Chapter 3

  

1Tisdal, C. (2004). Going APE (Active Prolonged Exploration) at the Exploratorium. Phase 2 Summative Evaluation. Available: http: http://www.informalscience.org/evaluation/show/67 [accessed October 2008].

  

2Korn, 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].

  

3National Research Council. (2009). Introduction. Chapters 5 and 8 in Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments, Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, and M.A. Feder (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  

4Crowley, K., and Jacobs, M. (2002). Islands of expertise and the development of family scientific literacy. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning Conversations in Museums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reeve, S., and Bell, P. (in press). Children’s self-documentation and understanding of the concepts “healthy” and “unhealthy.” International Journal of Science Education.

  

5National 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.

  

6Allen, S. (1997). Using scientific inquiry activities in exhibit explanations. Science Education, 81(6), 715-734.

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.

Peart, B. (1984). Impact of exhibit type on knowledge gain, attitudes, and behavior. Curator, 27(3), 220-227.

  

7Guichard, H. (1995). Designing tools to develop the conception of learners. International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 243-253.

  

8Randol, S.M. (2005). The Nature of Inquiry in Science Centers: Describing and Assessing Inquiry at Exhibits. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

  

9Koran, 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.

  

10Goldowsky, N. (2002). Lessons from Life: Learning from Exhibits, Animals and Interaction in a Museum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UMI#3055856, Harvard University.

  

11Allen, S., and Gutwill, J. (2004). Designing science museum exhibits with multiple interactive features: Five common pitfalls. Curator, 47(2), 199-212.

  

12Korn, R. (2003). The Science Museum of Minnesota: Cell Lab Summative Evaluation. Available: http://www.informalscience.org/evaluations/report_174.pdf [accessed February 2010]. Interviews with Kirsten Ellenbogen and Laurie Fink were also part of the research for this case study.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement