ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

Wow, what a great topic! It's funny how these things start with
something so simple and evolve into these online raves.

As I was looking into the ways that "hands-on, hearts-on, minds-on"
terms are being used, I came across this article on creationist science
(http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-281.htm), which underscored for me how
slippery our terminology can be, and why it's good to reflect on and
clarify our jargon periodically. At any rate, I thought it worth chiming
in at this point to add something to the discussion of hands-, hearts-,
minds-on (from here on out, I'm going to abbreviate this as H2MO). I've
amalgamated some of the previous posts below for quick reference.

I think H2MO is reflective of three different components of ourselves:
"Hands-on" is essentially physiological/sensorimotor aspects,
"Hearts-on" is affective/emotional aspects, and "Minds-on" is
cognitive/mental aspects. These are not the only aspects of ourselves,
of course, but these three seem to be at the forefront of much of our
dialogue about the best ways to promote science awareness.

Insofar as we are trying to reach as broad an audience as possible, we
are always in a much better position when we can include/incorporate
these different aspects of ourselves into our institutional structures,
whether those structures be exhibitry, staff training programs, human
resource practices,&c.--any of the many individual and collective
structures that are manifest at our centers. And this has been reflected
in a number of the posts to date and in the ongoing dialogue in our
larger community.

However, the aspects reflected in H2MO are not static, so to speak. They
change form, they evolve. We don't have just one, monolithic form of
cognition or affect or physicality. These aspects are more like streams
or lines that change over time. And those streams seem to move through
several waves or levels of development. That is, over time, these
developing streams (on the whole) evolve into increasingly complex and
increasingly inclusive structures of cognition, emotion, and physique.
And when the new forms emerge along those streams, we generally identify
these points as new stages or waves of development (though it is some
matter of choice just where to draw distinctions).

Effectively, then, we can have several versions of H2MO, depending on
which stage of development we're talking about, and it is crucially
important to make some distinctions about just what form of H2MO we are
talking about, or we end up talking about valid but different truths and
never quite hearing each other. Moreover, because these streams and
waves are components of our very being, when our institutional
structures reflect these dimensions, when we give form to greater
breadth and depth, we resonate more easily with one another, we find
ourselves reflected and magnified, we feed each other in a most
magnificent way. I believe our community is uniquely positioned to
deliver the goods on a grand scale by virtue of the relative depth that
we already manifest as a cultural phenomenon.

There are several excellent stage schemes to look at, all of which give a
snapshot from a different angle. I'd recommend Ken Wilber's "Integral
Psychology" as an excellent anthology for those interested. And I'll
(possibly) be co-hosting a presentation at the next ASTC conference with Bob
and Stephen (see below) where we can explore some of this stuff in more
depth for those attending. I'll pull together a paper based on the
presentation for those interested in looking at one possible version of a
multi-stream, multi-wave model for our community. Presentation or no, I'm
delighted that we talk about these things.

Kurt Koller
Pacific Science Center

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Brand
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 1/15/04 5:58 AM
Subject: Re: Hands-on, Minds-on

In watching this discussion unfold, I have a few quick thoughts.

As much as we would like to define our experiences in ways that make
sense to us and give credibility to the value of our work, what do our
guests think?  What inspires them to visit and what do they expect when
they get there after seeing those terms being used?  When I was at
Liberty Science Center, we had a very prominent exhibit, the Hoberman
sphere, designed by Chuck Hoberman.  Many of you sell a replica of that
exhibit in your stores.  It was one of the most engaging experiences
that we had.  The ooos and ahs and the questions that came out as a
result of observing the exhibit was incredible.  Watching 6 year olds
changing locations as the structure came alive to see something they
didn't before was intriguging, and watching scientists trying to figure
out how it worked was even more intriguing.

Was it interactive?    No
Was it hands-on ?    No
Was it minds on -- whatever that means -- it certainly sparked your
curiousity. Was it hearts on -- not sure what that means either but
watching the surprise in peoples eyes as they arrived I guess it got
their heart pumping.

If I had a museum of Hoberman-like structures or even non interactive
Rhoads scuptures that were big, kinetic and compelling, would it be a
worthwhile place to go visit. Not interactive or hands on, but. . .

