What do we know about learning in natural history settings?

What Do We Know about Learning in Natural History Settings?

September 28-October 4, 2011

Participants’ locations

Seeappendix for list of names.

1

Contents 2 Welcome 25 Programs, Audiences and Settings 45 Leveraging Technology 57 Participatory Experiences 70 Relevance 77 Collaboration 87 Participatory Exhibitions and Nature Centers 93 Learning in Natural History Settings 97 Appendix: Forum Outline and Process 98 Participants

Hi Everyone, Welcome to the Expanding Roles for What Do We Know about Learning in Natural History Settings? a CAISE supported online ASTC Connect Forum - thank you for joining us.

From September 28-October 4, Bill Watson from the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History will lead an international discussion exploring the research and evaluation on learning in natural history settings as a foundation for new innovations in learning experiences that meet the needs of 21st Century audiences.

You are receiving this message via ASTC Connect. To reply to a message, click on “reply” at the bottom of this message (not the reply function in your email program) or log into ASTC Connect at http://connect.astc.org and enter the course by clicking on the course title.

To get started, we'd like you all to introduce yourselves by replying to this message within the workshop forum. Click "reply" at the bottom of this message, login, type into the box after the message, and hit “post to forum” when you are finished.

In your introduction, please share the following information: • • •

Tell us your name and where you work What’s your interest in this topic?

What do you expect to learn or gain from this discussion?

Thanks for joining us!

Wendy Hancock

Wendy Hancock Manager, Professional Development Services Association of Science-Technology Centers 1025 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005-6301 USA 202/783-7200 x117 Fax 202/7837207 whancock@astc.org 2 www.astc.org www.exhibitfiles.org

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Elee Kirk ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 03:12 AM

Hi, my name's Elee Kirk.

I've worked in UK science museum education since 2001, and for the last two years have been doing a full time PhD at the School of Museum Studies, University of Leicester. My thesis topic is 'Young children's experience of natural history in museums'.

I've been using children's photography combined with interviews as a way of gaining the perspectives of children aged 4 and 5 years old, visiting the Oxford University Museum of Natural History with their families.

As an educator, I often noticed patterns or features of visitors' learning in the museums, but it was very hard to take the time to stop and evaluate them properly. Doing a PhD has been amazing, in allowing me to more deeply investigate and reflect on the processes of museum learning (and educating).

I'd like for this discussion to help me place my own research in the broader context, and to find out how it fits with people's experience or understanding of other museums and visitors.

I look forward to hearing from you all and seeing how the discussion goes!

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions by martin weiss ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 06:46 AM

Martin Weiss New York Hall of Science Though I work in a science center I am interested in expanding our collaboration with natural history museums in presenting evolution to the public. Though evolution is a subject they routinely present I feel we can offer insight into presenting evolution to younger audiences. My efforts are to understand how to present mechanisms of evolution and its extensive role in our lives, a very complex science fraught with misconceptions, to the general public especially younger audiences.

I'd like some insights into how natural history museums approach presentation of complex sciences like evolution—understanding that there is probably no unified thought on presenting this topic among natural history museums as there is not among science centers.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Remy Dou ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 07:42 AM

Hi everyone,

My name is Remy Dou. I am an Einstein Fellow at the National Science Foundation. I currently serve in the informal science education program. My background is in STEM education. In lieu of that, I am interested in the effectiveness of educating students in informal settings. As most of you know, research supports that these environments often have a much greater impact on learning and career choice than formal settings. I hope to learn, via this discussion, the particular impact of learning in Natural History settings.

Show parent | Reply

3

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Eileen Smith ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 07:56 AM

Eileen Smith E2i Creative Studio, Institute for Simulation and Training, Univ of Central FL, Orlando Hello everyone! My interest is in learning how informal science educators might be interested in using emerging technology in expand the breadth and depth of learning possible. My lab is an applied research lab working on new tools and techniques for simulation­enhanced learning in a wide variety of applications. My background is 20 years in science centers leading development of exhibits and programs.

Eileen Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions by Margie Marino ­ Wednesday, September 28, 2011, 9:01 AM

by Margie Marino ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 08:03 AM

I am Executive Director at the North Museum of Natural History & Science in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I'm very interested in how small natural history museums can make themselves essential to the communities they serve.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Andrés Sehinkman ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 08:06 AM

Hi everyone, I´m Andrés Sehinkman (31), I work at the Museology Department at the Argentine Natural History Museum in Buenos Aires. We´re now working on a project for a new exhibition on Life and Evolution, with focus on Southamerica and Argentina, and have recently opened a new interactive exhibition on birds. With the colaboration of Janet Kamien, we´re now developing visitor´s studies to see how people interacts with this new bird exhibition, what do they learn (if any), etc.

We´re going under major and positive changes over here in terms of science and natural history education, but I feel that we need to get in contact with collegues from other parts of the world and share experiences. I hope this discussion forum would be a goos chance to do that.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions by john scott foster ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 08:14 AM

Greetings, John Scott Foster here. I am the executive director of Wesselman Nature Society, an organization that manages an interpretive center on 200 acres of old growth forest and a 36 acre wetland in Evansville, Indiana. My BS and MS are in Zoology with a Ph.D. in science education/museum studies. I have worked in Zoos most of my career in either the communications research department or running an education department.

My interest in the topic is related to creating experiences which help connect people with nature and how experiences in natural history settings can motivate people to continue to explore and discover the world around them.

What i hope to learn? that's a book. i am interested in how to create experiences that promote cross

4

generational interaction and are meaningful to both young and old audiences. i am also interested in how varying motivations to be in natural areas can be used to enhance learning. i am sure there is more. cheers Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Celeste Sturdevant Reed ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 08:43 AM

Hello, All ­­

My name is Celeste Sturdevant Reed. I am an evaluator with University Outreach and Engagement at Michigan State University; currently one of my projects involves working with the MSU Museum. While I've primarily worked with their cultural exhibits and an annual event they sponsor called the Great Lakes Folk Festival, now I'm working with an NSF­funded BEACON project on the Museum's Evolution in Action exhibit for K­12 students/the general public and their virtual outreach program to K­12 schools. I look forward to this conversation to gain ideas and strategies to help me and my colleagues at the Museum better assess their science exhibits.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Susan Foutz ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 08:46 AM

Susan Foutz, Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI) I have been in the field of evaluation for 8 years during which time I've worked with a number of natural history museums of various sizes. I am interested in the perspectives practitioners (i.e. educators, exhibit developers not evaluators/researchers) will bring to this discussion. I believe it is essential for the field that conversations of this type happen on a regular basis.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Gabrielle Lyon ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 08:51 AM

My name is Gabrielle Lyon. I am the cofounder and executive director of Project Exploration, a nonprofit science education organization dedicated to making science accessible to students of color and girls through personalized experiences with science and scientists.

We serve more than 300 middle and high school students ­ many of whom are first generation college bound ­ through long­term programming that brings students into labs, on expeditions and, of course, into museums and other natural history settings. We work closely with many natural history museums and resources. I'm interested in thinking about how to make these spaces more public and accessible through our programming ­ and how to structure partnerships that capitalize on the respective strengths of informal program providers.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Lewis Stevens ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 09:08 AM

5

Lew Stevens Museum of Science Boston MA I'm the Senior Curator for Living Collections here at the Museum. I am responsible for managing the collection and training staff and volunteers to using them in their programs and interpretations. I have a life long interest in Natural History and finding new ways to engage the public in the topic.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Bill Watson ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 09:15 AM

Thanks to Wendy for getting the ball rolling and to everyone who has posted an introduction so far. There are already some great topics coming to the surface.

I am the Chief of Onsite Learning at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and the moderator of this forum. I've just updated my ASTC Connect Profile with some new information about what I do in that capacity.

Most relevant to this forum, I am the Principal Investigator of the NSF­funded project 21st Century Learning in Natural History Settings. So my interest in this forum is in identifying how we are currently using the unique resources and topics of natural history settings and what ideas we have for doing incredible, innovative things for and with our audiences in the 21st Century.

The discussions here will help to set the agenda for a conference in Washington, DC, February 12­15, 2012. That conference, in turn, will help to set a collaborative research and evaluation agenda to help us learn more about our audiences and identify and test new innovations for connecting to, learning with, and serving them.

A final note: I would be remiss if I did not recognize the incredible team effort that has gone into planning this forum and is going into planning the conference. As moderator, I am the representative of the executive planning team that includes Co­PI Shari Werb, John Falk, Elizabeth Babcock, Kirk Johnson, Kirsten Ellenbogen, Kevin Crowley, and Judy Scotchmoor.

I'm looking forward to a fantastic discussion!

Bill Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Rick Bonney ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 09:39 AM

Hi Bill and others ...

Rick Bonney, from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Can you tell us what you mean by "natural history settings?"

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Amy Rutherford ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 10:29 AM

6

Hi, I am Amy Rutherford, another Zoo person. I am an education specialist at Friends of the National Zoo, the non­profit partner organization to the Smithsonian National Zoo. I work mainly training and supporting our volunteer interpreter programs throughout the park. I have a B.A. in History and an M.A.T. in Museum Education.

What drew me to this forum was the focus on involving the public in science research and the leveraging of new technologies. We do an enormous amount of research both here at the Zoo and in situ, and I would love to find better and more interactive ways to share these stories with our visitors.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Bill Watson ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 12:01 PM

Rick ­

Welcome, and thanks for the great question.

As evidenced by the participants and comments so far (and your work), one thing we can say is that it goes well beyond the confines of natural history museums.

Refining what's meant by "natural history settings" is one of the questions we'll consider for the first topic of discussion. Head on over to that thread and let's take up the discussion there!

Bill Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Harry Schram ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 09:42 AM

Hi, Time for a zoo person to introduce himself! I'm Harry Schram, working as an educator on exhibit conception, design and interpretation for the Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp (in Belgium). We operate three live animal collections: Antwerp Zoo, Planckendael and the Blankenberge Serpentarium. Plus a conference and concert centre, a nature reserve, a small planetarium and a Centre for Research and Conservation that runs several in situ field research and conservation projects. I'm also a member of the Visitor Studies working group of the European Association of Zoos and Aquariums, and the editor of "Looking at people looking at animals", an international bibliography on zoo and aquarium visitor studies and visitor experiences.

Best Harry Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Timshel Purdum ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 09:22 AM

My name is Timshel Purdum and I work at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. My natural history museum is getting ready to celbrate its 200 anniversary in 2012. I am interested in this topic as my

7

museum reflects on what its next 200 years will be like as far as remaining relevant. I am looking to learn more about how visitors learn in natural history museums in order to improve our exhibits and programs as we look towards the future.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Richard Efthim ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 09:30 AM

Hi, I'm Rich Efthim.

I've been working in education at the Smithsonian's Natural History Museum for about 31 years, almost all of it as manager of the Museum's Naturalist Center. For those unfamiliar with it, the 8,000 square foot education facility provided full access by the public to over 30,000 natural history objects, 5,000 books and scientific tools such as microscopes.

We worked to recreate the "learning ecosystem" of museum scientists. That is, what do scientists need from the museum to fuel their passion for learning? Would providing visitors the same environment foster similar passion for learning? We found the answer to be a resounding "yes". It was especially rewarding to see the broad and diverse ways that school teachers perfected their skills in inquiry based instruction and used the resources. They covered topics that ranged from science to art and social studies (even language arts and math) for all grade levels and learning abilties. We hope to incorporate much of what we learned about learning into a new education center at the National Museum of Natural History in the coming year.

As you can guess, I am very interested in learning how people learn. I want to perfect strategies that not only inspire people to want to learn more than when they walked in our door, but to find the most effective ways to provide them with the resources found in museums to make their experience truly unforgetable!

I think learning about how others in this group go through the process of creative problem solving to explore this topic will be fascinating!

It's time to change the way we "look" at museums!

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Judy Scotchmoor ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 09:41 AM

Hi All! My name is Judy Scotchmoor and I am the Assistant Director at the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) and the Project Coordinator of both the Understanding Evolution and Understanding Science websites.

UCMP is a research museum on the campus and unlike many of your institutions, we are NOT open to the public. So we have some interesting challenges in sharing our research, engaging the public with science, and increasing science understanding. As a result, we have relied heavily on web applications and collaborations with others.

I am interested in seeing new ways that we may interact with others and support learning!

Show parent | Reply

8

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Gabrielle Lyon ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 10:08 AM

hi Judy! Fancy meeting you here! gabe Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Rebecca Bray ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 10:08 AM

My name is Rebecca Bray. I work with Bill Watson in the Office of Education and Outreach at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. I am the Manager of Interaction Design and Strategy here, working to use emerging technology and new media to engage with our visitors onsite and online.

I am hoping to learn more from my colleagues around the world about your experiences educating about natural history, especially about emerging trends and lessons learned about new technology and engagement beyond the walls of your institution.

Rebecca

Rebecca Bray Manager of Interaction Design & Strategy Office of Education and Outreach National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Tel: (202) 633­1086 Email: brayr@si.edu Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Judy Archer ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 10:10 AM

Hi all,

My name is Judy Archer and I work in the Education Department of the Calgary Zoo in Canada. We work with all ages and different types of groups from families to school programs to adult education to on­site visitors. Learning is a part of the equation but we really want to do is connect people to the natural world in ways that are meaningful to them and that ultimately might inspire them to care a little bit more and be stewards of our world and our resources. And it has to be fun and engaging.

I'm always interesting in current research, and in new ideas people are doing that we might try here. How do we accomplish our mission and keep it fun and engaging? How do we know we are making a difference?

Judy Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Kaleen Povis ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 10:15 AM

9

Nice to meet you all.

I'm Kaleen E. Povis, a Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh Center for Learning in Out­of­School Environments (UPCLOSE).

My work focuses on how museum visitors engage with exhibit spaces, content, and labeling, as well as with each other. In my current role as Research Fellow at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, I am designing dynamic, interactive exhibits that expose collections and help people connect to the natural world.

I look forward to taking with all of you about current research, practices, and ideas.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Ellen Giusti ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 10:46 AM

I'm Ellen Giusti. I was in­house evaluator at the American Museum of Natural History for 15 years. I am now a freelance evaluator, still working at AMNH as well as other museums.

I am interested in (among other things) in early childhood science education. I am working with the Science and Nature Program for young children at AMNH to learn about the lasting impact of early science. Do kids who participate in this program retain their interest in science and the natural world as they advance through their school years? Do they maintain their close relationship with museums as sources of enjoyment and learning?

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Winifred Kehl ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 08:28 PM

Hey Kaleen! I didn't know that's what you'd be working on. You should tell me more about it ­ it sounds related to my thesis work!

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Molly Phipps ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 10:23 AM

Hi, I'm Molly Phipps ­ Senior Evaluation and Research Associate at the Science Museum of Minnesota. We're a combined science center and natural history museum. I've recently been working with a geology professor at a local university who has developed a self­guided field trip for his students using the Museum's dinosaur and fossil collection.

