and materials science, assembled to address fundamental challenges in developing RoboBees. An integral part of this program is the development of a museum exhibit, in partnership with the Museum of Science, Boston, which will explore the life of a bee and the technologies required to create RoboBees.
DATE:
-
TEAM MEMBERS:
Robert WoodRadhika NagpalJ. Gregory MorrisettGu-Yeon WeiJoseph Ayers
In 2013 and 2014, the Museum of Science (MOS) partnered with Dr. Rob Wood’s lab at Harvard University’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) to create an exhibition about Wood’s Robotic Bees (RoboBees) project. The Microrobotics Takes Flight exhibition (referred to in the original grant as the RoboBees exhibition) consists of three interactive components and an introductory section. The three interactive components are modeled on the three different engineering teams working on the RoboBees project: the Brain, the Body, and the Colony teams. The purpose of the evaluation was
To better help museum visitors make sense of large data sets, also called “big data”, this study focuses on what museum visitors felt individual layers of a visual (alone and in combination with other layers) were communicating to them as the visual was constructed or deconstructed layer by layer. A second, smaller study, collected data to better understand how adult visitors would construct large data visualizations. This study was concerned with how people make sense of “big data” in their daily lives and how they engage with reference systems. The primary study used four different “big data
To better understand how audiences in public spaces, in this case those in a museum setting, relate to and make sense of the phrases “Big Data” and “Data Visualizations”, this study investigated visitors understanding of these terms. This formative study used intercepts; approaching adult visitors and inviting them to participate in a very brief interview. If the person agreed, they were asked additional questions. The first question asked about awareness of the phrase, “Big Data” or for a very small comparison group, “Data Visualization.” Visitors were then asked “How would you explain “Big
To better help museum visitors make sense of large data sets, also called “big data”, this study investigated if there were generalizable ways in which visitors engage with and then make meaning of such data sets. This front-end study was designed to explore if there were different, distinct, and repeatable patterns intuited by individuals as they work with large data sets. This was a descriptive, process method using a complex card sort with an interview. Each card had the name of one food item written on it. Food items were diverse, including eggs, crackers, lasagna, apples, tofu and almonds
This project is making novel use of familiar technology (smartphones and tablets) to address the immediate and pressing challenge of affordable, ongoing, large-scale museum evaluation, while encouraging museum visitors to engage deeply with museum content. Using a smartphone app, museum visitors pose questions to a 'virtual scientist' called Dr. Discovery (Dr. D). Dr. D provides answers and the chance to complete fun mini-challenges. The questions visitors ask are gathered in a large database. An analytics system analyzes these data and a password-protected website provides continuous, accessible evaluation data to museum staff, helping them make just-in-time tweaks (or longer term changes) to exhibit-related content (such as multimedia, lecture topics, docent training, experience carts, etc.) as current events and visitors' needs and interests change. The intellectual merit of this project is that it is building evaluation capacity among informal educators, advancing the fields of visitor studies, museum evaluation, informal science learning, and situated engagement, and is contributing to the development of novel evaluation techniques in museums. This project has many broader impacts: The Ask Dr. Discovery system is available to any venue that wishes to use or adapt it to their context. By enhancing the visitor experience and improving museum access to data for evaluation and data-driven decision making across the country, Ask Dr. Discovery has both a direct and indirect impact on museums and visitors of all types. This project is also training the next generation of STEM and education innovators by employing a diverse team of undergraduate students.