This article provides a brief summary of the findings from an evaluation study that examined what Field Museum visitors understand about the scientific research that goes on behind the scenes. Between May and September 1995, Selinda Research Associates conducted over 125 in-depth interviews with visitors, members, and museum staff, for a total of approximately fifty contact hours with respondents.
In this essay, we review research from the social sciences on how the public makes sense of and participates in societal decisions about science and technology. We specifically highlight the role of the media and public communication in this process, challenging the still dominant assumption that science literacy is both the problem and the solution to societal conflicts. After reviewing the cases of evolution, climate change, food biotechnology, and nanotechnology, we offer a set of detailed recommendations for improved public engagement efforts on the part of scientists and their
Most free-choice science learning institutions, in particular science centers, zoos, aquariums, and natural history museums, define themselves as educational institutions. However, to what extent, and for which visitors, do these free-choice learning settings accomplish their educational mission? Answering this question has proven challenging, in large part because of the inherent variability of visitors to such settings. We hypothesize that the challenges of measuring free-choice science learning might be diminished if it were possible to pool populations during analysis in ways that reduced
This study at the National Aquarium in Baltimore (NAIB) was conducted to assess four key aspects of the visitor experience: (1) incoming conservation knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of NAIB visitors; (2) patterns of use and interaction with exhibition components throughout the NAIB; (3) exiting conservation knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of visitors; and (4) over time, how the NAIB experience altered or affected individuals' conservation knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Three hundred six visitors participated in the study, which was conducted from March through July, 1999. The
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Institute for Learning InnovationJohn H FalkLeslie AdelmanSylvia James
The purpose of this study was to investigate a museum exhibition design assumption that visitors develop conceptual understanding of a science topic after utilizing a cluster of conceptually related exhibits which lack explicit concept labeling; also investigated was whether visitor concept development could be enhanced through the addition of explicit labeling about the intended conceptual messages. Two very different clusters of exhibits were selected for investigation: how transportation in Los Angeles affects air pollution (“Transportation”) and the conception and early development of
Marino et al. (2010) recently published a critique of a three-year National Science Foundation—funded investigation of the impact of zoo and aquarium visits on the public's understanding of animals and their attitudes toward conservation (Falk, Heimlich, & Bronnenkant, 2008; Falk, Reinhard, Vernon, Bronnenkant, Deans, & Heimlich, 2007; Heimlich, Bronnenkant, Witgert, & Falk, 2004). This critique of that critique will show that Marino et al. seriously misrepresent both the intent of the research and the methods used. The methods used by Falk and his colleagues were consistent with current
In this article, Eric Siegel, Director and Chief Content Officer at the New York Hall of Science, addresses examples of exhibitions that attempt to create experiences that communicate phenomena too big, small, slow, or abstract for normal sensory comprehension. This article also includes a case study by Gretchen Baker, Exhibition Development Manager at the Field Museum, and a case study by Tim Martin, Principal of Tim Martin Design.
This research agenda is a living document, constructed in response to on-going field-wide conversations following the 21st Century Natural History Settings Conference at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. At the conference, natural history professionals explored new directions for museums and other natural history institutions, including zoos, aquaria, botanical gardens, and nature centers. The research agenda is intended to be edited, discussed, and fleshed out by the field as we work together and make progress. New research questions will emerge spurred by surprising findings
The adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards means that many educators who adhere to model-based reasoning styles of science will have to adapt their programs and curricula. In addition, all practitioners will have to teach modeling, and model-based reasoning is a useful way to do so. This brief offers perspectives drawn from Lehrer and Schauble, two early theorists in model-based reasoning.
This literature review raises questions about how scientific argumentation is taught in schools. Manz argues that argumentation needs to be situated in real scientific questions and practices and makes suggestions for how to make argumentation an authentic science activity for students.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Sara Heredia
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
In this research article, Allen and Penuel investigate how science teachers make decisions about implementation of reform based on their understanding of coherence between professional development and the standards, curriculum and assessment in their local context. This research will support ISE that design and facilitate science teacher professional development.
Informal science educators are seeking ways to support scientific reasoning. This study of touch tanks at four different museums found that, although the exhibits were not designed to do so, they supported families in engaging in scientific reasoning practices. Specifically, they engaged family members in making claims, seeking evidence, devising tests, seeking information, testing claims, and challenging claims made by others.