Looking forward to the discussion, Molly Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

10

by Patrick McShea ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 10:30 AM

Hello All,

I'm Patrick McShea, an educator at Carnegie Museum of Natural History for the past 25 years with major responsiblity for the museum's teaching collection, a resource long known as the Educational Loan Collection. My interest in the forum topic relates to an ongoing effort to utilize the materials of this vast set to enhance visitor experiences when those items are not being used in local classrooms. I hope to learn strategies to improve the effectiveness of this project.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Eric Gyllenhaal ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 10:37 AM

Hi, I'm Eric Gyllenhaal. My history with natural history settings goes back a ways, since I began my career at age 11 volunteering at a children's nature museum. I've also worked as a naturalist and curator of natural science at a children's museum and as an exhibit developer and evaluator at a natural history museum.

Now I work part­time for various Chicago area research and evaluation firms, sometimes on natural history projects, like a research study of the role that sense of place plays in visitors' wildlife diorama experiences (with Garibay Group), the evaluation of the Trail of Time on the South Rim of Grand Canyon (with Selinda Research Associates), and formative evaluation of a school tour program at a new nature preserve (with Evergreene Research and Evaluation).

The other half of my life is as a no­longer­stay­at­home­much parent of two ardent teenage birders. As a family we've been finding our places in the vast community of birders and bird­related organizations, at home and in the field, off­line and on­line, not­for­profit and for­profit, externally organized and self­ organizing. My place in this community is as a parent­participant­observer­club member­ eBirder/FeederWatcher­volunteer educator­sometime blogger and writer.

Oh, and I want to find out what kind of research and evaluation projects are going on in various sorts of natural history settings, as well as how natural history organizations are supporting natural history learning that takes place out in the world, far from the closest museum or university building or museum educator/professor.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Chris Myers ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 10:35 AM

Hi everyone, Chris Myers from Project Dragonfly at Miami University.

I am always interested in ways to support communities through shared knowledge creation and public action. Project Dragonfly is a long­term advocate of participatory science media. We are currently co­ creating a network of public research stations across a consortium of about 20 zoos and aquariums (and the Liberty Science Center). We also conduct MA/MAT degree programs for ISE professionals and others (the Global Field Program and Advanced Inquiry Program).

Looking forward to the discussion.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

11

by Valerie Fish ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 10:46 AM

Valerie Fish Senior Museum Education Planner New York State Museum Albany, New York For the past ten years I’ve worked with our research scientists and curators to produce professional development workshops for teachers. Staff at the NY State Museum conducts research in biology, geology, archaeology, history and cultural anthropology.

We offer teacher workshops based on Museum research in earth science and biological evolution, plus workshops in archaeology and cultural anthropology that focus on the Native People of New York State. A main goal is to encourage teachers to use the Museum and to utilize access to our research scientists and historians, and to our collections. We are having a problem with declining enrollment, even though teachers must earn professional development credits each year. Also, visits by school children have declined. Teachers cite school budget cuts and changing testing mandates as restrictions on decisions they make about using local resources. I’m interested in new methods to strengthen ties to the local community.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Karen Hays ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 10:49 AM

I'm Karen Hays and I work at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

My interest in this topic is based on gaining more insight about the learning that goes on within our walls as well as outside of here, particularly where we can help our school audiences with 21st Century learning experiences.

I hope to hear more about the research that is out there and how I can apply it to what I do as manager of our School Programs.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Jeanne Moe ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 11:05 AM

Hello,

My name is Jeanne Moe and I work for the US Bureau of Land Management. I lead Project Archaeology, which is a national education program for anyone interested in teaching archaeological science and heritage stewardship. We are especially interested in using archaeology to engage underserved audiences in science education in both formal and informal learning. I'm hoping to gain greater insight into informal learning in natural history settings, especially in regards to underserved audiences.

Best, Jeanne Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Kathleen Tinworth ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 11:07 AM

12

I'm Kathleen Tinworth, Director of Visitor Research & Program Evaluation at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

Many thanks to Bill and his Co­Is for inviting us into this group. It is already proving interesting, reading peoples' introductions and learning about their interests in, issues with, and definitions of natural history settings and 21st century learning.

My interest in the topics outlined in Bill's more recent post run deep. I am particularly interested in how our communities (not necessarily visitors, though many in our local Denver community fortunately are) define science and nature in their daily lives, how they interact with, learn about, and dig into these topics, and what museums are and potentially can be to them as resources. My department has been piloting research in this area through use of more ethnographic approaches over the past few months, getting outside our museum's walls and speaking to community members on their own turf­­ be it community festivals, urban gardens, farmers markets, parks, schools­­ about these topics. We are learning so much from our early work and I am hoping to pair it with the more inwardly­focused lens of this dialogue.

I am psychologist by training and an avid consumer trend­watcher, so I am also interested in what we are doing in museums to meet consumers' (of museums, of science and nature, of technology, of knowledge, of the world) needs and wants. I blog about the intersection of consumer trends and the visitos experience at www.exposeyourmuseum.com, and I know this dialogue will feed me in that arena as well.

Great to "meet" you all, and I look forward to this discussion. ­Kathleen Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Robert Bixler ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 11:08 AM

I am an associate professor in a Park, Recreation and Tourism Management Department. Since 1992, I have been figuring out the developmental pathways people take into (and away from) the outdoors, nature and natural history. I coined the term "environmental socialization" as an alternative view of environmental education, arguing that informal rec/leisure experiences prime people to care and value what they learn through environmental education. Without those experiences, what is learned in school and other settings is less likely to be valued, retained and acted on.

I approach my work from the perspective, not of education, but through the psychology and sociology of leisure behavior. I view what we need to accomplish as requiring a refocusing from a narrow educational focus toward a broader, less formal, experiential and socially precocious agenda. So, even though I personally care nothing for bars, "Science Pubs" as an alternative to "Sports and Cigar Bars" is a really good idea.

Equally important to me is the need to re­connect people to their local natural history. Every research project I have seen in the last 20 years suggests that we are least knowledgeable about our own back yards.

Rob Robert D. Bixler Clemson University Show parent | Reply

13

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Maura Thompson ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 11:09 AM

Hi All, My name is Maura Thompson. I am the Associate Director of Children's Outreach at WNET, the New York City PBS station. I direct national outreach for Jim Henson's Dinosaur Train so a lot of the partnership we develop, and encourage stations to develop through outreach grants, are with natural history museum (and zoos and aquariums).

I am here to learn from you! I hope to learn in particular about organizations that provide educational experiences for preschool and kindergarten audiences.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Paula Brown­Williams ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 11:25 AM

Hello, my names is Paula Williams. I am the director of the Eastern Sierra Institute, a science education nonprofit based in Bishop California. We conduct a variety of place­based educational programs. I am interested in learning what recent research has been done to evaluate the impact of natural history programs, what the findings suggest, and what gaps in knowledge need addressing.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Mary Marcussen ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 11:27 AM

Hi everyone. This is Mary Marcussen, national project and proposal developer for submissions to the NSF Informal Science Education Program. My projects span museum and science center exhibitions, media projects, youth and community programs, informal learning research, and capacity­building projects to build infrastructure in ISE. I cut my teeth at the California Academy of Sciences, first curating the ornithology and mammalogy collections, then as a Senior Educator, and finally as the National Grants Manager – and the rest is history.

I have worked on some fantastic projects involving natural history museums, and they remain my first love.

I am interested in exploring creative ways to continue to increase their relevance and vitality. What I gain from this forum will impact many future projects for museums across the U.S. Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions by Linda Vigdor

by Linda Vigdor ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 11:29 AM

Hello I am currently doing grant development/writing at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) working with two groups focused around the intersections of technology, art, and science. The Advanced Visualization Laboratory creates computationally driven planetarium dome shows and IMAX films. My own background includes working as a professional artist, a PhD in educational psychology, and

14

last year, a post doc studying art­science collaborations.

I've been delving into the informal science education literature and want to learn more about how museum people, educators, and learners view the learning that happens in these environments. My other interest is in how the arts­technology aspects contribute to learning.

Linda Vigdor Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Jim Kisiel ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 11:33 AM

Greetings colleagues!

My name is Jim Kisiel. I'm an Associate Professor of Science Education at California State University, Long Beach (That's just south of LA).

Before arriving at the university, I worked within the education department at the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum, where I helped coordinate and develop outreach programs for local schools. I also worked as an evaluator for the department. Currently, my research interests involve understanding learning in informal environments, and as it turns out, I've worked on several projects conducted with natural history museum visitors.

I do think these places have unique opportunities (and challenges) as learning environments and communities. I look forward to listening in on the discourse over the next few days to learn more about the perspectives of others in the field.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Julie Fick ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 11:53 AM

Hello everyone! My name is Julie Fick and I am the science education specialist at the Michigan State University Museum. My position was just created a few months ago, so I am feeling my way around academia, having come from K­12 science teaching and curriculum work in mid­Michigan. I want to become part of a long­lasting network of informal science colleagues around the country (globe) that share ideas, successes, and even the things that didn't work so well. I also am looking for topics that spark my interest for a PhD in informal science education.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Bridget Butler ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 12:07 PM

I'm Bridget Butler, I work at ECHO Lake Aquarium & Science Center in Burlington Vermont on the waterfront of Lake Champlain.

I am a career naturalist who has spent most of my years in the field teaching environmental and conservation education to all types of audiences from preschoolers to foresters. I am now teaching about the outdoors from an indoor setting where we do not currently facilitate experiences outdoors. I'm curious about how museums & science centers can help people connect and reconnect with the natural environment when they rely on solely on an indoor setting and their collections...animals or otherwise. I am also curious about the potential for partnerships between museums/aquariums/zoos and other environmental groups/organizations that don't rely on a physical space to deliver programming in order to

15

make that inside­out connection.

What I'm looking for...innovation, something creative, something fresh...I would like to hear more about how technology can help expose new audiences to the outdoors and their local environment. Looking for ways for technology to make science and natural history more accessible to people, and how technology can enhance an outdoor experience rather than hamper it. Vermont is also working toward standards for environmental literacy and I'd like to hear what other states are doing and what role museums/science centers/aquariums/zoos play in meeting those standards.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Steve Yalowitz ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 12:24 PM

Hello everyone, I'm Steve Yalowitz, a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI), a non­profit evaluationa group. I've worked on many evaluation and audience research projects with natural history museums over the years.

My interests focus on the roles natural history museums play in peoples' lives, including the short­ and longer­term outcomes and contributions they make. I'm interested in the mix of interpretive approaches and media being used, what they offer individually and collectively. As a bilingual (Spanish/English) evaluator, i'm also interested in the role of bilingual approaches and how bilingual groups (especially intergenerational groups) navigate the visit, and how cultural and societal norms influence the experience.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Brad Irwin ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 12:56 PM

Hey everyone My name is Brad Irwin and I am a Learning Manager at the Natural History Museum, London. I am part of a team responsible for the management and professional development of our Science Educations (of which we have around 25). I am particularly passionate about reflective practice and embedding excellence into the delivery of our diverse and extensive learning programme.

I have also recently been seconded to work in the museums newly developed Centre for Arts and Humanities Research (CAHR). The centre enables and promotes research into the collection through partnerships with universities, research councils, foundations, major museums and libraries around the world.

Really looking forward to hearing from international colleagues on research and evaluation on learning in natural history settings. As well as the role of reflective practice to ensure high quality delivery of programmes.

Cheers Brad Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by James Bryant ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 01:03 PM

Hello to everyone in this remarkable group.

My name is James Bryant and I'm Curator of Natural History in the museum department for the City of

16

Riverside, California. In the earlier stages of my career I happened to be at the Insect Zoo at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington (when Richard Efthim was still pretty new to the Naturalist's Center), and the "chrome domed" fellow in my profile picture is Rusty Russell, another Smithsonian colleague with whom I've been collaborating on new ways to help historic collections inform education programs as well as contemporary research into biodiversity and environmental issues.

I think the work on this topic is vital to the future of science education in this country. Natural history was once a part of the background of any liberally educated person, and that tradition lapsed badly in the late 20th century. Because of this, the nation suffers from widespread suspicion of science and miscomprehension the central concepts of modern research (into natural selection, etc.).

Fortunately, new technologies are making the revivival of natural history a practical realilty for many audiences that had been previously deprived of the experience, and museums should be among the leaders in this effort. I hope this project will produce a more frequent exchange of ideas among programs (regardless of the size or location of the institutions), a more coordinated effort to get the maximum impact from the resources at hand, and lend a greater sense of urgency to the effort to restore natural history's place in the range of society's primary cultural activities.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Sasha Palmquist ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 01:59 PM

My name is Sasha Palmquist and I am a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI). My research and evaluation in Natural History Museums has been focused on parent­child interactions and the influence of prior knowledge on learning conversations in these settings. I am looking forward to a lively discussion and exchange of ideas. See you on the topic threads!

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Mary Harper ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 02:43 PM

Hello

I'm Mary Harper, Education & Program Manager at Turtle Bay Exploration Park in Redding CA. We are a mid sized museum with a multidisipline approach with one area focused on Natural Sciences. I am interested in leaning more about how visitors learn in informal education settings and how that can be used to enhance programs.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Kathleen McLean ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 03:06 PM

Hi everyone, Kathleen McLean here. I'm a museum exhibition and program consultant currently working on several natural science projects, including renovation of the natural sciences gallery at the Oakland Museum of California. I am interested in peoples' emotional and imaginative connections with the natural world.

Show parent | Reply

17

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Tove Irene Dahl ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 03:40 PM

Hallo! I am Tove Dahl, an educational psychologist working at the University of Tromsø in northern Norway. I am involved with a large project with 6 institutional partners and over 50 researchers called Northern InSights ­­ a research program devoted to understanding tourism in the High North.

The group that I am working with is focusing mostly on the quality of visitor experiences with a special emphasis on how we can use experiences in our region to arouse and sustain interest in region­relevant or region­inspired topics. We are approaching this through our respective research traditions in the areas of discourse comprehension, emotion and the co­creation of experiences.

We are also interested in identifying effective but unobtrusive methods for capturing people's experiences.

I myself am particularly interested in how we can use "citizen science" to help map how people experience the High North in psychological terms.

I hope to learn about constructs and methods people use in studying natural history environments that may be relevant for the work that we are doing, too.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Greg Danner ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 07:52 PM

Greg Danner Anchorage Museum The Anchorage Museum features a wide variety of topics, and while the Imaginarium Discovery Center (the science center within the museum) is not strictly a natural history museum, we certainly cover topics in natural history. One of the challenges I've noticed about these exhibits is that some of our visitors see no reason for us to have them at all, and many of the visitors seem to under­appreciate the connections within the exhibits and between those exhibits, other science­oriented components, and the museum at large. One of my goals is to help people discover and make connections, and I hope that this discussion will provide some testable, practical methods for that.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Wendy Derjue­Holzer ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 11:05 PM

Hi. I’m Wendy Derjue­Holzer, education director at the Harvard Museum of Natural History. I’ve been here for 5 years but I’m still working through how to translate some the “science center” ideas that work so well at the Exploratorium (where I worked for 4 years) to a natural history context. In typical science centers you can see people doing things and ideally testing ideas. What ideas do visitors test in my museum? As an educator with very little time spent on evaluation or research, I’m interested in using this forum to connect me to some of the insights provided by them. My day to day questions range from how do we help visitors to make more sense of the mineral gallery beyond “wow, those are pretty”, to ways we serve our university community including as a connection to a public audience.