To me it's about being compelling, intriguing, inspiring, engaging, a
place that people are willing to visit more than once and a place that
they are willing to tell others that your experience is a must do
experience.  You can't be old, dusty and uninspiring - unless dusty
makes an important point, but you can use interactive, hands on, minds
on and hearts on as tools of the trade. These are the tools we consider
when we create compelling experiences.  If something is better to
observe orjust hear or just smell, hands on may take away from the
exerience.  And if entertainment is a tool we can use to spark someone's
curiousity, use that as a tool.  We should not get bogged down in words
and figure out what our role is with our visitors and guests, depending
on what you call them.

I'm sure this same debate existed when we got tired of the word
interactive.  I laughed a few weeks ago when I refered to one of our
science centers as a traditional interactive science center. Who would
have thought that interactive and traditional would be in the same
sentence?

The challenge is to make a difference regardless of what you offer.

Just some thoughts early on a Thursday morning.

Stephen Brand
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Ian Russell wrote:

I can't quite say why, but the term "minds on" bugs me.  Hands-on
emphasizes
the importance of direct experience with the world, but I'm not sure
what
"minds on" means.  Does it mean pay attention?  If your mind isn't on,
is it off?

Another thing that has always puzzled me is why the word "think" isn't
used
more often when science centers described what they are for.  It seems
to me
that if museums can get people to think about the topics they present,
then the
mission is largely accomplished.

Bob Russell
Learning Experience Design
[log in to unmask]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
 Bravo, Bob. I am in total agreement with you. "Minds-on" as a phrase
 trivializes what we are talking about.

Peter Dow
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

 OK lets argue :-)

I disagree. "Hands-on" isn't enough as a design brief or performance
specification. "Hands-on isn't an instant recipe for success. This is an
important quality control issue for managers of large projects,
responsible for exhibit procurement. An exhibit can be fully hands-on,
visually impressive, on-schedule and within-budget, but still not have
the essential MAGIC to capture and hold people's attention, stimulate
speculation,
exploration and discussion, touch peoples emotions and change their
attitudes. I'm seeing so much glossy, mediocre stuff lately.

Plenty of purely "hands-on" exhibits fail to generate word-of-mouth
recommendation and repeat-visits. The missing MAGIC may be hard to
define, but the commercial success or failure of a project can hinge
on it.

In large, complex projects, any aspect of quality control a project
manager or a committee can't define and pin down with a checklist is
often squeezed
out between shrinking timescales and budgets. MAGIC is just about the
most important quality of a successful science centre. Anything that
helps
A grey-faced committee to get a handle on it is valuable beyond price!

"Hands-on" engages the hands. That's great, as far as it goes.

"Minds-on" engages the mind. Better, because engaged visitors don't
run around making a noise. They can be observed thinking, collaborating,

discussing and experimenting. Observed. It's measurable. Practical.
For quality control purposes, a box can be ticked for that exhibit
component. A project managers dream. If it isn't up to specification,
somebody has to redesign or rebuild it.

"Hearts-on" engages the emotions. Better again, because now people
Walk away feeling more positive about the subject of the exhibition, and
more positive about the exhibition itself. The commercial bottom line
can
be word-of-mouth recommendation and repeat-visits, remember. A bit
harder
to pin down for quality-control purposes in a new project, but not
impossible.

This is so important!

Hands-on, minds-on, hearts-on.

Ian Russell
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Thanks, Ian. I couldn't agree more with you about the missing
ingredients in most glitzy exhibits. Engagement of the head, the heart,
and the hands is the
integration we are looking for. I just think the "on" is superfluous.
But if
it turns people "on," to use the term, so be it. More important to me
would be
to see the rationale for any exhibit set forth in terms of how well it
addresses engagement of the visitor on ALL of these levels. I also think
we should be
discussing the ingredient of "understanding." Does the visitor
comprehend
something more deeply after being so engaged, or have they just been
engaged.
That is the difference, it seems to me, between entertainment and
learning.

Peter Dow

***********************************************************************
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]