Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 127
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits 5 Science Learning in Designed Settings This chapter describes informal environments that are intentionally designed for learning about science and the physical and natural world. Designed settings include institutions such as museums, science centers, aquariums, and environmental centers, and the smaller components contained within these settings, such as exhibits, exhibitions, demonstrations, and short-term programs. Like everyday learning, learning in designed settings is highly participant structured, but also reflects the intended communicative and pedagogical goals of designers and educators. And in important ways, designed spaces are unlike science learning programs. Science learning programs serve a subscribed group and recur over time, whereas learning in designed spaces tends to be more fluid and sporadic. An important feature for structuring learning in these environments is that they are typically experienced episodically, rather than continuously. Another defining characteristic of designed spaces is that they are navigated freely, with limited or often no direct facilitation from institutional actors. Visitors may freely choose which of the exhibits to interact with, and they receive little guidance as to which path they should follow as they explore. This design is typical, and reflects the learner’s personal choice about learning in these settings. Should the learner choose to design their own systematic study of a given topic, the option is available. Institutions typically shy away from directing a particular course, opting instead for multiple entry levels and possible navigational paths through the public space. Whereas classrooms have teachers and Cub Scouts have den leaders, designed settings rely primarily on objects, labels, spaces, recorded mes-
OCR for page 128
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits sages, brief interpretive guides, and occasionally docents or interpreters to facilitate learner engagement. They are designed to serve a diverse public in the myriad social configurations they assemble. Thus, individuals, families, and teen peer groups are all understood as participants whose needs and interests should be accommodated in designed spaces. Individual learners and groups play an important role in determining their own learning outcomes in designed spaces (Moussouri, 2002). Contemporary views of learning as an active, constructive process have led to increased attention to learners’ motivations, prior experiences, tacit knowledge, and cultural identity (National Research Council, 2007). While professional educators—designers, facilitators, teachers, curators—have scientific, social, practical, or other goals for participants, these are achieved only in partnership with learners. This is particularly salient in designed spaces, where learners are not assumed to operate under strong cultural pressures to participate or achieve a particular goal, as they may be pressured to do in schools, educational programs, and workplace settings. Participants in designed science learning settings control their own learning agenda. The science learning that takes place in designed settings is shaped by elements of intentional design, personal interpretation and choice, and chance. The environment—both large-scale characteristics of the institution and small-scale features of exhibits and programs—helps to guide or mediate the visitors’ attitudes or perspectives, their relationship with the content and the institution, the meaning of their activity there, and how the institution views them. Learners typically participate of their own volition and at their own pace. They may be scientific experts or novices, or anyone in between. Not surprisingly, experiences in these spaces are often designed to elicit participants’ emotions or sensory responses to scientific and natural phenomena. For example, zoos and aquariums may develop conservation themes linking plant, animal, and human well-being. Science centers use multimedia to engage multiple senses, or build larger-than-life models that make phenomena visible and inspire participants’ awe. Emotional and interactive sensory experiences are design priorities, though they are typically accompanied by particular informational or cognitive goals as well. From the perspective of science learning, a key educational challenge for designed spaces is to link emotional and sensory responses with science-specific phenomena. Associating scientific thinking with engaging and enjoyable events and real-world outcomes can create important connections on a personal level. Promoting or supporting a variety of emotional responses (surprise, puzzlement, awe) and a variety of processing modes (observation, discovery, contemplation) increases the likelihood of connecting with a greater variety of people and encouraging them as learners (Jacobson, 2006).
OCR for page 129
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits LEARNING IN DESIGNED SPACES Although the process of learning itself is not necessarily different in designed settings than it is in everyday settings or in programs for science learning, designed spaces do use special methods for structuring, teaching, guiding, and prompting learning. The scale of designed learning spaces varies, and so does the way that the public interacts with these spaces. At the institutional level, there are distinctions among the types of materials and objects housed or collected. Zoos, aquariums, and nature centers, for example, typically maintain live collections. Traditional museums and science centers typically (though not always) organize nonliving collections that may include scientific artifacts (e.g., mineral specimens), tools employed in scientific inquiry (e.g., telescopes), and pedagogical exhibits (e.g., a supersized panpipe designed to explore vibration and pitch). The substantive focus of a particular institution has important implications for its goals. For example, designed spaces with live animal collections may focus primarily on conservation goals—goals with observable behavioral implications (e.g., participants may make unique consumer choices that reflect a conservation ethic). Science centers may pursue somewhat broader or less easily observable goals, such as supporting future inquiry and inspiring curiosity. Research on learning in designed spaces has provided evidence of learning across the strands. Some studies focus on the importance of developing scientific ideas and processes of science, in interaction with others (Ash, 2003; Crowley and Jacobs, 2002; Tunnicliffe, 2000). Other studies have described science learning in informal settings as an opportunity to appropriate the language or participate in the “culture” of science (Borun et al., 1998; Crowley and Callanan, 1998; Ellenbogen, 2003). Still others have explored the idea that learning involves a change in identity—specifically, how people view or present themselves, and how others see them (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, and Cain, 1998; Wenger, 1999). Before delving into the specific strands, we should not lose sight of the fact that individuals choose to spend their time in these settings and that this choice in itself can be seen as an indication of their participation in science (as indicated in Strand 5) and at least a weak proxy for learning. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the scale of participation in designed settings, though crudely estimated, is certainly vast: U.S. museums and science centers tally hundreds of millions of visits each year. While counting heads is no substitute for careful analysis of how learners participate and what they learn, and there are significant biases in terms of the cultural and demographic characteristics of individuals and families that tend to participate in designed settings, nevertheless the fact that large numbers of people choose to attend, often paying for admission, is an important measure for a field that is predicated on learner choice. In addition, attendance records and many