(And as the parent of a 4 year old, I’ve been enjoying Dinosaur Train. Thanks Maura and WNET.) Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

18

by Grace Kimble ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 02:45 AM

Hi, I'm Grace and I work at the Natural History Museum in London (with Brad, see above!)

I am a Learning Programme Developer for schools and family audiences. One of the things I am working on is our use of videoconferencing to extend the reach of our Nature Live sessions for schools.

I am also doing a part­time PhD based at the Institute of Education; Professor Michael Reiss is my supervisor. The working title of my research is is 'Bringing Natural History collections to Life!' and I am specifically looking at the impact of combining activities with specimens together with either habitat exploration or live animal experiences.

I am looking forward to finding out more about your practice, and it would be great to hear any examples of how you use ICT to widen access (NHM role) or how you work with environment centres or zoos (student role).....

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Heather King ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 05:19 AM

Hi, I'm Heather King, a post­doctoral research associate working at King's College London.

One of my main research interests is how educators can better support learners and teachers grapple with the science of natural history (a very different form of science from the physical sciences).

I really welcome the opportunity to discuss and share ideas with others in the field of natural history education.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Jose I Pareja ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 06:48 AM

Hi everyone, I'm Jose Ignacio Pareja Co­Creator and Former Associate Director of the Global Field Program and Advanced Inquiry Progam. Chris Myers (see above) and I have worked very closely together the last three+ years to get these two programs (GFP & AIP) up and running. Currently I serve as Advisor to Project Dragonfly Graduate Programs (AIP, GFP and Earth Expeditions) and work Full­time at Earlham College with Science Faculty in technological applications in science education via formal and informal venues.

My interests are two: Informal Science Teaching & Learning through Field Experiences (Abroad and in the US) and Faculty teaching & learning sciences with technology in formal and informal venues.

Looking forward to the discussion.

Show parent | Reply

19

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Catherine Sutera ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 08:49 AM

Hi everyone, My name is Catherine Sutera and I work with Bill Watson at the National Museum of Natural History. I'm the Ocean Science Educator, working on programs for the Sant Ocean Hall and collaborating on other projects across the museum.

I'm pretty new to the field, finishing my master's less than two years ago. The major component of my job is programs for visitors at the museum and I'd like to learn about the best practices for engaging people in the 21st century.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Maria Womack ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 10:30 AM

Hi everyone, My name is Margarita Womack. I have recently completed a postdoctoral fellowship in ecology and evolutionary biology research. I am interesting in transitioning into science education. I hope to learn through these discussions more about exciting developments in the field.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Maija Sedzielarz ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 11:46 AM

Hi, Coming in a little late to the party. I am currently a program developer at the Science Museum of Minnesota. One of my current responsibilities is to head a community­based "trading place" for natural objects in two area libraries. It is based on the Collectors' Corner model, here at the Science Museum. We hope to engage kids coming to the library in observing, collecting ( in a broad sense), and researching natural objects, but giving points for what they can tell about the object they bring in. We have many research questions and not enough financial resources to research them all! We are now thinking about how to include family support in the endeavor in much more explicit ways. Looking forward to stimulating discussions.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Linda Wilson ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 11:59 AM

Hi all

I'm Linda Wilson, Director of Impact Assessment at Shedd Aquarium in Chicago We have a lot of information about our visitors, and are of course interested in their motivations for visiting. We have our mission, of course (At Shedd Aquarium animals connect you to the living world, inspiring you to make a difference) but that's a general statement, not something we can actually measure without a lot more work.

20

We are most decidely audience­centric in our planning. Locals and tourists in general do not come because they want learn conservation (or even natural history). Our guests, as many who come to zoos and aquariums, are already predisposed tiowards animals and conservation, and a part of our role is to reinforce and validate those attitudes.

I've enjoyed the comments so far, which focus on special programs, extended contacts and the like. I am also interested in the impact on casual visitors, who comprise the bulk of the audience to any public facility and can be a great resource in accomplishing our mission(s) Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Darcie MacMahon ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 12:37 PM

My name is Darcie MacMahon and I'm the exhibits director at the Florida Museum of Natural History. I am interested in the role exhibitions play in learning, communicating messages visually, natural history museums as places for community to gather and converse, and new ways of thinking about leveraging the inherent strengths of exhibitions to create compelling, memorable, fun and meaningful experiences for visitors.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Jennifer Arseneau ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 04:37 PM

Jennifer Arseneau University of Alaska Museum of the North (Fairbanks) I am interested in keeping programming and exhibits compelling and relevant. Wondering what the most current research in nat. hist. museums can tell us and what success stories others have to share.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Leah Blaney ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 05:54 PM

Hello all, My name is Leah Blaney and I am the Education and Community Outreach Manager for the Beaty Biodiversity Museum in Vancouver Canada. We are a new (celebrating our one year anniversary this month) natural history museum at the University of British Columbia, home to over 2 million specimens and over 50 biodiversity researchers.

While I’m interested in many aspects of this topic, creating meaningful partnerships with schools and community groups is particularly relevant to my current work.

I apologize for joining the conversation late. I’ve recently returned from maternity leave and I’m only in the office two days/week for the next few months.

Regards, Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Elizabeth Burke ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 08:00 PM

21

My name is Elizabeth Burke. I am a non­formal environmental educator, and principal of my company, Mud Pie Planet. I contract to non­profits in the DC area, as well as to the National Park Service.

As a direct result of a friendship with a library technology specialist, 've just started to appreciate the resources available through natural history museums, art museums and libraries.

I hope to learn more about the interface between technology and environmental education. I work with children and young adults and would like to better understand how to use technology to enhance my students' experience.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Melody Basham ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 11:29 PM

My name is Melody Basham. . .I am a doctorate candidate at ASU in Educational Leadership and Innovation and for the past 5 years have worked as an informal science educator and program developer.

My present research is centered around developing strategies and best practices in the integration of informal science with ESL curriculums serving adult immigrants here in Phoenix Arizona. I have served as a project director for several pilot programs in nursing homes, museums, and other institutions serving marginalized populations. I hope to learn much from all of you about teaching and learning in the Natural History setting and how we can best serve all populations.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Lynda Kelly ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 06:14 PM

Hi, and apologies for being a little late to this. I'm Lynda Kelly, Manager of Online, Editing and Audience Research at the Australian Museum, Sydney. I have published widely in museum evaluation and the impact of social media/Web 2.0 on contemporary museum practice. I am particularly interested in visitor experiences and learning and how these can be measured, young children’s learning, online learning as well as the strategic uses of audience research and new technologies in organisational change. I'm happily obsessed with all things Web 2.0 and curious to see how this will change the world that museums operate within and the ways people learn. I am also the Director of Museum3, a not­for­profit social network site for museum professionals, with an active, global membership of over 3,000. In 2007 I completed my PhD in museum learning and visitor identities with my case studies undertaken in the Australian Museum (a large natural history museum in Sydney). In 2010 my latest book, Hot Topics, Public Culture, Museums, co­ edited with Dr Fiona Cameron, University of Western Sydney was released.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Marie Studer ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 04:27 PM

Hi! I'm Marie Studer and I work for the Encyclopedia of Life as the Learning and Education director. I'm late to this discussion forum, but look forward to catching the beginning of the next ones.

EOL (www.eol.org) is a free, on­line resource that aggregates up­to­date content (text, images, video, podcasts) about organisms and makes it available to be re­used and re­purposed under Creative Commons or other open access licenses.

I'm very interested in learning how on­line resources can be better utilized to extend and enhance the

22

learning that happens in the spectrum of natural history settings. I'd like to learn more (and do more!) research related to the impact of authentic experiences in learning and the guidelines or conditions for creating successful learning outcomes.

I hope to gain better familiarity with the diversity of natural history settings that exist and skills, tools and technologies that can be brought to bear on this topic.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Winifred Kehl ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 08:30 PM

Hello! I never introduced myself...

Tell us your name and where you work Winifred Kehl, graduate student in the University of Washington's museology program What’s your interest in this topic?

I'm interested in science communication at museums, especially through exhibits.

What do you expect to learn or gain from this discussion?

I'm writing my thesis on how museums use what we know about how people learn science to design their exhibits.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Dawn Sanders ­ Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 05:37 AM

hi everyone my name's Dawn Sanders I'm a freelance person who works with a variety of organisations and research partners in the UK and Sweden. My big fields of interest are how children and young people engage with plant life both at home and in botanical gardens via cultural border crossings (such as Pokemon artefacts and childrens literature) and tactile engagement with living specimens­(this is the living botanical side). My other big interest is how dead preserved zoological specimens in natural history museums might afford family conversations about the nature of life, death and extinction (the dead side)­ Dr Jill Hohenstein at King's College London is my co­partner in these explorations. I'm really excited this forum has been set up and look forward to hearing different voices in and on natural history settings and learning.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Welcome and Introductions

by Bill Watson ­ Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 08:41 AM

Thank you all for your participation in this forum! It has been a rich discussion, very productive for defining and refining our work together.

We will host a second discussion leading up to the February conference on 21st Century Learning in Natural History Settings from November 30 ­ December 6. The conference planning team will use that forum (and this one) to pursue the agenda for the conference. I hope it can be an extension of this conversation and clarification of the ideas we've shared here.

If you have ideas for discussion topics for the next forum, please do not hesitate to send them directly to

23

me through ASTC Connect or at watsonb@si.edu.

Thank you for your participation in this discussion. I am looking forward to re­reading the posts and continuing to bring our collective vision into focus.

Show parent | Reply

You are logged in as Grace Kimble (Logout)

24

1. Programs, Audiences and Settings Thanks again to everyone for your introductions! It's great to see some of the themes we had in mind come up, along with many others to enrich the discussion.

I'd like to kick off a discussion thread for today on Programs, Audiences, and Settings. Kathleen, Rick, Eric, Judy, and Rob ­ among others ­ have already alluded to a few of the key questions on this topic: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

What is a natural history setting?

Who are our audiences?

What are the particular assets, affordances, and challenges of different settings (e.g., museum, nature center, the forest, your backyard, online)?

What do we know about who is attracted to different types of settings, and what kinds of programs are effective for which audiences?

How can we attract new audiences and link experiences across settings?

What kinds of experiences are our audiences calling for that we're not providing yet?

What perspectives or examples from your experiences do you have about these questions?

Bill

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings. by john scott foster ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 12:27 PM

well, the nature center is a natural history setting. when you think about it, a unique blend of an interpretive center/experience and a "real" place. i think one issue with these settings is that the interpretive experience often focuses on larger, more general issues (water cycles, etc) and does little to help the visitor make sense of the experience out on the property itself.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Kaleen Povis ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 12:40 PM

report_47.pdf Though the particular research paper I'm attaching is a few years old, I find it useful to compare visitors across museums when thinking about the Natural History Museum audience.

This report, posted on InformalScience.org by Randi Korn and Associates contains a list on Page vi comparing the demographics of science center and natural history museum visitors.

Show parent | Reply

25

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Kaleen Povis ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 12:40 PM

report_47.pdf Though the particular research paper I'm attaching is a few years old, I find it useful to compare visitors across museums when thinking about the Natural History Museum audience.

This report, posted on InformalScience.org by Randi Korn and Associates contains a list on Page vi comparing the demographics of science center and natural history museum visitors.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Eric Gyllenhaal ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 12:47 PM

Bill. I'm having trouble thinking of a setting that does not have potential for natural history learning.

Maybe downtown Chicago­­the Loop? Nope, there are building stones from around the world (many with fossils), and this time of year migrating birds hit the windows in large numbers (bird collision monitors send the live ones the rehabilitation and the dead ones to the Field Museum).

Of course, challenges there include getting folks who visit and work there to (1) pay attention to the natural history, and (2) helping them find resources to make sense or meaning of it.

Lists, tables, charts, graphics....need a way to deal with the complexity.

Eric Gyllenhaal Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Margie Marino ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 12:54 PM

1. Any man­made or natural setting that provides a context for a natural history discussion, activity, or program. I think this can be as traditional as a cabinet museum or as authentic as a tour to the Galapagos­­something I had the good fortune to lead last year. Our museum is on a college campus. It's not a natural setting, but it has trees, plants, birds, and urban wildlife. We take day trips to quarries and nuclear power plants. I would find it easier to answer­­what isn't a natural history setting?

2. Life­long learners. Even as an evaluator, I find it difficult to narrow our audience. If you say "families" then you are saying people of all ages. Our school groups and biggest fans are elementary and pre­school children, but we reach middle and high school with science fair and career outreach programs, and most of our hundreds of volunteers are seniors. We've been around a while, so older residents remember a trip to the Museum as a child, or with their young children. We would like to do more programs for them.

3. This is a tough question. I think the cost of fuels, buses, and liability insurance have made transportation challenging for the schools, and challenging for museums, but authentic sites are best.

4. We have over a hundred kids in our small museum now that are having the time of their lives. At first glance, it doesn't seem to be an effective setting­­stuff in cases, not much hands­on. But it's the people and the novelty of it all that brings it alive.

5. I'd like to do more in the community­­cafes, etc. Just trying to figure out how education in some of these

26

non­traditional settings can cover costs, much less be revenue­driving, which is essential in this economic environment. But I'm optimistic that it can be done. The key to most of this is collaboration. Every senior setting has individuals interested in science and they can all assign volunteers­­it's just a matter of finding a niche and developing a reputation for it.

6. I've been thinking about this a lot, and I read AAM's Ken Kay article with great interest. I think our young people need more internships and work experiences that will help them become successful when they are in the workplace, creating businesses, and inventing new products. I think natural history settings are particularly good for this kind of thing.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Eric Gyllenhaal ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 01:36 PM

Natural_History_Settings­Authenticity_vs_Interpretation.doc Thinking a bit more about "natural history settings," I tried to put some order on all the possibilities in my head. My approach defines a space using the dimensions of authenticity (thanks, Marge!) and interpretation (as in, how much of it is available?). Then it locates some potential natural history settings within that space.

I did it using old technology (Word text boxes, if you can believe it), but at least that should be accessible to almost everyone to make additions/changes. Maybe a tech­minded person can improve on that approach using some other widely available program.

Eric Gyllenhaal Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Robert Bixler ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 03:49 PM

1.

What is a natural history setting?

A natural history setting can be anywhere­­I have great fun in the weedy fields underneath high voltage power lines easements­­hardly exotic/sexy but loaded with insects, birds, reptiles, hard to ID asters, etc­­a life time's work. A refinement of this question might be "What settings can be targeted to be enriched in terms of biodiversity such that people have greater opportunity for natural history experiences?" Two things come to mind. The first is the anti­display of collections philosophy of many museums. There is something impressive about 2,000 species of beetles displayed on a wall in a museum­­what a great and concrete way to communicate the diversity of life. The second is the bleakness of the "Great American Lawn". Jenkins in her book "The Lawn: History of an American Obscession" oultines how the USGA with help with the Garden Clubs of America mounted in 1900 an almost 50­year long PR campaign to instill in Americans that the suburban lawn should look like a golf course. This was done to create large markets for newly developed hybrids of grass seed, chemicals and fertilizers. No wonder we are unaware of the natural history in our own backyard­­there isn't much. Promoting new types of home landscaping is important to broadly rejuvinating interest in natural history.

