Six museum education and learning researchers discuss the need to study how people learn and behave in museums and what kind of current research studies should be undertaken. Mary Ellen Munley, in "Back to the Future: A Call for Coordinated Research Programs in Museums," describes the differences between the terms "evaluation,""audience research," and "education research" and recommends establishing major systematic programs of museum-based research that are similar to ones initiated in the 1920s and 1930s. In "Educational Exhibitions: Some Areas for Controlled Research," C. G. Screven
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
In October 2012, the National Science Foundation (NSF) released a new version of the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) that included significant changes to the review elements and considerations underlying the Merit Review Criteria. This was the first major revision of the Criteria in 15 years. Of particular note were significant changes to the criteria used by panelists, reviewers, and program officers to evaluate a proposal’s broader impacts. To help inform Florida ocean scientists of these changes in anticipation of proposal submission deadlines in early 2013, the Center for Ocean Sciences
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
In domains with multiple competing goals, people face a basic challenge: How to make their strategy use flexible enough to deal with shifting circumstances without losing track of their overall objectives. This article examines how young children meet this challenge in one such domain, tic-tac-toe. Experiment 1 provides an overviews of development in the area; it indicates that children's tic-tac-toe strategies are rule based and that new rules are added one at a time. Experiment 2 demonstrates that even young children flexibly tailor their strategy use to meet shifting circumstances
Constraints on learning, rather than being unique to evolutionarily privileged domains, may operate in nonprivileged domains as well. Understanding of the goals that strategies must meet seems to play an especially important role in these domains in constraining the strategies even before they use them. THe presente experiments showed that children can use their conceptual understanding to accurately evaluate strategies that they not only do not yet use but hat are more conceptually advanced than the strategies they do not use. In Experiment 1, 5-year-olds who did not yet use the min strategy
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