OCR for page 130
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits large-scale visitor surveys show that the public has a positive view of informal environments for science learning, seeks them out during leisure time (Hilke, 1987; Ivanova, 2003; Briseno-Garzon, Anderson, and Anderson, 2007; Moussouri, 1998), and values both the entertainment and learning aspects that these institutions offer. This suggests that such institutions are viewed positively on a broad scale. Some contend that they are part of the nation’s science education infrastructure (St. John and Perry, 1993), one measure of system-wide impact. Although we focus primarily on designed settings, we also note that schools and field trips play an important role; Box 5-1 is a summary of the relevant research on field trips. Strand 1: Developing Interest in Science Some key assumptions about learning in informal environments are that exciting experiences lead to intrinsically motivated learning, and that these experiences are personally meaningful, providing experiential foundations for more advanced structured, science learning. Perry (1994), for example, proposes that curiosity, confidence, challenge, and play are among the essential elements of intrinsically motivating experiences in museums. This is an area of tremendous interest to informal science educators and has been documented extensively in evaluations and the accounts of practitioners. To provide an inclusive summary here, we integrate conventional forms of published, peer-reviewed literatures with anecdotes and excerpts from evaluation reports. Excitement Numerous evaluation studies show that visitors to informal environments report feeling excitement as a result of their experiences. For example, consider the following from Tisdal (2004, p. 24): Another visitor noted the pleasure he took in watching children get excited about science: “I was talking to the mother of the other boy that was there and just kind of—not necessarily small talk, but talking about the objects and how you could see how he was really excited when he was playing with it. And we had some jokes going on about (inaudible) when he had the football up in the air, and he got a little excited about the whole thing. It was cool to see him light up over something that—you know, science isn’t normally fun for those kids. So I thought that was kind of cool, that we were having a good time over there” (Case 6, male, age 18). Researchers also often observe signs of positive excitement among visitors. They cite expressions of joy, delight, awe, wonder, appreciation, surprise, intrigue, interest, caring, inspiration, satisfaction, and meaningfulness. For example:
OCR for page 131
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits “The size of animals that you have in there … I was just flabbergasted. But they are all extremely well maintained. I can tell by looking that everything is thriving. It’s not just living” (120404-3) (Beaumont, 2005, p. 14). “I think [the exhibition] is inspirational—that regular people can invent things. That is how I felt [when I read] about the lady [who invented] Kevlar [Stephanie Kwolek]” (National Museum of American History; female, age 42) (Korn, 2004, p. 44). “It was fun. It was beautiful. The ice crystals, the colors in the ice crystals were beautiful. I think it is a great exhibit. It’s the only time I’ve seen that kind of exhibit—it’s sort of, each crystal is different, each time you do it will be different” (Tisdal, 2004, p. 29). Allen (2002) notes that affective responses (defined as verbal expressions of feeling) were one of the three most common forms of “learning talk” in visitors’ conversations while viewing an exhibition on frogs. Visitors expressed their feelings at 57 percent of all exhibit elements at which they stopped. The most common subcategories were surprise/intrigue (37 percent) and pleasure (36 percent). Some evidence from experimental social psychology and neuropsychology suggests a link between excitement and other forms of learning (e.g., Steidl, Mohi-uddin, and Anderson, 2006). Models of the relation of mood to substantive cognitive processing, as well as studies of operant conditioning, have predicted and demonstrated that mood states or internal responses influence the information used during processing in laboratory situations (Bower, 1981; Eich et al., 2000). The precise relationship is not yet well understood, and the influence of excitement can alternately enhance or detract from learning. Specific connections between affect, thinking, and activity settings, moreover, have not been studied and are clearly needed. Interest The construct of interest takes one deeper into the question of what people learn from experiences in informal environments. Hidi and Renninger (2006) distinguish between situational interest (short-lived, typically evoked by the environment) and individual interest (more stable and specific to an individual). Based on a number of studies, they propose a four-phase model of interest development: (1) triggered situational interest, typically sparked by such environmental features as incongruous/surprising information or personal relevance; (2) maintained situational interest, sustained through the meaningfulness of tasks and personal involvement; (3) emerging individual interest; and (4) well-developed individual interest, in which the individual chooses to engage in an extended pursuit using systematic approaches to questioning and seeking answers. Interestingly, this sequence of increasing
OCR for page 132
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits BOX 5-1 Field Trips School groups make up a large proportion of the visitors to science learning institutions. Several studies have pointed to possible long-term impacts of field trips—typically, memories of specific experiences (Anderson and Piscitelli, 2002; Falk and Dierking, 1997). In fact, all of the elementary and middle school students and adults interviewed by Falk and Dierking (1997), in a study of students who visited a museum on a field trip, were able to recall at least one thing they had learned on a field trip. The nature and more immediate impact of schoolchildren’s visits vary widely, however (Kisiel, 2006; Orion and Hofstein, 1994; Price and Hein, 1991; Storksdieck, 2006). Although results are mixed regarding the impact of field trips to informal institutions on children’s attitudes, interest, and knowledge of science, the majority of studies that have measured knowledge and attitudes have found positive changes (Koran, Koran, and Ellis, 1989). Most of the work on interpreted visits to museums looks at the structure of field trips and how their effectiveness can be improved. In general, the impact of field trips made to such institutions as museums, zoos, and nature centers is dependent on several critical factors: advance content preparation (Anderson, Kisiel, and Storksdieck, 2006; Falk and Balling, 1982; Griffin and Symington, 1997; Kubota and Olstad, 1991), active participation in activities (Griffin, 1994; Griffin and Symington, 1997; Price and Hein, 1991), teacher involvement (Griffin, 1994; Price and Hein, 1991), and follow-up activities (Anderson, Lucas, Ginns, and Dierking, 2000; Griffin, 1994; Koran, Lehman, Shafer, and Koran, 1983). Advance Preparation Advance field trip preparation activities give students the framework for how to interpret what they will see and guide what they should pay attention to during the visit. Students who receive appropriate advance preparation from their teachers, in such forms as previsit activities and orientation, have been noted, via observational studies and pre-post survey-based studies, to concentrate and learn more from their visits (Griffin, 1994; Griffin and Symington, 1997; Anderson, Lucas, Ginns, and Dierking, 2000; Orion and Hofstein, 1994). Advance preparation is most effective when it reduces the cognitive, psychological, and geographical novelty of the field trip experience (Kubota
OCR for page 133
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits and Olstad, 1991; Orion and Hofstein, 1994). Such preparation has been linked to students spending more time interacting with exhibits (Kubota and Olstad, 1991) and learning from their visits (Orion and Hofstein, 1994). Studies have shown, however, that teachers spend very little time preparing students for field trips (Anderson, Kisiel, and Storksdieck, 2006; Griffin, 1994; Griffin and Symington, 1997). Active Participation in Museum Activities A review of over 200 evaluations of field trips to informal institutions (Price and Hein, 1991) indicates that effective ones include both hands-on activities and time for more structured instruction (e.g., viewing films, listening to presentations, participating in discussions with facilitators and peers). In general, children who were able to handle materials, engage in science activities, and observe animals or objects were excited about and enjoyed their field trip experience and displayed cooperative learning strategies. Similarly, Koran and colleague’s review of earlier field trip studies—from 1939 to 1989—revealed that hands-on involvement with exhibits results in more changes in attitudes and interest than passive experiences (1989). At the same time, Griffin and Symington (1997) argued for the inclusion of structured activities to help keep students engaged throughout their field trip experience. Observing 30 unstructured classroom visits to museums, they noted that very few students continued purposefully exploring the museum after the first half hour of hands-on activities. Instead, most students were observed talking in the coffee shop, sitting on gallery benches, copying each other’s worksheets, or moving quickly from exhibit to exhibit. Involvement by Teachers and Chaperones Classroom teacher involvement is a key ingredient to successful field trips, yet studies have consistently found that teachers often play a very small role or no role in the planning or execution of excursions and that institution staff are responsible for connecting exhibits to classroom content (Anderson and Zhang, 2003; Griffin, 1994; Griffin and Symington, 1997; Tal, Bamberger, and Morag, 2005). There is wide variation in the amount and level of teacher involvement
OCR for page 134
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits during field trips (Griffin, 1994; Griffin and Symington; 1997; Kisiel, 2006; Price and Hein, 1991). Price and Hein (1991) found a range of teacher involvement, from cases in which teachers congregated in such areas as the cafeteria and were not involved in the field trip activities, to cases in which teachers remained with the students and were actively involved in all phases of the trip. This review indicates that teacher involvement in various aspects of field trip planning and implementation is important. For example, a correlation was found between involvement in planning field trip activities and greater buy-in by teachers. When teachers are involved in planning, it is more likely that the activities will align with classroom curriculum and be viewed as valuable experiences by the teachers. Furthermore, alignment of classroom and field trip content and teacher buy-in are important, because they have been connected with student learning from field trips (Price and Hein, 1991; Griffin and Symington, 1997). Reinforcement After the Field Trip Teachers often plan to do follow-up after visiting informal institutions but in fact do little more than collect and mark student worksheets completed investment and meaningfulness has parallels with work done by a group of museum professionals (e.g., Serrell, 2006) in generating criteria for exhibition excellence based on principles from the visitor studies literature. This group defined an “excellent exhibition” as one that is (1) comfortable—opening the door to other positive experiences; (2) engaging—enticing visitors to attend; (3) reinforcing—providing reinforcing experiences and supporting visitors to feel competent; and (4) meaningful—providing personally relevant experiences that change visitors cognitively and affectively (Serrell, 2006). Research in various settings has shown that interest is in fact a gateway to deeper and sustained forms of learning. For example, when participants have a more developed interest for science, they pose curiosity questions and are also more inclined to learn and/or to use systematic approaches to seek answers (Engle and Conant, 2002; Kuhn and Franklin, 2006; Renninger, 2000). Interested people are also more likely to be motivated learners, to seek out challenge and difficulty, to use effective learning strategies, and to make use of feedback (Barron, 2006; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, and Whalen, 1993; Lipstein and Renninger, 2006; Renninger and Hidi, 2002).
OCR for page 135
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits during the field trip (Griffin, 1994; Griffin and Symington, 1997). In Griffin’s (1994) study of field trips taken by students in 13 Australian schools, about half of the teachers reported they planned to do follow-up activities, but only about a quarter of the teachers reported doing so. Furthermore, no students expected to receive meaningful follow-up, which may indicate that this was a common experience for them. Developing productive post-visit activities is often complicated by the fact that the topics being covered in the classroom do not align with the field trip (Griffin and Symington, 1997). This can make it difficult to plan follow-up activities without disrupting regular classroom activities. However, even when the topics covered in the classroom align with the field trip content, connections between field trip experiences and classroom topics are often not made (Griffin, 1994). In addition, when post-visit activities do occur, they are often not designed to have any lasting impact. For example, a study of 36 field trips revealed that only 9 of the 18 teachers who reported conducting post-visit activities did more than ask students if they enjoyed the experience (Storksdieck, 2001). However, when well-designed examples of classroom follow-up have been noted, they are associated with positive educational impacts (Anderson et al., 2000; Griffin, 1994). Another aspect of Strand 1 is motivation. Some researchers distinguish between intrinsic motivation, in which people do activities that interest them or provide spontaneous enjoyment, and extrinsic motivation, in which people do activities as a means to desired ends (such as good grades or career advancement). Deci and Ryan (2002) argue that intrinsic motivation is key for learning throughout the life span, because much of what people learn stems from spontaneous interests, curiosity, and their desire to master problems and affect their surroundings. They point to a body of work that documents the advantages of this type of learning in various settings. For example, Grolnick and Ryan (1987) conducted an experiment with 91 fifth graders who read material after they were told either that they would be tested on it or that they would be asked questions about how interesting and difficult they found it. The results showed that students in the second group had both higher interest and understanding in the material, and that, overall, students with more self-determined learning styles showed greater conceptual learning. A meta-analysis by Utman (1997) showed that both intrinsic and extrinsic
OCR for page 136