Who are our audiences­­what are new audiences?

I think that we make a mistake when we refer to demographic characteristics of natural history enthusiasts. Were the early conservationists such as John Muir, Bob Marshall, George Grinnell, etc, etc, just a bunch of white males? Hardly, with women and minorities largely marginalized and invisible during that period in history, these "white males" were in conflict with a vast majority of other white males. Not a useful descriptor. More focused descriptors are needed for us to go about introducing diverse populations

27

to natural history. Demographics are societally prescribed identities. We need to focus on what leads to someone identifying to themselves as being a natural history person, along with being black or white, male or female, rich or poor, etc.

As to (new) audiences, let me throw a wrench in the works. One of the groups that is visible in many informal learning settings is the home school group. Due to a lack of daily structure, they are able to do all sorts of activities with informal learning organizations that formal schools cannot do. Here in the southeastern United States, some/many of these groups are conservative Christians. Some of these folks are passionately interested in natural history for the pre­Darwin motivation of studying nature to understand the glory of God's creations. Are they welcome? Are we willing to respect and even nurture their deeply held religious beliefs and values­­which tends to be accompanied by a hostility toward Darwinian evolution?

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings. by john scott foster ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 04:43 PM

regarding home schoolers. an interesting audience. we got a lot at a zoo i used to work at. they were quite concerned that we are going to push evolution on them, and we are talking about 3rd graders. we reassured them that there were so many things that we would want them to know about the world before we would consider any child ready for the topic that the program they got would be valuable to them, meet our mission and not broach evolution. We did, however, note that if a child asked us what our organizational opinion was, we would not deny the fact that we saw evolution as a scientifically valid theory. so, we respected their religious beliefs and asked them to respect our scientific view of the world. the major challenge that we had with homeschoolers was more tactical as they were reluctant to break their groups into ages where the material would be engaging and appropriate for all in the group. there is an interesting line of thought within the judeo­christian world of "creation care" which is worth reading about.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Rick Bonney ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 05:02 PM

John, Please do not lump all home schoolers into the creationism world.

We have homeschooled both of our children all the way through and in 20 years in the home schooling world, I have met only one family (out of hundreds) who home school for religious reasons. I do realize that many do­­but it's by far not the only reason and in many parts of the country, not the dominant one.

I do agree that home schoolers don't like to break their groups up by age. This is in fact by design. We have learned that having mixed ages increases learning by getting older kids to talk with younger ones. My son never read anything intended for "young" audiences. He started listening to adult books on tape before he could read and to NPR (and not just Car Talk). As a result, at the age of 16, he possesses knowledge way beyond his years. My personal experience suggests that "age appropriate" may be an over­rated concept.

Show parent | Reply

28

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings. by john scott foster ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 07:12 PM

I was only referencing the groups that we had come either to the nature center or the zoo. unfortunately we did not get any of the non­religious driven homeschoolers. it tended to be the dominant reason in north georgia or up state new york. and although the lack of division may have been by design, when we encouraged them to do so, we were always told how they younger ones could handle the content and the older ones enjoyed working with the younger ones, but when it was all over, a program which was very effective when it was delivered to the age that it was designed for, we would have people complain either that it was over the heads of the young ones or the older ones were bored. we ultimately made the decision that if they were unable to divide the groups into age apppropriate groups (i.e. k­2 3­5 and 6­8) that we would not book a program. it was an unpleasant experience for my staff and we did not feel we were meeting our mission. we found it a more pragmatic use of time to provide support for individual parents in terms of resources and references.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Robert Bixler ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 10:43 AM

John's response about home schoolers was a response to my raising the question about whether folks who love and study nature as proof of the grandeur of God, the motivation for natural history, pre­Darwin, were welcome as an audience. There are certainly lots of home schoolers in my neck of the woods (southeastern United States) who object to museums and nature centers mentioning evolution, age of the earth, etc. "Lots" does not mean all. There is much reported friction between education staff and these groups.

The LARGER question is how inclusive we are willing to be. Today we are hearing from some folks about marginalized and special needs populations using our sites. A couple of years ago I stood in line at a Zoo and the couple in front of me was talking excitedly about the birds, because they were involved in the exotic parrot pet industry. There is a small but avid contingent of butterfly and beetle collectors whose motivation is collecting­­and buying and selling specimens. There are reptile breeders who have 200 snakes in their basement, know all the native and exotic animals and are hybridizing snakes and selling these novel looking genetic misfits on the pet market­­they also go out in the field just like we do to enjoy the outdoors. So­­what are the boundaries?

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings. by john scott foster ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 11:17 AM

bravo robert! one of the challenges/opportunities that we have with the nature center is to make it welcoming to those who have a connection with nature from different places as you outlined above. just as a function of the history of our organization, we were very focused on fact based experiences and welcoming people who were interested in ecology, zoology, botany etc. But i am looking for ways to bring people in who do feel a spiritual connection or an aesthetic connection, or just think the woods are pretty. we do not charge admission and my office is at the trail head and i can attest that we get the depth and breadth of our community on the trails. they are visiting, now, how can we make it better! we will be hosting our local herp society's meetings and drag and brag events. we do host the audubon society. we are all about sustainable use of resources. i think the boundaries are defined by our mission and we exist to connect people with nature and help them lead more environmentally friendly sustainable lives. and maybe this is part of the challenge with this discussion. we are almost looking for a mission for natural history settings in our discussion. and each institution may have a very unique, complimentary mission, but not necessarily the same.

29

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Eric Gyllenhaal ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 05:33 PM

About the audiences: I'm wondering to what extent the audiences for natural history experiences are shared across all the many potential settings. Do people who go to natural history museums also go to nature centers, and to city, state and national parks, zoos and aquaria, and so on? And if so, are they intentionally seeking out (or aware of the) different aspects of the natural history experience provided by these different settings? Do these visitors also pay more attention to the nature in their backyards, watch more nature shows on television, search for more natural history topics on Google? For families, does the range of settings they visit/attend to vary as the kids grow older?

Does anyone know if there are data that might address these questions?

And if the answers to my questions above are all yes, then should the different settings be thinking more about the roles they play in their visitors' "natural history diets" (or whatever you want to call it)?

Eric Gyllenhaal Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Andrés Sehinkman ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 08:17 PM

I agree any place could be a Nat. Hist. setting. In my case, it is a big national museum located in the middle of Buenos Aires, a 12 million people city. I´m part of a mixed, heterogeneous group at the museology dept. We receive about 200.000 visitors each year, 1/3 are shool groups (3­18 years) from every school in the city and sorroundings. We also have a strong affluence of family groups. A number of them living in suburban neighborhoods (usually not attendig other types of museums, probably with lower educational facilities or coming from poorer areas). For them the museum is the first and strongest approach to natural sciences and even nature. I.e, a single sound interactive diorama showing urban birds has become a succes, revealing a new point of view of their own everyday setting.

We´re now strongly working to improve the ways we communicate with our visitors. For many years the museum followed some sort of victorian, hands, minds and harts off tradition, we´re now developing participative experiences, exploring new ways of interactions with the public, this is one of our main goals and challenges. In our local context, I also feel we have to try to awake passion and vocations in kids, we ´re fighting against many years of educational crisis so the positive impact we could have is enormous.

We´re now taking a study on visitors at the recently inaugurated bird hall, it is the first time in many years that the museum studies its audience. We´ll have the results in a couple of days, if anyone is interested I could create a link for you to see the bird hall and the results of the study, a humble window to our present down here. (Our museum: http://www.macn.secyt.gov.ar) Next year we´re also celebrating our 200 years birthday, planning a yearthrough schedule of special activities, I´m sure that this forum will bring new ideas and opinions.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Greg Danner ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 08:45 PM

Within the context of addressing natural history as a topic about which people learn, it seems to follow that

30

any setting that attempts to cover that topic is a natural history setting. It need not be "natural" anymore than people must "sit."

In Anchorage, we have a wide variety of audiences (I'd be more surprised to hear from venues that have few audiences). We serve tourists from all over the state, the nation, and the world. It's one of the benefits of being a "before you die" kind of place. However, since many of those visiting us from outside our immediate environs may have access to other natural history education sources, I tend to focus on our local audiences of Alaska Natives, school groups, retirees, etc. There's always a chance to refine our understanding of the world.

Within our museum, the amount of space dedicated to natural history year­round is fairly limited, but our greatest assets are the living specimens in our collection. Sea­stars, king crabs, and anemones fascinate most, and even those who are repelled are at least having a visceral reaction. The fact that natural history commonly evokes that gut­level response gives us our hook; we just need to do something productive with it.

I won't claim to know who is attracted to different settings; I simply have no data that can indicate this. My impression, though, is that almost all children and young adults are interested in the natural history we cover, but there are a few ­ usually older adults ­ who show no interest. As for what types of programming are most effective for the different audiences, again, I have no data. Experience suggests that interacting with knowledgeable staff and volunteers works best, and the personal hook seems a strong connection.

I think we would attract more and newer audiences if we could promise those personal connections to every visitor. That is, if we could tell visitors that their admission ticket absolutely includes the chance to encounter a sunflower sea­star, then I think many people ­ especially those who've never had the chance to see a sea­star in the wild ­ would come visiting. As for linking experiences, this is where my own greatest motivation for participation lies. I want people to know that the energy they learn about in a physics exhibit is not different than the energy a crab needs to survive, and I think spurring questions will lead to those connections. We can point to the bridge, we can paint it nice colors, and we can light it for safety, but until we get the visitor to ask what's on the other side, we won't connect within our own facilities are between ours and others. We should focus on the questions.

As for what else the visitors want, I'd like to hear more about that on this forum. I know that I want to take my natural history learning (from classes, museums, nature centers, and more) into the field. Perhaps we should focus on helping people over those obstacles? What do our audiences want? What connections will they value? This remains to be seen.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by James Bryant ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 01:47 AM

1. What is a natural history setting? I agree with Eric Gyllenhall's viewpoint: almost any place can be a "natural history setting", if we need to make that distinction. Moreso, we need to return to thinking of natural history as a body of knowledge and experience that we use to make observations and judgments, and creates context for thought, not unlike other mental disciplines like music, poetry, mathematics and logic. (Sounds very Aristotelian, I suppose, but there you are.)

2. Who are our audiences? Who is physically divorced from nature? No one that I'm aware of; however many people act as if they are mentally and emotionally divorced from nature. I find very, very few people, of any age or social context, that lack any inclination to observe or learn from nature. If E. O. Wilson is right, that biophilia is a part of human­ness, then there are definitely some people who are bio­phobic. It's a scary thing.

3. What are the particular assets, affordances, and challenges of different settings (e.g., museum, nature center, the forest, your backyard, online)? The human mind seems to be peculiar in its ability to regard itself. Humanity gains a measure of distinction from its ability to study its natural context as a thing divorced from its own existence. I suppose most of us are familiar with the T. S. Eliot quote "We shall not

31

cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." To the extent that all these settings ­ and others ­ afford us opportunities to explore and become more self­aware, those are assets in the communication of natural history knowledge. I suppose that to the degree to which any setting or instrumentality exists at a distance from nature (online being perhaps the most extreme), it is less effective at communicating natural history knowledge.

4, 5 & 6. What do we know about who is attracted to different types of settings, and what kinds of programs are effective for which audiences? How can we attract new audiences and link experiences across settings? What kinds of experiences are our audiences calling for that we're not providing yet?

I really appreciate Greg Danner's comments. The possibility for a personal experience with nature is perhaps the strongest draw among all natural history programs and services. We sometimes call it face­to­ face learning, but it's useful to remember that the face can be that of a fish, or a fossil. We probably can't entirely anticipate the "face" a member of our audience may be seeking in the "crowd" of nature. Loren Eisely called them "hidden teachers"; I've always liked that.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Bill Watson ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 08:10 AM

Many thanks to everyone for a stimulating first day of discussion! As with many beginning inquiries, I left the day with more questions than answers. That's right in line with our goal of identifying the questions we need to address to advance this field.

In reviewing yesterday's posts on "Programs, Audiences, and Settings," I was struck by three consistent threads, which I would summarize as: 1.

2.

3.

Connecting people to and with nature ­ or perhaps better stated, helping people to recognize and explore the connections they already have Connecting experiences across settings, including our daily lives, using the tools of natural history inquiry Applying new ways of understanding our audiences so that we can facilitate experiences across settings that foster and expand their interests and involvement

Working in a museum, I am particularly struck by the need for us to learn from sites and programs actually in nature. Natural history museums traditionally showcase nature, but that's mostly about showing the products of science and not its process. A lot of the fun for the scientists who work here is in the fieldwork they do ­ again, actually in nature. So it occurs to me that we should be finding ways to address these needs together: Nature sites offer particular affordances that museums don't, and vice­versa.

The ideas here have already begun to define and refine the agenda for the conference in February and, more importantly, the long­term work in research and programming that we all will do together.

Another topic starts today, but please feel free to continue to develop this one as the week progresses!

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Timshel Purdum ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 08:40 AM

I'm getting into this late in the game but I think Bill mentioned something intereting tha twe sturggle wtih at my museum. I have worked in both teh environemtnal education/nature center field as well as the natural history museum settings. While I agree you can learn natural history anywhere­there are different challenges involved in working at the different types of locations that offer the topic. My experiences as an educator were often very different when leading a group of students (whatever age) in a stream study with an actual stream as compared to recreating it as an indoor museum experience. We do that here, and I like to think we do it well­­but nothing beats the outdoor experience in my mind. And I also agree with Bill

32

that our scientists here at the museum love their field work­­that is one of the reason they do what they do.

Surveys of our visitors repeatedly show they value the contact with our scientists­­not just the collections or dioramas on display. We are trying to provide our visitors/audiences more access to what the scientists actually do ­­taking them into the field with our scientist, or having the scientists do their lab work on the floor. It's been a challenge and a rewarding experience at the same time.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by James Bryant ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 10:47 AM

Scientists doing lab work on the exhibits floor: indeed a very exciting and, in my opinion, effective learning experience for all concerned. Roughly 30 years ago, the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History staged an exhibit of fabulous SEM images that included a fully­functional installation of the device itself. The only way researchers would be able to use it (it was only the 2nd SEM in the building at the time) was to do their work in the exhibit. Great stuff ensued...

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Judy Scotchmoor ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 08:57 AM

A great summary, Bill! And I concur that providing access to the process is critical.

We just supported a biodiversity field experience for 37 elementary school teachers at one of our field stations and it was phenomenal in building their confidence as well as their content knowledge. Despite the fact that we picked the only two days in June that it rained, there were nothing but smiles and in two short days, they went from complete novices to developing testable questions, gathering and analyzing data, and presenting their findings at their own biodiversity symposium. Now, the trick is to keep that fire burning!

