ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************
Jonah-
Thanks for your comments. The point I'm making is that the "presentation"
of science is less important than the experience of science. And, yes, as
you state it's easier if you have a live human being (scientist) to help
you. So if we know this works best why do so few museums provide one?
Instead of investing in people they invest in push-buttons and laminate.
For the specific example of the car and ramp, what I'm looking for is the
verbal description of what happened. The car rolled down and ramp, veered
to the left, jumped at the bottom of the ramp and traveled about 4'. A
simple reporting of the facts. But try getting that out of a kid (or
teacher). They start throwing out terms (kinetic energy, gravity, etc.) as
if answering a multiple choice question - hoping one of the answers will
match the words on the test. Although they saw what happened, they cannot
(most can't) report it. They've been programmed to jump to buzz words and
disengage intellectually.
Yes, "I don't know," is a valid answer. But what I'm talking about is
trying to figure out why something occurred. Whether you end up with an
answer isn't (terribly) important - it's the quest - the mental exercise,
the science that is important. Better to have visitors leave with a burning
question than a pat answer. People don't go to science museums because they
feel like they need a few more facts - they go for a unique (and hopefully)
engaging experience. And, when the experience isn't engaging, kids will find
other ways to exercise their minds - like trying to outsmart the exhibit
designer and mess up the exhibit.
Yes, I agree that physics is easier to do in an open-ended environment. The
medium (active learning exhibits) isn't perfect. It is inappropriate for
some topics. Video is better for some; books are better for some. Trying
to force topics that don't work as exhibits into exhibits is how you make
bad exhibits. What makes a great exhibit? I submit that a great exhibit is
one that launches you into a quest to learn more and provides you the
opportunity to do so. In science museums, that should include doing
science - not just reading about science.
The other aspect of what I'm suggesting is that museums should become
centers of learning - not centers of teaching. Staff and volunteers on the
floor should be eager learners - learning from their experiences with
visitors, learning what else they can do on the floor. Engaging people and
being engaged. Putting scientists in touch with visitors - and letting them
work together to do science.
Effective? Yes! Expensive? Yes, but not as expensive as tons of push
buttons and laminate that don't work.
Best wishes,
Ed
Ed Sobey, Ph.D.
Northwest Invention Center
www.invention-center.com
(425) 861-8685
-----Original Message-----
From: Informal Science Education Network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jonah Cohen
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 2:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: question and some new discussion
ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related
institutions.
****************************************************************************
*
As one with not enough work to do, allow me to insert my $0.02....
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Sobey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
I'm amazed that few people (museum visitors, staff,
professional teachers) can watch a car roll down a ramp and report what
happened. They just can't do it. (After a few pointed questions they can
do it, but its' tough to get them to observe and report). If you can't
observe and report, you can't do science. This is what should be going on
in science centers - "Science" - the action verb. It is what we need.
After engaging people to do something and getting them observe (accurately)
and report, they must be able to ascribe some causes to the effects they
observed. Few can do this. ("God made it go that way," "I'm not good at
science," are typical responses from kids when asked by their car, boat, or
rocket veered to one side).
==================================
Ed - I agree with most of what you said, but part of it (especially the part
above) brings up a li'l aphorism: "Specific questions yield specific
answers." I agree with what you say about the need for better engaging the
visitors, better presenting true science as opposed to a factoid blitz
etc... but I'm not sure exactly what you think would help us do these things
more effectively. Your argument speaks in general/theoretical terms - can
you give some examples of presenting science well (or poorly)?
And that's how a visitor might feel. Take your car + ramp example. You say
most folks just can't report what happened? I'll take a stab at it: The car
rolled down the ramp. Is that an accurate/good enough report?
If not, why not? What was it you wanted? A talk on the conversion of
potential energy to kinetic energy? A description of the role gravity
played, or friction or inertia? An explanation of simple machines (like the
wheel + axle, or for that matter the inclined plane of the ramp)? A more
precise description - like the length of the ramp, its height and how long
it took the car to descend?
I'm cautious about the cause/effect part too. I'm leery of signage/museum
staff (or, just as often, parents of kids) who ask "Why do you think that
happened?" I think that it's a perfectly valid answer to say "I don't know".
Exhibits isn't my field of expertise by any means... but I know, for
example, there are things that I can do as an outreach presentation in a
school that are simply harder to do in an exhibit at a science center. Here,
I'll get specific.
I have a chemistry class that (pardon my horn-tooting) I think does a pretty
good job of including the scientific method, as well as the raw facts about
chemical reactions. This would be tough to do in an exhibit. Why?
For starters, it's not necessarily an easy thing. It helps the students to
have a person there who can answer questions and guide them to the next step
if they get stuck. (And we can do this by saying "Let's find out by running
another experiment, like so..." rather than flat out giving an answer.) Yet
when the inevitable budget crunch happens at your center, isn't staffing the
first thing to get the axe cause it's so expensive? Getting people on the
floor full time is darn difficult, at least for us at the smaller centers.
And I'll hypothesize that the reason so many exhibits are under glass/push a
button/not actually interactive is that kids make a colossal mess and
destroy things at a mind-boggling pace. Try doing an unsupervised exhibit
with chemicals and watch your migraines begin. Let's not even get started on
the safety issue.
I'm not saying it can't be done. It just seems to me that better
understanding of science (the active verb) in addition to science (the
collection of facts) is essential for understanding (oh yeah, and ultimately
for combating nonsense like ID). We grok this, we just have to start
tackling the specifics of overcoming the barriers to doing it.
Or something like that.
Jonah Cohen
Outreach & Public Programs Manager
Science Center of Connecticut
***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at
http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]
***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]
|