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits motivation was effective for simple tasks, but that intrinsic motivation led to greater success on creative or complex performance tasks. Of particular relevance, Zuckerman and colleagues (1978) found that intrinsic motivation was enhanced when problem-solvers could choose the activities and amounts of time they spent on them. More recently, research on motivation for learning has emphasized a broader set of constructs in “goal-orientation theory,” which includes needs, values, and situated meaning-making processes (reviewed by Kaplan and Maehr, 2007). However, this theory has yet to be applied to informal environments. Comfort Finally, while Strand 1 focuses primarily on arousing emotions, such as excitement, many studies have shown the importance of comfort, both physical and intellectual, as a prerequisite to learning in designed settings. For example, Maxwell and Evans (2002) link the physical environment to learning through psychological processes, such as cognitive fatigue, distraction, motivation, and anxiety, and they offer some evidence that learning is enhanced in quieter, smaller, better differentiated spaces. Physical and conceptual orientation (using maps, guides, and films) has also been shown to contribute to learners’ comfort, presumably by reducing cognitive overwhelm and allowing them to make more informed choices about what to attend to. Much of this literature is summarized in Serrell (2006) and Crane, Nicholson, Chen, and Bitgood (1994). Strand 2: Understanding Scientific Knowledge There is some research demonstrating that people gain understanding of scientific concepts, arguments, explanations, models, and facts, even after single museum visits. For example, Guichard (1995) studied the effect of an interactive exhibit designed to help visitors understand the form and function of the human skeleton. The exhibit consisted of a stationary bicycle that a visitor could ride, next to a large reflecting pane of glass. When the visitor pedaled the bicycle, the exhibit was arranged so that an image of a moving skeleton appeared inside the pedaling person’s reflection. The movements of the legs and skeleton attracted the visitor’s attention to the role and structure of the lower part of the skeleton. Even without any additional mediation, this exhibit experience seemed to transform children’s understanding. Children ages 6-7 were given an outline of a human body and asked to “draw the skeleton inside the silhouette” after the cycling experience. Of the 93 children in the sample, 96 percent correctly drew skeletons whose bones began or ended at the joints of the body; this result was in sharp contrast to the figure of 3 percent for a sample of children of similar age in a previous study who did not experience the exhibit. Even more impressively, the children’s understanding persisted over time, with
OCR for page 137
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits 92 percent of them retaining the idea of bones extending between places where the body bends 8 months after their museum visit and without any additional schooling, practice, or warning that they would be tested. Multifaceted cognitive learning of this type has also been documented over a collection of exhibits. For example, Falk, Moussouri, and Coulson (1998) used the technique of personal meaning mapping, in which visitors complete pre- and post-exhibit diagrams, to record the deepening and broadening of their understanding of a science topic as a result of visiting an exhibition. Typically, exhibition evaluations include self-reports from visitors that they have learned some content knowledge, usually small-scale, counterintuitive facts rather than large-scale abstractions or principles. For example: More than one-half of interviewees said they learned something new about plants while visiting the Conservatory. While learning was highly individualized and personal, all of these interviewees consistently referred to topics presented in the Conservatory exhibits and text. Several mentioned carnivorous plants, for example, and being surprised about the Venus flytrap’s small size or the pitcher plant’s feeding mechanism. A few expressed amazement by the water lily pollination story, while a few others appreciated experiencing a bog firsthand. Other topics mentioned by a few interviewees were: epiphytes (“plants can grow on top of other plants”), the co-evolution of plant nectar and pollinators (“different concentrations of nectar attract different animals”), the precipitation level of Los Angeles compared with a rain forest, and elephants as seed dispersers. The remaining responses were idiosyncratic; for example, one interviewee learned that “leaves have holes” and another that orchids are the source of vanilla beans (Jones, 2005, p. 8). Most visitors’ conceptual understanding was articulated as surprise at a counterintuitive phenomenon, that is, objects floating on a stream of air: “Oh, yeah. I was like, oh, I didn’t know that. I didn’t know it could stay up for so long. I thought eventually it would just die down and the weight would overcome the air pressure and stuff. But it just kept on floating. Like the football kept on doing misties and stuff. It was pretty cool” (Case 6, male, age 13) (Tisdal, 2004, p. 28). “[The exhibition is about] all the different life forms that we have on our planet and how there’s a possibility that these life forms can exist on other planets. I just learned about the vents in the ocean. I never knew there were those kinds of things. And now I can understand how maybe there is life on Mars underneath all that ice. It’s something I never understood before so I think it kind of expanded my world” (Adult) (Korn, 2006, p. 18). Occasionally an exhibit experience may be powerful enough to challenge a common conception held by visitors. In a classic visitor study of the impact of short-term exposure to exhibits, Borun, Massey, and Lutter (1993)
OCR for page 162
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits ence and on their own thinking about science in the context of designed settings. Facilitation appears to be critical to supporting reflection. However, in designed settings, extensive facilitation by professional staff may not be feasible. And it may not always be desirable, as it can interfere with leisure experiences and interrupt other important developments in the participant experience. Strand 5, engaging in science, is also strongly supported, especially in the general form of social interaction, in which learners jointly explore and interpret the natural world. Social interaction is a notable strong tendency in multigenerational group visits. However, participating in practices such as scientific argumentation as is often studied in school settings is not explored here. Further, it is likely not an appropriate goal for most designed settings for science learning which do not afford for facilitated, longer term investigations within a community of learners. For Strand 6, there is evidence of learners’ attempts to personalize and integrate science learning experiences with their values and identity. This lends support to the educational practice of adjusting science content and learning experiences to be compatible with learner agendas. REFERENCES Allen, S. (1997). Using scientific inquiry activities in exhibit explanations. Science Education, 81(6), 715-734. Allen, S. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 259-303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Allen, S. (2007). Secrets of circles summative evaluation report. Report prepared for the Children’s Discovery Museum of San Jose. Available: http://www.informalscience.org/evaluation/show/115 [accessed October 2008]. Allen, S., and Gutwill, J. (2004). Designing science museum exhibits with multiple interactive features: Five common pitfalls. Curator, 47(2), 199-212. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Anderson, D. (2003). Visitors’ long-term memories of world expositions. Curator, 46(4), 400-420. Anderson, D., and Piscitelli, B. (2002). Parental recollections of childhood museum visits. Museum National, 10(4), 26-27. Anderson, D., and Shimizu, H. (2007). Factors shaping vividness of memory episodes: Visitors’ long-term memories of the 1970 Japan world exposition. Memory, 15(2), 177-191. Anderson, D., and Zhang, Z. (2003). Teacher perceptions of fieldtrip planning and implementation. Visitor Studies Today, 6(3), 6-12. Anderson, D., Kisiel, J., and Storksdieck, M. (2006). Understanding teachers perspectives on field trips: Discovering common ground in three countries. Curator, 49(3), 365-386.