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by James Bryant ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 10:55 AM

It almost sounds like the premise for a nationwide project: a coordinated effort of natural science institutions and programs to provide field experiences for the lay audience, activities ranging from the simple (surveys of champion trees in one's own community) to the more complex (assisting with biodiversity studies in the Chiricahua Mountains, for example). AND THEN, coordinated follow­up: make sure all the "citizen scientists" have links to their own community's science and nature programs, so they have outlets for their interests on a long­term basis. I'm sure many people from Riverside visit museums in other communities, not realizing we have similar resources here. When folks are jazzed about their experiences at the world's larger natural history institutions, I'd love to give them opportunities to expand on those interests right here in their hometown.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Rick Bonney ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 11:57 AM

Hi James:

33

I love your vision here, and providing a framework for developing such a nationwide (and beyond) network is one reason why a large group of individuals who have been working in the area of citizen science are now moving toward creation of an Association for Citizen Science. Online, the group will be organizing around the website www.citizenscience.org, and information about the association and its first national conference next August in Portland, Oregon, will appear there as details are developed.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Richard Efthim ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 11:04 AM

I think the traditional view of natural history museums as "showcases," which I suspect is how the general public views them, diminishes the true nature of their potential as learning resources.

I once had a discussion with a paleontogist at our museum to ask him if he thought he was a good teacher. He felt he was because when he went into the exhibit to interact with the public, the audience was engaged, the questions were thoughtful, and the audience appreciated having a chance to meet a scientist. I challenged him however to think of what the public was really in experiencing. While they did indeed enjoy learning about the subject, they were equally interested in experiencing some of his passion for learning. Scientists like working in museums of natural history in large part because of all the resources (collections, library, tools, colleagues) that make up a "learning ecosystem" that fuels their passion for learning. What museums, nature centers, zoos, etc. all share is a rich "collection" of resources whether raw, in the field, organized in a drawer, or virtual in image or database libraries, that provides the users with the information they need to answer questions they have. How do we find a way to give visitors the skills to "read" nature to be able to engage in the same process of investigation and discovery (though not necessarily at the same professional level) as those of us who already are passionate learners?

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Richard Efthim ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 11:10 AM

At the Naturalist Center, we provided the public with access to a large collection of natural history objects. We offered a variety of activities for the general public and school groups which were topic driven, the real goal was to highlight how natural history objects could offer clues/data to help us understand with real world examples. Quite often students, teachers and general visitors returned on their own to pursue studies independently. In an audience evaluation done some time ago, more than 85% said the experience positively changed the way the viewed museums... as resources vs just cabinets of curiousities.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Kaleen Povis ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 11:53 AM

How to "read" nature: To look comes naturally, but to observe takes training. It is important to think about what is visually accessible to visitors and what we can help bring into focus.

There is power in observation, once you know what to look for.

The goal then is to figure out how to train the eye to be more discerning. What approach (modeling,

34

questions, prompts, clues) is most effective and appealing to visitors?

This journal article provides some insights: Eberbach, C., Crowley, K. (2009). From everyday to scientific: How children learn to observe the biologist's world. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 39­68.

James Elkins's book, How to Use Your Eyes is a wonderful resource and demonstrates the expanse of what careful observation can reveal.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Dawn Sanders ­ Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 05:59 AM

Dear Richard I really like your description of NHM's as 'learning ecosystems' and the idea of facilitating visitors to read the biological narratives present in these halls/cabinets/cases of nature's catalogue. Is this something you have explored/will explore? I'd be very interested in discussing this further.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Ellen McCallie ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 09:16 AM

Hi, I'm Ellen McCallie, deputy director of Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. In terms of audiences, I'd like to share and get feedback on some initiatives we have for kids.

I'm including a pretty thorough description because we'd be interested in what others are doing to: 1. Provide kids access to behind­the­scenes at a natural history museum. This should introduce kids to deeper ways of knowing and exploring nature as well as potential careers.

2. Tell the story of why natural history museums­­our collections and research­­are important.

On Oct. 15, we open the exhibition M is for Museum . Our goal is to create an interactive exhibition for children (5­13) that focuses on what the museum does and provide kids with ways to connect to nature and the museum throughout the exhibition.

The press version: At Carnegie Museum of Natural History’s new exhibition M is for Museum, discover how museums help explore and explain nature in all its wonder and the cultures of the world . Organized around the ABCs, the exhibition is an interactive journey into the world of amazing natural history collections and the scientists who collect, care for, and study them. The experience is a hands­on, multi­sensory learning adventure encouraging curious children, especially 5­ to 13­year­olds, to explore what happens behind­the­scenes at one of America’s best natural history museums. M is for Museum opens October 15, 2011—Members only 10 a.m.–noon; public opening at noon—in the R.P. Simmons Family Gallery at Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

M is for Museum is a project of the Center for Lifelong Science Learning. M is for Museum is sponsored in part by Baierl.com, online education powered by K12, and Supercuts.

35

Exhibition ABCs In M is for Museum , discover what it’s like to work inside a world­class natural history museum. Role play in various museum settings. Discover, closely investigate, and handle specimens like those collected, studied, and cared for by Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Through interactive audio and video, meet the staff members and scientists who preserve and conduct research in the collections, and learn how and why these people do these important jobs. Make your way through the exhibition and discover how the skills people use every day—looking, drawing, sorting, questioning, considering evidence, and problem solving—are fundamental to scientific research.

Here is an alphabetical list of all of the letters in the exhibition. In italics is a description of the activity associated with that letter in M is for Museum.

A is for Artifact.

Artifacts are objects made by humans. Carnegie Museum of Natural History collects, cares for, and preserves artifacts as a way of understanding human history and culture.

Using your detective skills and a few clues, play a seek­and­find game using photographs of artifacts.

Determine what makes an artifact different from a fossil.

B is for Beautiful.

A copper crystal, a moth, and a toad are all things Carnegie scientists find beautiful in the natural world.

See beautiful specimens that inspired these and other scientists to choose their careers. Become a beautiful butterfly by trying on some wings.

C is for Collect.

Collections are the backbone of Carnegie Museum of Natural History. The museum has 22 million specimens in its collection.

Focus on specimens and what people learn from them. Meet the staff members who organize and care for the thousands of birds, millions of bugs, and storerooms full of other specimens. Gather specimens and create a collection of your own for display in M is for Museum.

D is for Draw.

Carnegie Museum of Natural History has several scientific illustrators who use their drawing skills to help researchers understand specimens.

Meet the museum’s scientific illustrators. Explore how illustrators use skeletons to determine how extinct animals might have looked and how illustrations can show tiny details of an insect’s body. Try making your own drawing of a museum specimen.

E is for Egg. The museum’s collections include eggs in a variety of shapes, sizes, and colors. These eggs were laid by birds, reptiles, fish, and invertebrates (animals without a backbone).

Examine clutches of eggs—groups of eggs laid at one time—from the museum’s collection. Use puppets to practice laying clutches.

36

F is for Fossil.

The museum houses many fossils of plants and animals from millions of years ago.

Examine fossils from the museum’s invertebrate and vertebrate paleontology collections. Learn what fossils are, where they come from, and how they differ from one another. Try your hand at piecing together fossils using floor puzzles.

G is for Gigantic.

Carnegie Museum of Natural History houses really big dinosaurs, bugs, beetles, and minerals.

Compare your humerus (upper arm bone) to that of a dinosaur, giraffe, elephant, and shrew to see how you measure up. Compare your wingspan to that of the albatross, a gigantic bird!

H is for Horse.

Anthropologist Sandra Olsen studies how humans tamed horses. She searches for evidence of how working with horses changed the way humans lived.

Whatch a video about Sandra’s research on horses. Build a miniature stable and play with horses.

I is for Identify.

All objects have their own characteristics—the details that our researchers look for when identifying a specimen.

Test your skills by identifying animal skulls based on their characteristics.

J is for Jar. Photo Op! Some museum specimens, especially amphibians and reptiles, are stored in jars filled with alcohol to keep the plants or animals soft and easy to work with.

Bring your camera: pretend you’re a specimen and pose for a picture inside a pretend, kid­sized specimen jar.

K is for Kid. Some Carnegie scientists started out as kids examining wildflowers and observing birds building their nests. Now that our scientists have grown up, they get to do these fun things in their jobs!

Check out the Digital Discovery Room and learn how you can participate in this nature exploration project at home.

L is for Look.

Scientists use special tools to get an up­close look at the specimens they are studying.

Use hand lenses and special microscopes to conduct snail shells, bird wings, bones, insects, plants, and fossils. Learn about how scientists use a GigaPan robot to take pictures that create one huge, detailed photograph that can be used in scientific study.

37

M is for Museum.

Carnegie Museum of Natural History collects and preserves more than 22 million objects and has more than 35 scientists working behind­the­scenes, researching everything from snails to tree DNA. In M is for Museum, peek into the museum world you do not often see as a visitor.

Record a video of your favorite memory of the museum to share with other visitors.

N is for New. The museum’s collections are constantly growing, with new specimens and objects being added year­ round by our staff through trading, collecting, or donating.

Learn how some of the museum’s new specimens came to the museum. See whether you’ve been to any of the places where they were found.

O is for Old. Whether you call them historic or prehistoric, ancient or antique, the museum collects things from all time periods, past and present. Our collection includes some of the oldest objects on Earth—including parts of Earth!

Talk to your family to figure out the oldest thing that you own. How old is it? What is its story?

P is for Powdermill Nature Reserve.

At Powdermill Nature Reserve, the environmental research center of Carnegie Museum of Natural History, migratory birds are weighed, measured, and banded, where a small ring­like band with identification numbers is placed on the ankle of each bird.

Collect data by banding, weighing, measuring, and examining a replica bird.

Q is for Quantity Our natural history museum collection is one of the largest in the United States and has 22 million specimens and artifacts. A good collection has different examples of things along with all their details so we can study diversity.

Watch a video that shows some of our collection areas and objects.

R is for Read.

Reading is an important part of every person’s life. Stories of nature and science inspired many of the museum’s staff to work at a museum.

Take time to read a story from our bookshelf recommended by staff members as favorites from their childhood.

S is for Sound.

We study sounds to learn more about our world. At Powdermill Nature Reserve, the environmental research center of the museum, researchers study bird calls. This special science is called “bioacoustics.”

Listen to bird calls as you watch a video that explains how the sounds are recorded.

38

T is for Taxidermy.

Stuffing animal skins and posing them for display is called taxidermy. Carnegie Museum of Natural History houses more than 2,000 mammal taxidermy mounts.

Look at taxidermy mounts of mammals, reptiles, and birds. Learn about the biggest and smallest animal mounts in the museum collection. Touch real pelts and skulls and examine their textures.

U is for Unknown.

A specimen is classified as unknown until it is identified by a scientist. Research has to be done to figure out whether other specimens like it have already been found. Sometimes specimens are discovered for the first time and are described and named something new.

See whether you recognize some of the insect and animal species named by Carnegie scientists.

V is for Volunteer.

More than 375 volunteers help Carnegie Museum of Natural History by working with our collection, preparing programs, giving tours, and talking to our visitors.

Meet some of our Teen Docents, a special group of young volunteers that you may have seen at our Discovery Carts throughout the museum.

W is for What.

Kids and adults in the museum often ask our staff, “What is that?”

Use your sense of smell to identify some of the plants represented in our botany collection.

X is for X Marks the Spot.

Our scientists work here at the museum, in Pennsylvania, and the United States, but they also travel all over the world.

Meet some of the scientists and hear where they travel to conduct their research, including Antarctica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, and Germany, to name only a few. Share with other visitors where you would like to go on our map.

Y is for You. The museum wants you to visit us and support us in any way you can, but most importantly, we want you to help protect nature and living things.

Find out what you can do to help protect nature. Vote for your favorite research section. Pick up your M is for Museum trading cards here.

Z is for the Zone.

The Zone is a kids’ play area.

Hang out in a bean bag chair, pick up a book, do a puzzle, or just check out the cool mammal skeletons.

Take a load off and hang out.

Show parent | Reply

39

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Ellen Giusti ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 09:36 AM

Ellen, How large is "M is for Museum" (square feet). You are targeting a broad age range­­5 to 13­­do you have separate areas for them? 5­year­olds' interests and abilities do not usually fit with 13­year­olds. And what about those 3­year­old younger siblings?

The obvious question is what kind of formative evaluation did you do during the planning stages? What kind of summative evaluation do you plan? Having worked on several early science project evaluations, I'd love to hear about any findings you can share.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Leah Melber ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 09:55 AM

Hello everyone... Leah from the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago...

Very much enjoyed all the discussion on definition of setting...and the broad lens through which we are looking.. thank you for the additional resources many of you submitted... i look forward to reading them!

I think in "exploring the the unique challenges and benefits of each"... sometimes our greatest strength is also our greatest weakness for each. We all know natural settings provide a true authenticity... but as we know... are unpredictable in what might be actually encountered. Great for a true 'nature' experience... challenging for a department trying to establish reliable programming. Visibilty guarantees of other types of settings...dioramas, some zoo exhibits tilts the other way...

I know I see that in the two types of experiences we have on grounds here... a restored wetland area where 'anything can happen' and then exhibits that have been designed over the last several decades with varying levels of this.

I think that also brings us to another challenge/strength... the concept of 'history' in natural history settings... do we agree that change... unique approaches... are sometimes easier to implement within some types of these settings rather than others based on the historical concept of how they are defined, stakeholder expectations, board direction, etc. etc.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Robert Bixler ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 10:41 AM

One setting that has not been mentioned is (traditional) residential summer camps. These places can play a role in natural history experiences plus help develop a range of ancillary skills that are critically important to participation in lifelong natural history experiences.

The "nature study cabin" has long been a staple of residential summer camps. Camp directors are quick to tell me that nature study is not exactly a great marketing focus, but that they keep the program out of tradition. When they have competent staff running the program, it is well received by campers. I think there is a program in the northeastern US somewhere, in which all the nature study counselors from all the camps in the area gather for one week of natural history training. Camp Pennigewaset (sp?)

Another value of summer camps (and scouting) is the development of ancillary (support) skills. To be outdoors as a birder, an amateur mycologist, a citizen scientist one needs to be comfortable and competent in the (wild) outdoors. Camps provide opportunities to learn how to camp, backpack, rock climb, hike, canoe, drive a boat, swim, wayfinding, etc. Note that these are fun in themselves but are also skills

40

needed by field biologists! Camps also provide an extended immersion in nature for one to eight weeks, where kids get use to biting bugs, dirt, hot, cold, rain, etc. Nature is full of irritants along with wonders­­ frequent and at times extended experiences with the outdoors help people habituate to these irritants.

There are even a few camps that specialize in natural history experiences. Green River Preserve in NC comes to mind.

Rob Bixler Clemson University Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Robert Bixler ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 10:59 AM

SETTING OR SYSTEM?

We have heard from museums, nature centers, zoos, aquariums, field schools, summer camps, etc.

My research on life histories of natural history oriented professionals strongly suggests that these young adults had frequent experiences with natural history in supportive social groups, with a variety of organizations. Although one person in the study group was practically raised by a single nature center, the rest of the group had different types of interactions with different people and organizations from childhood to early adulthood. One of the implications for practice is that professionals need to work on Program­to­ Program Transistions. Having just orchestrated a natural history experience, what can our audience do next? For instance, if a nature center cuts off its summer camp program at age 11, they should not just say "Goodbye" to their 11 year olds­­they need to suggest other opportunties in their region or beyond­­ including those provided by other organizations.

Should we be thinking about a system of settings that play different but mutually reinforcing roles with our audiences?

