ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************
Bill-
Getting visitors engaged is the first critical step. Walking through an
exhibit hall is so often like walking with zombies - few are engaged in
anything. They push the buttons and say "That looks nice," and move on. I
suggest engaging people with a challenge ("Can you ...." ) sometimes
followed by a record of what/how others did to meet that challenge. This
can be amazingly effective and infectious.
Floor people engage visitors. Explainers don't, but "engagers" do. The
goal is to supply questions and opportunities and not to supply so many
answers (answers leading to the end of discussion).
You touch on the real problem - as you say not ID/EV - but people's basic
understanding of what science is and how it works. To do science, people
must have questions (generated through the engagement process), run
experiments (how many museums really have people doing experiments?), and
making observations... 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).
Kids (and adults) don't get the change to do science (the verb) in school or
science centers. Everything is presented to them rather than trying to
engage them in the process. The process is key, not the facts. I think the
industry agrees on the importance of the process, but look at the exhibits
and programs being promoted and, to paraphrase Wendy's from years ago,
"Where's the science?" It's not there.
Criteria - the ability to engage in open ended, hands-on investigation of
what the visitor (not just the curator) finds interesting. In other words,
let them do science.
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 Bill Schmitt
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:01 AM
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.
****************************************************************************
*
With all the talk about EV / ID - we have periodically motioned the bigger
issue which is building the ability to think scientifically and achieve that
great feeling of really understanding something. In that case it may not
matter what the content is other than it involves good communication with
nature. Thus I have long suspected that any good science investigation
contributes to lifelong science literacy and - and on the other side for
example - a bad physics learning experience that does not generate quality
cognitive engagement and personal understanding can be a significant
contributor to science illiteracy that can actually foster people who are
the problem when it comes to EV /ID and any other science understanding.
So my questions are: What are some specific criteria for any exhibit that
seem to have the power to change a good exhibit into a great self learning
science experience for a visitor? Perhaps the visitor walks away thinking
"Wow, I finally feel that I have the power to think in a way that I
understand more and it really made me feel good." What are some specific
examples of these criteria in action? What did you try that seemed great
for learning at the time - but that you would never do again? What is the
balance between content and supporting personal reasoning to get it? How
many of your exhibits have these criteria?
One example of a project we were doing is an astronomy program for teachers
in which we were exploring the Moon and then predicting phases etc. In
order to help teachers understand the revolution and rotation of the Moon we
modified a great demonstration that we have seen in many places. It
provided a very good explanation and was demonstrated in many ways including
using a model in which a teacher played the part of the Moon and rotated and
revolved around the instructor as the Earth. Teachers drew models to
explain the concept. We (and the teachers) asked questions that pushed to
make certain we all understood the concepts. THEN --- The next day we
presented a simple problem in which the teachers needed to apply the
concepts. Guess what? - The entire class had a major struggle with many
teachers totally unable to apply what they "did not" learn the day before.
BUT - the first teacher who broke through with reasonable ideas was the
teacher who played the part of the Moon in the previous demonstration - and
she had a great big audible "Ah-Ha" as Dave Taylor would have said. Now
this is not new news - but the big issue here is: What criteria should we
apply to change the outcome of the investigation? I do not believe that a
better and more eloquent explanation from the teacher would have helped. The
follow up activity seemed to help but we were not able to test this. What
are the criteria for getting cognitive engagement at it's highest level in
science centers?
One of the most interesting postings that still has me thinking was from
some time ago by Ian Russell that discussed explanatory and exploratory
behavior. What are the essential criteria for getting the exploratory
behavior?
Bill Schmitt
-----Original Message-----
From: Informal Science Education Network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Barbara Punt
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 9:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: question
ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related
institutions.
****************************************************************************
*
While I applaud all the interesting discussion on evolution and intelligent
design, it seems that nobody writes about anything else anymore. I used to
look forward to getting interesting commentary on a variety of subjects.
Does anyone else feel this way, or am I just being a wet blanket here?
Barbara
When in doubt...Punt!
_____
From: Informal Science Education Network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ISEN-ASTC-L automatic
digest system
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 9:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ISEN-ASTC-L Digest - 19 Aug 2005 to 21 Aug 2005 (#2005-205)
***********************************************************************
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]
------
[This E-mail scanned for viruses]
***********************************************************************
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]
|