OCR for page 163
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits Anderson, D., Lucas, K.B., Ginns, I.S., and Dierking, L.D. (2000). Development of knowledge about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and post-visit activities. Science Education, 84(5), 658-679. Anderson, D., Piscitelli, B., Weier, K., Everett, M., and Tayler, C. (2002). Children’s museum experiences: Identifying powerful mediators of learning. Curator, 45(3), 213-231. Anderson, D., Storksdieck, M., and Spock, M. (2007). The long-term impacts of museum experiences. In J. Falk, L. Dierking, and S. Foutz (Eds.), In principle, in practice: New perspectives on museums as learning institutions (pp. 197-215). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Ansbacher, T. (1999). Experience, inquiry, and making meaning. Exhibitionist, 18(2), 22-26. Ash, D. (2002). Negotiations of thematic conversations about biology. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 357-400). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ash, D. (2003). Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in museums. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 138-162. Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 153-224. Beane, D.B., and Pope, M.S. (2002). Leveling the playing field through object-based service learning. In S.G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums (pp. 325-349). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Beaumont, L. (2005). Summative evaluation of wild reef-sharks at Shedd. Report for the John G. Shedd Aquarium. Available: http://www.informalscience.com/download/case_studies/report_133.doc [accessed October 2008]. Bell, P., and Linn, M.C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817. Belmont, J.M., and Butterfield, E.C. (1971). Learning strategies as determinants of memory deficiencies. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 411-420. Bitgood, S. (2002). Environmental psychology in museums, zoos, and other exhibition centers. In R.B. Bechtel and A. Churchman (Eds.), The environmental psychology handbook (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. Bitgood, S., and Loomis, C. (1993). Introduction: Environmental design and evaluation in museums. Environment and Behavior, 26(6), 683-697. Blud, L.M. (1990). Social interaction and learning among family groups visiting a museum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 9(1), 43-51. Borun, M. (2003). Space Command summative evaluation. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Science Museum. Available: http://www.informalscience.org/evaluations/report_24.pdf [accessed October 2008]. Borun, M., and Miller, M. (1980). What’s in a name? A study of the effectiveness of explanatory labels in a science museum. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Science Museum. Borun, M., Chambers, M., and Cleghorn, A. (1996). Families are learning in science museums. Curator, 39(2), 123-138. Borun, M., Dritsas, J., Johnson, J.I., Peter, N.E., Wagner, K.F., Fadigan, K., Jangaard, A., Stroup, E., and Wenger, A. (1998). Family learning in museums: The PISEC perspective. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute.
OCR for page 164
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits Borun, M., Massey, C., and Lutter, T. (1993). Naive knowledge and the design of science museum exhibits. Curator, 36(3), 201-219. Bower, H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36(2), 129-148. Briseno-Garzon, A., Anderson, D., and Anderson, A. (2007). Entry and emergent agendas of adults visiting an aquarium in family groups. Visitor Studies, 10(1), 73-89. Brooks, J.A.M., and Vernon, P.E. (1956). A study of children’s interests and comprehension at a science museum. British Journal of Psychology, 47, 175-182. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Callanan, M.A., and Jipson, J.L. (2001). Explanatory conversation and young children’s developing scientific literacy. In K. Crowley, C.D. Schumm, and T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Callanan, M., Esterly, J., Martin, J., Frazier, B., and Gorchoff, S. (2002). Family conversations about science in an “Alice’s Wonderland” exhibit. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April. Callanan, M.A., Jipson, J.L., and Soennichsen, M. (2002). Maps, globes, and videos: Parent-child conversations about representational objects. In S.G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums (pp. 261-283). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cazden, C.B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Heinemann. Cohen, M., Winkel, G., Olsen, R., and Wheeler, F. (1977). Orientation in a museum: An experimental visitor study. Curator, 20(2), 85-97. Crane, V., Nicholson, H.J., Chen, M., and Bitgood, S. (1994). Informal science learning: What the research says about television, science museums and community-based projects. Dedham, MA: Research Communications. Crowley, K., and Callanan, M.A. (1998). Identifying and supporting shared scientific reasoning in parent-child interactions. Journal of Museum Education, 23, 12-17. Crowley, K., and Galco, J. (2001). Family conversations and the emergence of scientific literacy. In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, and T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional science (pp. 393-413). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crowley, K., and Jacobs, M. (2002). Building islands of expertise in everyday family activity. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 333-356). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crowley, K., Callanan, M.A., Jipson, J., Galco, J., Topping, K., and Shrager, J. (2001a). Shared scientific thinking in everyday parent-child activity. Science Education, 85(6), 712-732. Crowley, K., Callanan, M.A., Tenenbaum, H.R., and Allen, E. (2001b). Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychological Science, 12(3), 258-261. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
OCR for page 165
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K.R., and Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press. Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M. (2002). The paradox of achievement: The harder you push, the worse it gets. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 61-87). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Diamond, J. (1986). The behavior of family groups in science museums. Curator, 29(2), 139-154. Dierking, L.D., Adelman, L.M., Ogden, J., Lehnhardt, K., Miller, L., and Mellen, J.D. (2004). Using a behavior changes model to document the impact of visits to Disney’s Animal Kingdom: A study investigating intended conservation action. Curator, 47(3), 322-343. Dierking, L.D., Burtnyk, K., Buchner, K.S., and Falk, J.H. (2002). Visitor learning in zoos and aquariums: A literature review. Silver Spring, MD: American Zoo and Aquarium Association. Doering, Z.D. (1999). Strangers, guests, or clients? Visitor experiences in museums. Curator, 42(2), 74-87. Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. Duschl, R.A., and Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. Eich, E., Kihlstrom, J., Bower, G., Forgas, J., and Niedenthal, P. (2000). Cognition and emotion. New York: Oxford University Press. Ellenbogen, K.M. (2002). Museums in family life: An ethnographic case study. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 81-101). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ellenbogen, K.M. (2003). From dioramas to the dinner table: An ethnographic case study of the role of science museums in family life. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(3), 846-847. Ellenbogen, K.M., Luke, J.J., and Dierking, L.D. (2004). Family learning research in museums: An emerging disciplinary matrix? Science Education, 88(S1), S48-S58. Engle, R.A., and Conant, F.C. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399-483. Fadigan, K.A., and Hammrich, P.L. (2004). A longitudinal study of the educational and career trajectories of female participants of an urban informal science education program. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 41(8), 835-860. Falk, J.H. (2008). Calling all spiritual pilgrims: Identity in the museum experience. Museum (Jan./Feb.). Falk, J.H., and Balling, J.D. (1982). The field trip milieu: Learning and behavior as a function of contextual events. Journal of Educational Research, 76(1), 22-28. Falk, J.H., and Dierking, L.D. (1997). School field trips: Assessing their long-term impact. Curator, 40, 211-218. Falk, J.H., and Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the “contextual model of learning” to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89, 744-778. Falk, J.H., Heimlich, J., and Bronnenkant, K. (2008). Using identity-related visit motivations as a tool for understanding adult zoo and aquarium visitors’ meaning-making. Curator, 51(1), 55-79.
OCR for page 166
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits Falk, J.H., Moussouri, T., and Coulson, D. (1998). The effect of visitors’ agendas on museum learning. Curator, 41(2), 107-120. Falk, J.H., Reinhard, E.M., Vernon, C.L., Bronnenkant, K., Deans, N.L., and Heimlich, J.E. (2007). Why zoos and aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Falk, J.H., Scott, C., Dierking, L., Rennie, L. and Jones, M.C. (2004). Interactives and visitor learning. Curator, 47(2), 171-192. Fienberg, J., and Leinhardt, G. (2002). Looking through the glass: Reflections of identity in conversations at a history museum. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 167-211). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gee, J.P. (1994). First language acquisition as a guide for theories of learning and pedagogy. Linguistics and Education, 6(4), 331-354. Gelman, R., Massey, C., and McManus, P.M. (1991). Characterizing supporting environments for cognitive development: Lessons from children in a museum. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, and S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 226-256). Washington, DC: American Psychology Society. Gleason, M.E., and Schauble, L. (1999). Parents’ assistance of their children’s scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 343-378. Goldowsky, N. (2002). Lessons from life: Learning from exhibits, animals, and interaction in a museum. UMI#3055856. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Griffin, J. (1994). Learning to learn in informal science settings. Research in Science Education, 24(1), 121-128. Griffin, J., and Symington, D. (1997). Moving from task-oriented to learning-oriented strategies on school excursions to museums. Science Education, 81(6), 763-779. Grolnick, W.S., and Ryan, R.M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 890-898. Guichard, H. (1995). Designing tools to develop the conception of learners. International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 243-253. Gupta, P., and Siegel, E. (2008). Science career ladder at the New York Hall of Science: Youth facilitators as agents of inquiry. In R.E. Yaeger and J.H. Falk (Eds.), Exemplary science in informal education settings: Standards-based success stories. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Hayward, J. (1997). Conservation study, phase 2: An analysis of visitors’ perceptions about conservation at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Northampton, MA: People, Places, and Design Research. Hayward, J. (1998). Summative evaluation: Visitors’ reactions to “Fishing for Solutions.” Northampton, MA: People, Places, and Design Research. Heath, S.B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language Socialization, 11(1), 49-76. Hein, G.E. (1998). Learning in the museum. New York: Routledge. Hein, G.E., Kelley, J., Bailey, E., and Bronnenkant, K. (1996). Investigate: Summative evaluation report. Unpublished report, Leslie College Program Evaluation Group.
OCR for page 167
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits Hensel, K.A. (1987). Families in a museum: Interactions and conversations at displays. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(9). University Microfilms No. 8824441. Hidi, S., and Renninger, K.A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127. Hilke, D.D. (1987). Museums as resources for family learning: Turning the question around. Museologist, 50(175), 14-15. Hilke, D.D. (1989). The family as a learning system: An observational study of families in museums. In B.H. Butler and M.B. Sussman (Eds.), Museum visits and activities for family life enrichment (pp. 101-129). New York: Haworth Press. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., and Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Humphrey, T., and Gutwill, J.P. (Eds.). (2005). Fostering active prolonged engagement: The art of creating APE exhibits. San Francisco: The Exploratorium. Hutt, C. (1981). Toward a taxonomy and conceptual model of play. In H.I. Day (Ed.), Advances in intrinsic motivation and aesthetics. New York: Plenum Press. Inagaki, K., and Hatano, G. (2002). Young children’s naive thinking about the biological world. New York: Psychology Press. Ivanova, E. (2003). Changes in collective memory: The schematic narrative template of victimhood in Kharkiv museums. Journal of Museum Education, 28(1), 17-22. Jacobson, W. (2006). Why we do what we do: A conceptual model for the work of teaching and learning centers. Presentation for the International Symposium on Excellence in Teaching and Learning (ISETL), National Taiwan University, November. Jarvis, T., and Pell, A. (2005). Factors influencing elementary school children’s attitudes toward science before, during, and after a visit to the UK National Space Centre. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 42(1), 53-83. Jones, J. (2003). Cell lab summative evaluation. St. Paul: Science Museum of Minnesota. Available: http://www.informalscience.org/evaluation/show/57 [accessed October 2008]. Jones, J. (2005). Huntington Botanical Gardens summative evaluation conservatory for botanical science. Report for Huntington Botanical Gardens. Available: http://www.informalscience.org/evaluation/show/105 [accessed October 2008]. Kaplan, A., and Maehr, M.L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141-184. Kisiel, J. (2006). An examination of fieldtrip strategies and their implementation within a natural history museum. Science Education, 90(3), 434-452. Koran, J.J., Koran, M.L., and Ellis, J. (1989). Evaluating the effectiveness of field experiences: 1939-1989. Scottish Museum News, 4(2), 7-10. Koran, J.J., Koran, M.L., and Foster, J.S. (1988). Using modeling to direct attention. Curator,31(1), 36-42. Koran, J.J., Koran, M.L., and Longino, S.J. (1986). The relationship of age, sex, attraction, and holding power with two types of science exhibits. Curator, 29(3), 227-235. Koran, J.J., Lehman, J., Shafer, L.D., and Koran, M.L. (1983). The relative effects of preand post attention directing devices on learning from a “walk-through” museum exhibit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(4), 341-346.
OCR for page 168
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits Korn, R. (1997). Electric space: A summative evaluation. Boulder, CO: Space Science Institute. Available: http://www.informalscience.org/evaluation/show/19 [accessed October 2008]. Korn, R. (2004). Invention at play: Summative evaluation. New York: New York Hall of Science. Available: http://www.informalscience.org/evaluation/show/66 [accessed October 2008]. Korn, R. (2006). Search for life: Summative evaluation. New York: New York Hall of Science. Available: http://www.informalscience.org/evaluations/report_151.pdf [accessed October 2008]. Kubota, C.A., and Olstad, R.G. (1991). Effects of novelty-reducing preparation on exploratory behavior and cognitive learning in a science museum setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 225-234. Kuhn, D., and Franklin, S. (2006). The second decade: What develops (and how)? In D. Kuhn and R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognition, perception and language (vol. 2, 6th ed., pp. 953-993). New York: Wiley. Laetsch, W.M., Diamond, J., Gottfried, J.L., and Rosenfeld, S. (1980). Children and family groups in science centres. Science and Children, 17(6), 14-17. Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2000). The development of model-based reasoning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 39-48. Leinhardt, G., and Gregg, M. (2002). Burning buses, burning crosses: Pre-service teachers see civil rights. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 139-166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leinhardt, G., and Knutson, K. (2004). Listening in on museum conversations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Leinhardt, G., Tittle, C., and Knutson, K. (2002). Talking to oneself: Diaries of museum visits. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 103-133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lipstein, R., and Renninger, K.A. (2006). “Putting things into words”: The development of 12-15-year-old students’ interest for writing. In S. Hidi and P. Boscolo (Eds.), Writing and motivation (pp. 113-140). Oxford, England: Elsevier. Lucas, A.M. (1983). Scientific literacy and informal learning. Studies in Science Education, 10, 1-36. Ma, J. (2002). Outdoor exploratorium: Front end study.Open-ended exploration with a noticing toolkit at the Palace of Fine Arts. San Francisco: The Exploratorium. Available: http://www.informalscience.org/evaluation/show/39 [accessed October 2008]. Martin, L., and Toon, R. (2005). Narratives in a science center: Interpretation and identity. Curator, 48(4), 407-426. Maxwell, L.E., and Evans, G.W. (2002). Museums as learning settings: The importance of the physical environment. Journal of Museum Education, 27(1), 3-7. McLean, K. (1993). Planning for people in museum exhibitions. Washington, DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers. McLean, K., and Pollock, W. (Eds.). (2007). Visitor voices in museum exhibitions. Washington, DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers.
OCR for page 169
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits McManus, P.M. (1987). It’s the company you keep: The social determination of learning-related behavior in a science museum. International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 6(3), 260-270. McManus, P.M. (1989). What people say and how they think in a science museum. In D. Uzzell (Ed.), Heritage interpretation (pp. 174-189). London: Bellhaven Press. Meisner, R., vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., Burch, A., Gammon, B., and Reisman, M. (2007). Exhibiting performance: Co-participation in science centres and museums. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1531-1555. Meluch, W. (2006). San Francisco Zoo African savanna exhibit summative evaluation. San Francisco: San Francisco Zoo. Available: http://www.informalscience.org/evaluation/show/54 [accessed October 2008]. Minstrell, J., and van Zee, E.H. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., and Gonzalez, N. (2005). Funding of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In L. Moll, C. Amanti, and N. Gonzalez (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 71-88). London: Routledge. Morrissey, K. (2002). Pathways among objects and museum visitors. In S.G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums (pp. 285-299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Moussouri, T. (1998). Family agendas and the museum experience. Museum Archeologist, 24, 20-30. Moussouri, T., (2002). Researching learning in museums and galleries, 1990-1999: A bibliographic review. Part of the Leicester Museum Studies Series. Leicester, England: Research Centre for Museums and Galleries, Department of Museum Studies. Myers, G., Saunders, C.D., and Birjulin, A.A. (2004). Emotional dimensions of watching zoo animals: An experience sampling study building on insights from psychology. Curator, 47, 299-321. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Committee on the Development of an Addendum to the National Science Education Standards on Scientific Inquiry. S. Olson and S. Loucks-Horsley (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. R.A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber, and A.W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OCR for page 170
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits National Science Foundation. (2006). Now showing: Science Museum of Minnesota “Cell Lab.” Available: http://www.nsf.gov/news/now_showing/museums/cell_lab.jsp [accessed October 2008]. Orion, N., and Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1097-1119. Palmquist, S., and Crowley, K. (2007). From teachers to testers: How parents talk to novice and expert children. Science Education, 91(5), 783-804. Pearce, S. (Ed.). (1994). Interpreting objects and collections. London: Routledge. Peart, B. (1984). Impact of exhibit type on knowledge gain, attitudes, and behavior. Curator, 27(3), 220-227. Pedretti, E.G. (2004). Perspectives on learning through research on critical issues-based science center exhibitions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Pedretti, E.G., MacDonald, R.G., Gitari, W., and McLaughlin, H. (2001). Visitor perspectives on the nature and practice of science: Challenging beliefs through “a question of truth.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4, 399-418. Perry, D.L. (1994). Designing exhibits that motivate. In R.J. Hannapel (Ed.), What research says about learning in science museums (vol. 2, pp. 25-29). Washington, DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers. Price, S., and Hein, G.E. (1991). More than a field trip: Science programmes for elementary school groups at museums. International Journal of Science Education, 13(5), 505-519. Quadra Planning Consultants, Ltd., and Galiano Institute for Environmental and Social Research. (2004, June). Seafood watch evaluation: Summary report. Saltspring Island, BC, Canada: Author. Rand, J. (1990). Fish stories that hook readers: Interpretive graphics at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. In Proceedings of the 1986 American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (pp. 404-413). Columbus, OH: American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Randol, S.M. (2005). The nature of inquiry in science centers: Describing and assessing inquiry at exhibits. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Rennie, L.J., and McClafferty, T.P. (1993). Learning in science centres and science museums: A review of recent studies. Research in Science Education, 23(1), 351. Rennie, L.J., and McClafferty, T.P. (2002). Objects and learning: Understanding young children’s interaction with science exhibits. In S.G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums (pp. 191-213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Renninger, K.A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone and J.M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation: Controversies and new directions (pp. 373-404). San Diego: Academic Press. Renninger, K.A., and Hidi, S. (2002). Student interest and achievement: Developmental issues raised by a case study. In A. Wigfield and J.S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 173-195). New York: Academic Press. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.