Rob Bixler Clemson University Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by James Bryant ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 11:22 AM

Yes, I believe a system that deliberately worked in that fashion would be a major advance.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Richard Efthim ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 11:31 AM

I think what you touch upon is really important Rob. It is in some easier to work with younger audiences than it is to capture the enthusiam from teens, or those adults who are reluctant because of fears of inadequacy with the topic or the skill needed to learn in these settings. What I think our venues can do is to in some way demystify the process of learning while also planting seeds for future learning by taking the familiar and getting our users to see them in a new light, or a new context. In education parlance today

41

they call it "learning transfer"...

In an outdoor setting, how do we create that "itch" that people cant stop thinking about when they are outdoors? Sometimes for us it means not answering the questions for them but motivating the visitors to seek out the answers themselves using the resources we have or that can be found in their own backyard.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Eric Gyllenhaal ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 11:56 AM

Rob, This reminds me of Brookfield Zoo's Career Ladder for Youth program: http://www.brookfieldzoo.org/czs/careerladder Other organizations also apply the ladder concept to their youth programs, e.g., Calumet Environmental Education Program (CEEP) (which Field Museum is involved in): http://fieldmuseum.org/explore/department/ecco/CEEP Chicago Wilderness has been talking about establishing a "conservation education ladder" that cuts across organizations. It's mentioned briefly in this document (p. 5­6): http://www.chicagowilderness.org/members/downloads/Strategic/Strat_Frmwrk_LNCI_10­14­10.pdf I'm not sure how far they've taken that idea so far.

Eric Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Eric Gyllenhaal ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 12:07 PM

Although these sorts of programs aren't necessarily all that new, at least within individual organizations. As a boy, I progressed through the Jr. Naturalist­Jr. Curator­Jr. Staff levels at the Lake Erie Junior Nature and Science Center (that was 1960s). Then the director recommended me for my first full­time museum job after college.

Eric Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Linda Wilson ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 12:44 PM

Good point, Eric, these have been around (at least informally) forever.

In our wish to organize and make connections we think are logical in this program transfer, we should keep in mind that rather than a funnel (enter at the wide end and offer a succession of programs), the reality is the natural history bug (or any other passion), can occur at any time, and we need entrance opportunities at all levels.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Eric Gyllenhaal ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 12:19 PM

42

There are much more loosely structured approaches to career ladders within certain areas of natural history. Within the birding/bird­watching community, kids have opportunities to advance their interests in bird science/conservation through a range of options aimed just at youth (as well as all­age opportunities, like birding clubs and volunteering at museums). Many states have Young Birders Clubs, where kids can meet those who share their interests. There are national­level birding camps run by American Birding Association and various state Audubon groups, which focus more on the science and conservation skills used by ornithologists.

The cool thing for my kids has been, once they meet other teen birders, they stay in contact with them through a range of social media, especially Facebook, blogs, and photo­sharing sites. That way they can apply social pressure in a good way (like convincing reluctant kids to become eBirders) and make each other aware of further opportunities (from chasing rare birds to deciding which universities they should apply to or which camp they all want to go to next summer). I really like that this aspect has been self­ organizing.

Eric Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 1: Programs, Audiences, and Settings.

by Grace Kimble ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 03:10 PM

Hi, Thanks Ellen for sharing M is for Museum! Andres, it would be good to see the link you suggested.

As part of a part­time PhD, I started researching learning activities that had been carried out for the International Year of Biodiversity 2010. In January, I sent out a survey and 40 organisations, largely UK, responded.

You can see the results here: http://issuu.com/g.kimble/docs/results_june_2011 Of particular relevance to the initial question 1 is p5, showing the range of oprganisations that provided biodiversity education.

The categories were: Aquarium Commercial Scientific Organisation Education organisation Funder Heritage site Natural History Collection Natural History Society Natural Resource Industry Nature park Primary School Research organisation Safari Park Secondary School Zoo In addition, the following were mentioned as 'other' •Biodiversity Partnership covering three local authority areas (Angus, Dundee City, Perth & Kinross) •Conservation Charity •Conservation Organisation •Environmental marketing company •Farming Scheme •Marine Biology research charity ­ advancing marine biology through research, education and

43

communication •Membership organisation for the environmental and sustainability education sector.

•National Park Authority •Natural History Consortium •Science communication organisation •Site of Special Scientific Interest •Internal Drainage Board (Local Authority) •Internet based, sometimes 'real time' events and campaigns •Wildlife Trust ­ Land management/conservation

Many organisations had more than one function.

Based on recommendations from educators and reviewing the literature, the main focus of my research is assessing the impact of combining experiences with natural history collections together with live animal activities or habitat exploration.

I did a pilot programme in June, combining a collection observation activity with wildlife garden exploration.

I used this as a basis for reflection to develop a sequence for combining activities, taking into account the likelihood of seeing given local species in real life!

Is would be great to hear specific examples of combining natural history collection activities with environment centre settings in practice.

Show parent | Reply

44

2. Leveraging Technology

The second topic we'd like to explore and refine in this forum is Leveraging new technologies for discovery, learning, and social engagement.

This topic builds on many of the ideas introduced yesterday. Technology can be a very useful tool for connecting with audiences and connecting experiences across settings. It is also a very useful tool for natural history scientists and research.

A few of the key questions that have been raised here and by the 21st Century Learning in Natural History Settings project team are: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

How can digital communication technologies help to connect experiences and people across settings?

Technology can increase access to natural history collections as "digital collections". What kinds of experiences can our audiences have with digital collections? Can digital collections help draw connections between nature/field research and collections­based research?

What new possibilities for public participation in scientific research does online and mobile technology introduce?

What are the opportunities for natural history science in helping youth and students build "21st Century Skills?"

How can technology help us to reach diverse audiences and expand the public awareness of nature and natural history ­ and their relevance to everyday life?

What perspectives or examples from your experiences do you have about these questions?

What new questions should we be considering?

Bill

45

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Eileen Smith ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 09:51 AM

As a university media research lab, we are working on projects with museums where we are using technology to ask "What if?" questions to stimulate discovery and spur rich discourse. We develop simulations to allow learners to explore time, scale and space. Natural history learning institutions are wonderful opportunities to use technology to explore the past and future of, for instance, the live setting that the learner is in at that moment. How technology is best used so that it doesn't separate learners into their own device, whether computer in a center or mobile device in the field, but instead disappears as it does its job of enriching human­to­human interaction and exploration.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Rebecca Bray ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 11:05 AM

I think these questions about technology are very interesting, especially when we think about technology as something that can help span space and time (ie. a website, as opposed to an exhibit kiosk). I am especially interested in how digital technology can help people discover in the natural world. For example, LeafSnap (http://leafsnap.com/) and WildLab (http://www.thewildlab.org/) are two mobile apps that encourage users to observe, document and learn about specific species outside. Both work to get people to focus more on the nature than on the screen. To my mind this is really exciting, but also not without potential issues. These apps work best for the average user when they are part of a tour led by an expert, so you might ask if they are really more useful than the tour alone. Also, many of these apps promote themselves as citizen science, but is the data the average person collects without training really useful to researchers? What I find myself thinking is that these sorts of technologies might be fun for an average user to do once or twice, but are really best suited over time for the super users – the nature and science enthusiasts that are a small but powerful audience.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Ellen McCallie ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 01:40 PM

I'd like to build on Bill and Rebecca's comments with another example. (I'm loving hearing about examples and links from so many natural history settings!)

We’re interested in how you get kids, families, and adults involved in natural history through technology.

We're working to leverage technology (digital cameras, megapixel images, and the web) to foster young children and their adults’ interaction with nature: exploration, play, conversations, etc. As such, we’re developing the Digital Discovery Room: discovery/digital.html.

It's our first year of the project, in fact it's been live for only a week, so we only have front end evaluation and prototyping feedback at this point.

Ellen Show parent | Reply

46

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Maija Sedzielarz ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 02:31 PM

Thanks for your post, Ellie. I was not able to see your webpage ­ is there more to the URL? We are also interested in the same questions. If you have monitors or interactive computers on your exhibit floors, you probably see the phenomenon of kids gravitating to that type of technology. Our library partners were happy to partner on a program that engages kids in something other than computer games in the library setting.

But, how do we use the engaging nature of digital technology for young people to encourage that first­ hand experience of the natural world?

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Richard Efthim ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 11:57 AM

Technology needs to be viewed as a tool to solve a problem vs the goal in and of itself.

For example, at a local enviromental research station, a local high school was given a hectare of woodlands/grasslands to monitor. They were given extensive training on how to use a variety of high tech data collecting tools used by scientists to survey and record data. Near the end of a year of data collecting, the teacher inquired "ok, we've got all this data, what do we do with it?" Without a question to answer, both the students and teacher really had no idea why the data they were collecting was needed.

I am all in favor of learning activities that use technology when it helps make learning and understanding easier, and when the learner can take that new technology and add it to their "learning toolbelt"...

In my opinion, the real value of virtual museums or learning tools is to help the learner gain access the "critical mass" of knowledge they need where the chances for learning and understanding becomes more and more possible from multiple pathways. When I talked to an entomologist at our museum about the virtual collection being developed here, I asked if he would use it. He quickly replied that he would not. He could not do, viritually, what he needed to do with the real object... study it in detail, manipulate it, measure it, compare it to other specimens. A virtual museum, in order to be more than the "showcase" that Bill alluded to in an earlier summary, really needs to consider ways to incorporate the various operational elements that scientists use in studying in the field or in museums. It is those elements that attracted them to work in museums in the first place... to be able to persue their passion for learning.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Richard Efthim ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 12:04 PM

I do want to add that technology, virtual museums and media applications are all invaluable components to learning natural history today, because it can and does, in fact allow the casual learner and the novice access to the tools, technology, collections knowledge base and learning ecosystem that in previous generations was solely the domain of the professional scientist.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Eric Gyllenhaal ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 12:48 PM

Adding to Richard's observations about technology, my experience has been that, when you put natural history information on the web, through blogs or websites or social media, you­­the person and/or

47

organization­­also become part of the learning ecosystem. People who have found a strange rock or bug or who have had an interesting experience with a bird or mammal will reach out to you, sending photos and descriptions of their experiences by e­mail or using built­in comment functions.

Although you can put together an ask­the­expert type program (as many have), all you really have to do is upload text and labeled photos in any form available to search engines. Impressed by their own natural history experiences, folks will search the Web and find you. They may not care much about your credentials, as long as you can answer their questions or comment on their experiences.

Eric Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Rebecca Bray ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 12:48 PM

I agree that technology needs to solve a problem and there is always an issue with people being enamored of technology for its own sake. I do want to note that many scientists do use technology and digital collections in their work. The entomologist you spoke to, Rich, may not, but I spoke with a paleobiologist recently who said that 3D digital scans of dinosaur prints are incredibly valuable and have opened new doors on what scientists can understand about behavior. There are many scientists who are increasingly using mapping, including mobile GPS, to gather data, and there are fantastic tools like camera traps. 'Technology' is such a broad term, so of course generalizing is problematic. But I would say that one of our jobs as educators is to help audiences understand how technology is furthering science and has done so in the past. In this way, the technology should reflect the authentic work of science, not just be thought of as a learning tool that tells science stories.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Bill Watson ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 01:11 PM

I'd like to introduce here a project that Leah Melber brought up in another thread on participatory experiences, as I think it applies here, too. In that post, Leah said: "It's my goal to ALSO empower folks to use resources (see www.ethosearch.org our new IMLS funded webpage) to dabble in this area... collecting data to meet their own questions of curiosity... and see the value of the experience rather or not the data is then in turn used by researchers as well. I feel this is a critical aspect of science literacy..."

I agree, and as I indicated in my post in that thread, there are parallels to digital collections of the type that Rich and Rebecca have been discussing. Sites like ethosearch.org and any digital collections site (for example collections.si.edu) are data rich and are examples of how technology is enabling access like never before.

But access might only be the first step. What kinds of tools do we need to be providing to users of these sites to allow them to conduct their own research ­ so that their experiences are more like those of the paleobiologist Rebecca spoke with? Are they digital tools, or are they more "analog" tools that use data that is recorded digitally?

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology by john scott foster ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 01:14 PM

48

only have a moment to drop in today, but with technology, boy i think the QR codes have amazing potential as ways to connect field experience with deeper information.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Eric Gyllenhaal ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 01:32 PM

Regarding providing data analysis tools to users, I'm a big fan of what eBird has been doing, both on their own website [ http://ebird.org/content/ebird/ ] and with apps like BirdsEye [ http://ebird.org/content/ebird/news/BirdsEye ]and the eBird Notable Birds Gadget [ http://ebird.org/content/ebird/home/birding­news­and­features/news/Google_Gadget.html ].

Their approach meets birders/bird­watchers where they are and then tempts them to go further, comparing data over time and place. My family is always coming up with new questions about birds, and many of them can be addresses using eBird data and tools.

Eric Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology by john scott foster ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 01:34 PM

digital collections ­ makes me wonder if there are not levels, or ladders as i saw used earlier in what we might want people to experience. or they might need to experience. in the nature center field, we place heavy emphasis on "real" experiences vs interacting with natural objects in a virtual world. i understand the value of such experiences and the unique opportunities they provide, but would worry that not finding the right balance between digital and "real" would do more to foster a sense of separation from nature or even objectify nature.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Rebecca Bray ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 01:49 PM

John, As you brought up, something like QR codes in the field are potentially a good example of how technology could enhance an experience and hopefully not objectify nature. I think it would be wonderful to have, at a notable point in a preserve, a sign that has a QR code in addition to the static text. This way, the visitor can access new, season­specific content, including multimedia, relevant news stories, and dynamic data about the place they are standing. However, I do also have some reservations. We have put QR codes in our halls here, and they are not used often. I think this is partially because many people still do not know what they are, but also because they are having a fantastic and stimulating real­world experience, and do not want to be staring into their phone. Ideally, I would want people to primarily have the real­world experience, and use their phone to access something that they really look at later, when they're on the metro or home on the web.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology by john scott foster ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 03:03 PM

we are going to use qr codes for very ephemeral things in the woods, wildflowers in bloom, mushrooms

49

that come up after a hard rain and are gone in a week or less, paw paws in fruit. and we are going to leverage every bit of social media we have to educate our visitors ­ fb, electronic newletter, website as well as a big unavoidable sign about them as you enter.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Linda Wilson ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 02:10 PM

You make an interesting point John

I would take it even further, and call natural history museum exhibits, and especially zoo and aquarium exhibits a form of technology, and only partially represent their 'real', 'wild', counterparts.

I wonder if, except for a few, visitors really make the connection. People can have a high interest in animals but still not be concerned or active in conservation. People can have a mzental image of a natural env ironment (or cultural environment) but see in displays only what reinforces their mental notion, not understand those as real, objective places.

I'm seeing a lot about using collections, but little on exhibits, which are also striving to be more engaing, more participatory, more real.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Steve Yalowitz ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 03:24 PM

Building on Rebecca's comment about 3D, we recently completed a planning grant about the potential for 3D in engage audiences about freshwater ecosystems, and the evaluation findings might be of interest to the group. The evaluation report is athttp://informalscience.org/evaluation/show/254. This may be a bit too much detail below, but i wanted to provide some highlights for those who may not look at the report.

For those who might be interested, we did focus groups with a number of audiences about their impressions of the 3D technology, including one in Spanish. The main research consisted of having 6th grade classes in the Lake Tahoe area either view or not view the 3D visualization as part of a visit. We found that those who participated in the 3D visualization reported learning significantly more about specific topics related to the clarity and health of Lake Tahoe; there were also other benefits to viewing the 3D visualization, detailed in the report. We plan on doing more in­depth studies in the full grant (see below).

The evaluation report also includes a very focused literature review on how Virtual Learning Environments (VLE), including 3D, can contributed to STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) learning. While most of the studies were in formal learning environments/school settings, the literature suggested that the benefits of VLE's were the following: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

3D representations better convey complexity they promote open­ended exploratory learning they can provide more personalized learning experiences you can view objects from different points of view there is greater interactivity and immersion they provide multiple routes for learning they provide a contextual understanding of science they encourage a more procedural or process­oriented learning

Thought you all might be interested in this summary of the literature we found.

50

We also recently received an NSF ISE grant to do a full development NSF ISE project about this topic that has literally just begun, so more to come.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Kathleen McLean ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 10:13 AM

Hi Steve, This is really helpful. I'm curious. Did your research uncover any specific drawbacks or shortcomings of VLEs? Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Steve Yalowitz ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 05:54 PM

Hi Kathy,

Great question about the drawbacks or shortcomings of VLEs ­ of course there are some. The report does include a list of challenges. Here's the short version: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Usability ­ as with any technology, if usability is not good then it can very much be a barrier to achieving your goals. In some studies, frustration was an issue if the technology didn't work, and some participants spent so much time on learning a technology even they wondered whether this was the goal of the exercise. Also, some of the tools such as 3D glasses can be distracting to the learning process.

Cognitive overload ­ if there is too much going on, especially from a sensory perspective, then that can interfere with the experience as well. Given that many of the new technologies i've seen are "fast moving" i think we should consider the cost of people saying its exciting with the impact on being able to process things well enough that it sticks.

Novelty ­ new technologies are especially encouraging of people being more focused on the technology itself and tending to ignore the content or activities. With VLE's this can include things like "aimless exploration" (their term, not mine), where it's more the journey than the task/goal of the activity or experience.

Misconceptions ­ can occur if it's difficult to coordinate visual information from different perspectives (e.g., sun, moon, earth realtionship) that is hard to picture, or distorts size. The article here suggested the need for suitable scaffolding to minimize misconceptions, and while we didn't find a lot of these examples, it's important to ask people what they think the experience is trying to show them, and try hard to uncover any misconceptions that are occurring and why. A more open­ended, qualitative method seems particularly useful in this area.

Transfer ­ it may be difficult in some cases to transfer from the "virtual" to the "physical" context.

This example had people practicing doing something in 3D then they had to do it in real life, and only one third were able to do it. So even if you can replicate something virtually, the question should be to what end?

The full references, and a bit more detail on each of these is in the report.

IMHO, we always have to ask ourselves some important questions when we are thinking of employing any technology or approach. Is it the best way to communicate and/or engage visitors, what is the value add, and is it worth the time, effort and troubles that often come with using technology. The lure of new technologies can be overpowering, and I've run into many more museums lately that see technology as the way they are perceived to be "current." I'd argue it is just one way that we can stay current, not the end­all be­all. And one message from the literature review was that the technology was often most effective when paired with other forms of learning ­ so it may be best as a complementary rather than sole

51

source of communication.

Hope this is useful.

Steve Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Kathleen McLean ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 08:05 PM

Thanks. This is great.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Lynda Kelly ­ Sunday, 2 October 2011, 12:42 AM

Thnx from me too Steve. Your points about just jumping on the bandwagon of technology are spot on, as long as it's not used as an excuse to do nothing. Sometimes we'll just need to experiment and play also and see where that takes us. Where doing a project with Sydney Uni and part of my goal is to actually get our staff engaged and excited and able to see the potential of tech generally and have conversations about, not only what it mean for our practice, but also pedagogically.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Eileen Smith ­ Sunday, 2 October 2011, 06:26 AM

Steve, your points are spot on...it's never one method of communication that is the best in a learning journey ­ we have seen that in our lab in diverse projects (rehabilitation training, military training, compulsory and free choice learning) ­ the spectrum of tools ranges from pure storytelling to immersive VLE. What pipeline is best for specific audiences, topics and communities is the wonderful challenge that we have as experience designers, and it's what keeps me passionate about partnering with researchers from many disciplines and industries; there is new insight from many applications as folks are experimenting more with technology across the board.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Maura Thompson ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 02:57 PM

A couple of examples of how people have used technology recently (somewhat recently) to engage audiences that I took note of for their interesting approach to framing science content were:

•

•

Bronx Zoo Cobra Twitter Feed : While the snake has had little say as of late, I think this feed engaged a new crowd, whether they read the tweets because they were funny, spoke of NYC attractions or the minimal science content. Without a doubt, this Twitter feed made folks think about the Bronx Zoo. Good narrative is a powerful draw.

Hiroshi Sugimoto Diorama Photographs : There was a question posted about how to use digital cameras to engage audiences, and I think this is a pretty neat example of altering the perspective

52

•

of exhibit space by literally looking through a different lens. There are so many cool ways to alter photography that require a visitor to reflect their interpretation of an exhibit or nature. It makes the interaction with an exhibit/nature personal.

T he Kid Should See This

: Rion Nakaya posts videos and photos (co­curated with her 3 yo) while providing context for the posts that are equally as meaningful as the videos and images. I think it is valuable that Rion and her child vetted the enormous amount of content online to provide me with a quick learning experience. She is another great example of the power of narrative.

I think all three examples have takeaways for how to inspire new audiences to engage with nature and natural history through technology or digital communications.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Grace Kimble ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 04:01 PM

Hi, Great to read about the range of examples.

At NHM in London there are some innovative examples of using technology: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/index.jspa Nature Plus is a dedicated social media site that was implemented by the Interactive Media department to support the launch of the Darwin Centre in 2009. Visitors collect links they are interested in as they go round the Darwin Centre Cocoon, using touch screens where they can make selections and scan a personalised card to save them. Logging in to Nature Plus subsequently shows their personalised page.

Learning have used Nature Plus for blogs, and last year we trialled using it as a site to upload videos made by pupils.

One example was where pupils made clips about their biodiversity projects, for the Young Darwin Prize (part of the International Year of Biodiversity) http://goo.gl/ee21d We have also used it as a platform for pupils to upload questions for scientists prior to videoconferences.

Scientists used pupil questions to help plan session content, together with Nature Live hosts.

Based on feedback from last year we are now planning how to facilitate follow on activities for schools after interactive online sessions with scientists. http://goo.gl/p84lp We aim to have these ready to support expeditions taking place in Spring 2012.

The videoconferences have extended our reach and evaluation shows that for approx 50% of pupils, these sessions were their first contact with a natural history collection.

I have more specific info about this if you are interested.....

Have a look at Webquests http://www.nhm.ac.uk/education/online­resources/webquests/ for lessons using digitised collections. This was a collaboration between National Museums, and the project is currently being evaluated.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Bill Watson ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 08:29 AM

53

Thanks to everyone for your insights about leveraging technology in natural history settings. There were some very important insights brought up yesterday about when, how, and for what purpose we might use technology effectively. I would summarize these as: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Technology is a broad term that includes both devices (phones, cameras, software, etc.) and, in some cases, the software that is deployed through those devices.

Regardless of the type of technology used, it is important that it help solve a problem and/or be for a specific purpose for the user, rather than about the technology itself.

Technology can enhance the experience of nature and/or exhibits, but it is important to balance the use of technology with the experience of the authentic.

Technology has great potential (as evidenced by the terrific examples that were shared) to increase access to people, data, tools, and other resources, but we should strive in our work to go beyond access to maximize participation.

This thread really had some great examples of projects and research that demonstrate many of these points. I was particularly struck by the incredible range of learning opportunities that a broad selection of technology can help to address. This topic could probably be a forum unto itself!

As was the case with Topic 1, this post is meant to summarize where we are after one day of discussion.

Please feel free to continue to add to this thread and flesh out these and other ideas.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Kathleen McLean ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 10:38 AM

Hi Bill, This was a great stream of conversation, and your summary is helpful. I think there's one more major idea thread that was woven throughout, although people didn't talk about it directly.

In addition to providing access to people, data, and tools, technology can provide a critical "missing link" for natural history museums, which are faced with what our NSF project at the Oakland Museum of California is calling "the diorama dilemma." (And these issues pertain to most natural history displays as well as dioramas.) These include: "1. While dioramas [and other natural history displays] can present nature up close, they do not allow people to engage in interactive inquiry. Yet we know from informal learning research that interaction is a powerful way to learn. . . .

3. . While dioramas [and other natural history displays] can depict biodiversity, they are typically frozen snapshots of one particular point in time. And yet, some of our most urgent environmental issues are about rapid environmental change."

Since I don't think natural history museums will be getting rid of their static displays and moving to a virtual learning lab environment any time soon, it is important to keep thinking about how to enhance and animate the majority of the museum's public resources (i.e. exhibitions, dioramas, displays of objects).

Without an understanding of the dynamics of the natural sciences and essential ideas about change over time, active interrelationships, and systems and interactions, our objects are simply static things embedded with evidence that is difficult to access. Technology can provide opportunities to bring these things to life.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Grace Kimble ­ Sunday, 2 October 2011, 10:15 AM

54

Hi Kathleen, that's a really interesting idea.

Your description of this potential use of technology made me imagine a display of specimens with a large live feed screen around them, showing footage e.g. from a nestbox webcam or linked to a habitat viewing site (this could be at a local zoo or park with related species, or even to places the species are naturally found in).

This sort of exhibit could be a focal point for live events, with presenters both at the collection and habitat sides, for example.

Manipulating the scale of film using different screen sizes could also add to understanding in new ways. In future I think there will be advances in zoology about understanding animal sensation that will only be possible to convey using technology creatively.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Harry Schram ­ Sunday, 2 October 2011, 11:30 AM

Hi all, There are a number of nature visitor centres in Europe and Australia (perhaps also in North America?) which are built around direct camera access to wild animals (usually nests) in the immediate area, without giving people access to those sites themselves. In the French Pyrenees there is La Falaise des Vautours (Vulture Ridge) with Griffon (and Eurasian black?) vultures. In Scotland there is the Scottish Seabird Centre, in Australia (Phillip Island) there is a similar place that focuses on a nearby seal and penguin colony. Zoos (and museums) could try to tap in to such images, or find ways to link our exhibits to animals out in the wild. At Antwerp Zoo, we are thinking of making a link between our Amur leopards in their new enclosure, and wild leopards in the Amur region that have radio transmitters. We have just opened a new lion and meerkat exhibit where visitors can enter their observations (where are the animals and what are they doing) onto a touch screen. If all goes well, visitors arriving at a later time, will be able to see what others have recorded earlier.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Lynda Kelly ­ Sunday, 2 October 2011, 04:46 PM

Just came across this in yesterday's (or today's or tomorrow's!) Washington post about apps:http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/visiting­the­museum­theres­an­app­for­ that/2011/09/26/gIQAxiCUAL_story.html Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Bill Watson ­ Monday, 3 October 2011, 07:43 AM

Thanks to all for the continued provocative discussions about leveraging technology to enhance our audiences experiences and facilitate their pursuit of their interests.

In reading back over this discussion as it has evolved, it seems to me that not only does technology refer to a diversity of devices and applications, its deployment serves an equally diverse set of needs. To use the language some in this forum have used, it has the potential to "solve many types of problem". As we

55

continue this discussion here, in future forums, at the 21st Century Learning in Natural History Settings Conference, and into the future, I think its important to continue also to develop our language for identifying and pursuing technology opportunities.

As a start, I think we've homed in on a few areas for research about and application of technology that are related yet merit pursuit in their own right as well: 1.

2.

3.

Increasing access to learning opportunities and resources (e.g., PPSR, collections and data access) Enhancing learning opportunities that already exist (e.g., QR codes in nature sites, increasing interactive inquiry at exhibits in museums) The intersection and commonalities of learning across settings and how technology can link experiences

Bill Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 2: Leveraging Technology

by Lynda Kelly ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 06:28 PM

Museums need to realise that they now operate across three spheres: their physical site; the online world (via websites and social media) and the mobile space. How these intersect and the commonalities of learning across them need to be further researched. Tablet computers, esp the iPad, will change the ways we navigate information and will offer the opportunity to more closely integrate the three spheres. Visitors will be using different modalities for learning so perhaps we need to revisit our models for learning in the physical site and see how these fit other environments??

I have written about some of that here: http://australianmuseum.net.au/BlogPost/Audience­Research­ Blog/The­world­of­museums Also for our work with students and technologies look here: http://australianmuseum.net.au/BlogPost/Teacher­Talk/The­Coalition­of­Knowledge­Building­ Schools I can make some of the published papers available if people are interested (just have to get permissions).

The Kelly and Russo 2008 paper is online here: http://www.archimuse.com/mw2008/papers/kelly_l/kelly_l.html I am currently writing a paper on this very topic for the Open and Learning Museum conference in Finland next week so will keep you posted.

Show parent | Reply

56

3. Participatory experiences Yesterday's discussion about technology and the thread that John started on participation highlight how much participatory experiences are at the forefront of our thinking right now. I think it's a good idea to alter our schedule and discuss the topic of Participatory Experiences today.

As originally proposed, this topic was about Public Participation in Scientific Research. It's clear from our discussion that the topic is much broader than that, so I propose that we consider the following questions as a start: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

What is a participatory experience? What is the range of participatory experiences that we currently offer or aspire to offer?

What kinds of participatory experiences do different natural history settings afford?

How has technology enhanced participatory experiences at our venues, in nature, and "any time, any where"?

What is the goal of participatory experiences? What short and long term outcomes do we expect, or have we observed, from participatory experiences in nature or natural history settings?

Can large numbers of visitors to natural history museums, zoos, nature centers, or other venues be involved in some way in authentic research of value to scientists, on site at the venue?

Which audiences are most interested in and can benefit most from participatory experiences?

As always, these questions are just the beginning.

What perspectives or examples from your experiences do you have about these questions?

57

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Ellen McCallie ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 08:51 AM

Several folks have emailed offline asking for the link to the Bonney, et al. 2009 CAISE report on Public Participation in Scientific Research. It'scaise.insci.org/resources. Then scroll down until you see the title.

Ellen McCallie Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Ellen McCallie ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 08:59 AM

Hi Bill, Why are our hands­on areas always in the basement?

Why do we need to be quiet in the museum?

I'd be interested in ways people/places have broken these norms.

I concur that participation is key challenge right now­­in science and in the museum experience. In terms of the museum experience, so many times parents come in and say, "This museum is all about walking and looking. We need to do something different." They also say they tire of policing their kids to be quiet and not to touch or run.

Wow, that says to me we need to lighten up a bit and share our enthusiasm in more ways. I like the examples that several people have provided about how to provide visitors with more direct access to specimens and collections.

I'd like to learn more: What's the most risky or exciting thing you've done to get visitors into direct interaction with collections?