OCR for page 171
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits Rosenfeld, S., and Terkel, A. (1982). A naturalistic study of visitors at an interactive mini-zoo. Curator, 25(3), 187-212. Rounds, J. (1999). Meaning-making: A new paradigm for museum exhibits? Exhibitionist, 18(2), 5-8. Sachatello-Sawyer, B., Fellenz., R.A., Burton, H., Gittings-Carlson, L., Lewis-Mahony, J.L., and Woolbaugh, W. (2002). Adult museum programs: Designing meaningful experiences. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Saunders, C.D. (2003). The emerging field of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 137-149. Schauble, L., and Bartlett, K. (1997). Constructing a science gallery for children and families: The role of research in an innovative design process. Science Education, 81(6), 781-793. Schauble, L., Gleason, M., Lehrer, R., Bartlett, K., Petrosino, A.J., Allen, A., Clinton, C., Ho, E., Jones, M.G., Lee, Y.L., Phillips, J., Seigler, J., and Street, J. (2002). Supporting science learning in museums. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations: Explanation and identity in museums (pp. 425-452). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schneider, B., and Cheslock, N. (2003). Measuring results: Gaining insight on behavior change strategies and evaluation methods from environmental education, museum, health and social marketing programs. San Francisco: Coevolution Institute. Available: http://www.pollinator.org/Resources/Metrics%20Executive%20Summary.pdf [accessed October 2008]. Screven, C.G. (1992). Motivating visitors to read labels. ILVS Review,2(2), 183-221. Serrell, B. (1996). Exhibit labels: An interpretive approach. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Serrell, B. (2001). Marvelous molecules: The secret of life. Corona Park: New York Hall of Science. Available: http://www.informalscience.org/evaluation/show/41 [accessed October 2008]. Serrell, B. (2006). Judging exhibitions: A framework for assessing excellence. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Silverman, L.H. (1995). Visitor meaning-making in museums for a new age. Curator, 38(3), 161-170. Spock, M. (Ed.) (2000). Philadelphia stories: A collection of pivotal museum memories. Video and study guide. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. St. John, M., and Perry, D.L. (1993). Rethink role, science museums urged. ASTC Newsletter, 21(5), 1, 6-7. Steidl, S., Mohi-uddin, S., and Anderson, A (2006). Effects of emotional arousal on multiple memory systems: Evidence from declarative and procedural learning. Learning & Memory, 13(5), 650-658. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1783620&blobtype=pdf [accessed March 2009]. Stevenson, J. (1991). The long-term impact of interactive exhibits. International Journal of Science Education, 13(5), 521-531. Storksdieck, M. (2001). Differences in teachers’ and students’ museum field-trip experiences. Visitor Studies Today, 4(1), 8-12. Storksdieck, M. (2006). Field trips in environmental education. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag. Tal, R.T., Bamberger, Y., and Morag, O. (2005). Guided schools visits to natural history museums in Israel. Science Education, 89(6), 920-935.
OCR for page 172
Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits Taylor, S.M. (1986). Understanding processes of informal education: A naturalistic study of visitors to a public aquarium. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Tenenbaum, H.R., and Leaper, C. (1998). Mothers’ and fathers’ responses to their Mexican-descent child: A sequential analysis. First Language, 18(53), 129-147. Tenenbaum, H.R., Snow, C., Roach, K., and Kurland, B. (2005). Talking and reading science: Longitudinal data on sex differences in mother-child conversations in low-income families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(1), 1-19. Tisdal, C. (2004). Going APE (active prolonged exploration) at the Exploratorium: Phase 2 summative evaluation. Available: http://www.informalscience.org/evaluation/show/67 [accessed October 2008]. Tunnicliffe, S.D. (1996). A comparison of conversations of primary school groups at animated, preserved, and live animal specimens. Journal of Biological Education, 30(3), 195-206. Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2000). Conversations of family and primary school groups at robotic dinosaur exhibits in a museum: What do they talk about? International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 739-754. Utman, C.H. (1997). Performance effects of motivational state: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(2), 170-182. vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., and Hindmarsh, J. (2001). Exhibiting interaction: Conduct and collaboration in museums and galleries. Symbolic Interaction, 24(2), 189-216. Warren, B., Rosebery, A., and Conant, F. (1994). Discourse and social practice: Learning science in language minority classrooms. In D. Spener (Ed.), Adult biliteracy in the United States (pp. 191-210). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Yalowitz, S.S. (2004). Evaluating visitor conservation research at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Curator, 47(3), 283-298. Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., and Deci, E.L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(3), 443-446.