We're trying to build off of various museum's experiences: M is for Museum has a hands on component in every section; the Digital Discovery Room is all about looking for things outside and photographing them­­why don't we do this inside in the galleries as well; and we're working on an exploration area­­something like a mix between a Discovery Room and London's exploration area that's in the basement.

Ellen Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Eric Gyllenhaal ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 09:15 AM

Although the inspiration for this topic is Public Participation in Scientific Research, it seems to me that participation in the natural history field is much broader than just that. Two examples: 1. A walk in the woods is, or can be, a very participatory experience­­for kids and adults. There are animals to search for (and scare away), rocks to collect, fruits to eat, leaves to smell, mosquitoes to swat, forts to build, holes to dig, and much more.

2. Public participation in conservation efforts is a goal for many of the natural history settings that we've

58

discussed ­­ including many natural history museums. Indeed, conservation goals may inspire many citizen­participants in monitoring of birds, frogs, plants, and so forth, where the data can be used by both scientists and land managers.

Eric Gyllenhaal Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences by john scott foster ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 09:13 AM

a. What is a participatory experience? An experience where the visitor/guest has the opportunity to add to or shape the experience based on their own interests, observations or expertise b. How has technology enhanced participatory experiences at our venues, in nature, and "any time, any where"? starting too. by including visitors in a box turtle census project on site. also by a temporary exhibit which provided visitors with unique objects and asked them to post questions about it (written on the wall) and interpretive content was added to reflect their questions and observations. c. What is the goal of participatory experiences? What short and long term outcomes do we expect, or have we observed, from participatory experiences in nature or natural history settings? one of our goals is to have visitors feel like they are part of a community of people interested in natural history. that the center serves as a hub for the community and they see themselves as not passive readers but playing an active role. also, just as a strategy to open our guest's eyes to all the amazing things happening out in the wood. d Can large numbers of visitors to natural history museums, zoos, nature centers, or other venues be involved in some way in authentic research of value to scientists, on site at the venue? large is relative. for us, with 50,000 visitors a year (probably what Smithsonian or AMNH get in a couple of days) they can. but a many many citizen science projects out there, my fav, the lost lady bug project. which provide very nice modes. e. Which audiences are most interested in and can benefit most from participatory experiences? individuals who perceive technology (although participatory experiences do not necessarily require "technology) as a way of enhancing a real experience rather than something in lieu of a real experience.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Lynda Kelly ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 06:32 PM

We also need to consider the needs and wants of the audience ­ do they even consider that museums are "participatory experiences" and if so what does it look like from their perspective. To answer your question in e) we need to turn the question around: not how can they benefit but how can the museum best meet their needs and interests.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Margie Marino ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 09:27 AM

What is a participatory experience? One that allows the visitor/customer to add something of their own­­a memory, an opinion, an investigation, a connection. Natural History museums tend to be viewed as less participatory than science centers, but that may not be well understood. Natural objects that can be seen, studied, drawn, touched, and sorted are things that most people can relate to­­animals, plants, collections, etc. I think people get more out of this than we currently understand. We could do more constructivist activities, and we could integrate a lot more personal meaning in our interpretation.

59

A recent example from our museum is the SunWorks art exhibit from NASA. The exhibit represents art from adults and kids, amateurs and professionals. It's not active at all. But with the addition of a table full of arts and craft supplies and some active imaginations our visitors filled two entire walls with their art, poems, and comments about the sun. NASA tells me that of the nearly 20 venues who took the exhibit, we were the only ones that added a place for people to make their own suns.

Although there are some exciting new participatory technologies out there, I place a very high value on quality family learning. If the new techologies don't enhance that, then I guess I have to take the Amish (perhaps Luddite) view that if it interferes with family communication, it's less desirable.

Goal of participatory experiences is to sharpen the memory of the event­­to reinforce the value of the exhibit by allowing visitors to make some part of it their own. If these activities are made more novel and memorable, then they will have a greater long­term impact­­encouraging science interest and learning and helping visitors to see the relevance of science to their lives.

I think that there are large groups of individuals who could get valuable experiences from being actively engaged in research in Museums. I'm not sure that this could be casual visitors, but perhaps we have just scratched the surface. I'd like to see more teen interns, college students, and other school­aged children involved in the work of museums. Authentic research? The hundreds of kids that participate in the Museum­sponsored regional science fair are doing authentic research and we invite them to the Museum to present their work and participate in social events to share ideas. But I think­­as a group­­we tend to diminish the diligence, tediousness, and patience it takes to do authentic research.

All audiences want to participate­­but every individual is different in how they prefer to participate. We need to be aware of the sometimes subtle differences in how people want to be engaged and how that is changing due to the changing environment we live in.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Grace Kimble ­ Sunday, 2 October 2011, 10:52 AM

Hi Margie, I totally agree about making memorable experiences novel and salient , changing memory from semantic facts to episodic events in places.

Some MA research I did in 2009 also showed that school pupils who had done pre­visit work about a particular topic focussed on related exhibits to the extent that they recalled higher level scientific words (e.g. 7 year olds studying volcanoes described obsidian and pumice when asked what they'd seen in the museum). When pupils (primary and secondary) had no pre visit teaching, and also crucially did not expect any post­visit teaching they did not mention any specific scientific vocabulary but certainly recalled T Rex! So, for school audiences participation can be about the wider topic, rather than specifically about the museum specimens, and that anticipation of future participation (i.e. making a presentation after) enhances the amount of attention that pupils are willing to devote to an experience!

I know that for several examples from my research above, pupils knew that they would be going back to make poems, reports or models. So it is interesting to think about how much extra benefit there is for creative activities where visitors assimilate what they are finding out to take place on site, like your NASA Sunworks art exhibit. I suspect there is a major benefit and I wonder if anyone has evidence to answer that question?

At NHM in London,we have some online lessons that aim to support teachers in raising the significance of a visit to learn about museum science by taking part in activities before and after visits: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/education/online­resources/a­day­in­the­life/index.html

60

We also found that pupils have a more questioning attitude if they have some expectation of an experience to compare the real event to.

Have you got a link to the science fair you mentioned? It would be good to see more about how pupils present their work!

Thanks very much

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Gabrielle Lyon ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 11:18 AM

I think it's great the topic was shifted to be broader than just research...

Often "research" in the public mind gets reduced to testing and experimentation. This kind of research can and does happen in natural environments and natural history institutions but it's not always what people are most curious about or engaged by.

One of the things I wonder about is how and why we make distinctions between research and participating in science...

For many folks, being inspired by the natural world, and learning in nature or through natural science experiences can be just as compelling and engaging as doing actual research.

The "real thing" is the most powerful... observation is a skill you can develop over time, with practice... great birders get that way because they've spent a lot of time looking for birds and sharpening their senses. What can we do to help people experience "the real deal" while also intentionally equipping them to practice habits and behaviors that will help them be better naturalists (for example?) g Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Eric Gyllenhaal ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 02:18 PM

Natural history seems to be a field where almost anyone can generate new knowledge­­at least new to them and to their friends and family. It can happen with kids especially, but I've also encountered many adults who amazed themselves with their own discoveries in their backyards and beyond. The first time you see a hawk on your backyard fence or find a crinoid fossil in the dirt­­those kinds of discoveries can expand your understanding of both your backyard and the larger world, especially if you get a chance to think and read about them later, or maybe talk with someone who can put them in a larger context. (Of course, someone could have told you that hawks are common in your neighborhood before you found one, but that would not be as powerful an experience.)

Small and personal discoveries about the natural world impress me as the beginnings of science­­seeds that can sprout into larger investigations.

Oh, and here's a story as an example: http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/columnists/ct­talk­brotman­ birds­­0926­20110926,0,4489619.column Eric Gyllenhaal Show parent | Reply

61

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Kaleen Povis ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 11:26 AM

As we continue this discussion, it seems that a common lexicon is becoming more and more important.

From the comments already made, it is evident that there are many ways a visitor can be involved at a museum/natural history setting such as bird watching, hiking, seeing exhibits, using manipulatives, making a craft, posting a response, talking with staff, etc.

Terms we see to categorize some of these options are "hands­on" or "interactive" or "participatory."

However, not everyone defines those terms in the same way. For example, the word "interactive" to some museums means computer­based, whereas others use the term to indicate any exhibit features that can be handled and changed by visitors...which is where the word blurs with hands­on.

So, for clarity sake, I'd like to introduce the definition Nina Simons provides for the participatory design technique: "I define a participatory cultural institution as a place where visitors can create, share, and connect with each other around content. Create means that visitors contribute their own ideas, objects, and creative expression to the institution and to each other. Share means that people discuss, take home, remix, and redistribute both what they see and what they make during their visit. Connect means that visitors socialize with other people—staff and visitors—who share their particular interests. Around content means that visitors’ conversations and creations focus on the evidence, objects, and ideas most important to the institution in question.

The goal of participatory techniques is both to meet visitors’ expectations for active engagement and to do so in a way that furthers the mission and core values of the institution. Rather than delivering the same content to everyone, a participatory institution collects and shares diverse, personalized, and changing content co­produced with visitors. It invites visitors to respond and add to cultural artifacts, scientific evidence, and historical records on display. It showcases the diverse creations and opinions of non­ experts. People use the institution as meeting grounds for dialogue around the content presented. Instead of being “about” something or “for” someone, participatory institutions are created and managed “with” visitors." (http://www.participatorymuseum.org/preface/) Do visitors to your natural history institution see it as a place where they can create, share, and connect? It is obvious to the public that they are invited to co­produce and that your institution values that act?

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Bill Watson ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 11:45 AM

Thanks for helping us further refine the parameters of participation.

We are grappling with the idea of creation in our natural history museum right now. As some of our team members have indicated, "create" isn't a word you usually hear or see in a natural history museum.

So the question we're looking at right now is: What does "creation" look like in a natural history museum?

Is it creating art? Is there a natural history version of spaces like the BioCurious or GenSpace hacker spaces?

Bill

62

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Kaleen Povis ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 12:46 PM

It does feel awkward to use the word create in the natural history context because we so often think of creating in an artistic sense.

As my work in Natural History museums has developed, I have shifted to thinking about the ways visitors can create their own theory, understanding, inferences, analogies, explanations, connections, categories, or collections. Since many of these are mental creations, the challenge is to invite such thinking and to provide a compelling way to document the ideas in order to excite conversation.

This sort of interactivity­ with collections, with the museum, and between groups is a high bar to reach.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Lynda Kelly ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 06:36 PM

I suggest you look at the literature on "crowdsourcing" as this to me is true/equal/two way participation. I have written about this here, with some useful links: http://australianmuseum.net.au/BlogPost/Audience­ Research­Blog/More­on­Crowdsourcing Also the Science Museum's "Co­curation and the Public Hisotory of Science" conference is a good source of discussion mixed with actual examples which can be sourced via this blogpost for starters: http://australianmuseum.net.au/blogpost/Audience­Research­Blog/Co­curation­and­the­Public­History­of­ Science­Workshop­Part­1 Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Kathleen McLean ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 12:03 PM

I'd like to throw out a different perspective, one that I wrote about in my book "Planning for People in Museum Exhibitions" in 1994. The "hands­on," "participatory" and "interactive" question has been around for at least that long, and yet we still haven't gotten beyond the confusion.

If you really consider the notion of "participation," it doesn't necessarily incorporate the notion of RECIPROCITY, which is what I'm more interested in. One can participate in an activity by simply being there. INTERACTIVITY—a word Frank Oppenheimer often used at the Exploratorium—is a more important focus for us, I think. Because "interactivity" connotes a reciprocity of some kind—the notion of getting feedback—and it is within the dynamic of receiving feedback that generative learning can take place.

Some of the questions here about citizen science projects get at that notion as well, particularly the ones about giving citizen participants some feedback about what difference their data makes.

"Interactivity" may seem like an old word to some of you, but I think it gets at a deeper aspect of experience at which we are aiming. Interactivity is participation PLUS feedback. So how can we focus on thinking about going beyond mere participation to encouraging multiple feedback loops with our visitors and stakeholders? Feedback loops that also change US in the process. That gets us away from the notion that we "create" things for others to consume.

Show parent | Reply

63

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by James Bryant ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 12:17 PM

This is a fascinating interchange: I have to admit that, at first, I regarded the phrase "participatory experience" as oxymoronic, but then I don't work in one of those vast "walk and look" facilities. For my part, I probably interact with 10 thousand or so museum visitors every year, in a space about the size of many people's living rooms. The space is poorly designed (many people think at first glance that it is an office, a laboratory, some kind of room they are not supposed to enter, even though the doors are wide open), so we have to invite them in, often in languages other than English. I guess that starts the interaction.

We have both living and preserved collections on view in the room. On seeing live critters, some visitors leave the room immediately, which threatens to limit their "participation". We usually have some sort of interchange about that, and most of the time these visitors are persuaded to come back in, take a look around, and probably TOUCH SOMETHING. We have a variety of levels of technology available, from the simple (e.g. forceps, a field guide) to the complex (a microscope, Internet access). We offer people the option of browsing, or they can get involved in a more detailed observation or investigation. As has been described in other comments, the technology tends to mean nothing without a facilitator to bring about a rewarding interaction between the observer and the observed.

I have a great deal of admiration and respect for the type of science that's done in my community and the people who do it, but I'm afraid its possible to be "over impressed" by the requirement that public participation in nature observation needs to be "real science" before those observations can be useful. A local engineering college had the wonderful idea of bringing its grad and undergrad students to our museum so they could showcase their amazing work. I did a preparation seminar for all of them about methods of informal science education. One of my main points was that they needed to get back in touch with what inspired them to pursue science careers in order to share that passion with museum visitors. For some students, this was a BIG REACH. In the end, I think they may have had a "participatory experience", too.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Timshel Purdum ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 03:25 PM

Something I am intrigued by is the use of technology to enhance visitor communication and sharing of experiences with different visitors in the past/future to an exhibit. Something like the standard sticky note comment board. I like the idea of deepening the conversation amongst visitors over time. Nina Simon blogged about the Portland Art Museum, about their Object Stories project which I think illustrates this point very well. The project got visotrs to share deep peronsl connections with objects­­hitory and art related. I'd like to see similar connections develop with the objects in my natural history museum and find ways of using technology to help share those stories amongst visitors.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Kaleen Povis ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 04:13 PM

Great point. The people I talk to who are passionate about natural history have a story, often of a particular event, that seeded that interest. Connecting to that can be a powerful tie, and we should encourage our visitors to share their stories.

Show parent | Reply

64

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Chris Myers ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 05:48 PM

Although not focused on museums, I highly recommend a book by Roger Hart entitled Children's Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Andrés Sehinkman ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 05:50 PM

Astonishment, surprise, making you forget about other things, fascination, curiosity: a book can give you that, or going to the movies, etc. When it comes to science, and natural history as well, you can certainly find that feelings in the field, while reading a nat. hist. book or just by watching some strange creature´s photo, but when you go to a Nat. Hist. Museum you expect more. Much more than you can find for your own. Specially today, with internet around. And if go there just by chance, it is our responsabiity to offer the visitor something good.

For many years my museum was a big old book, with nice pictures but a lot of dense text and signs that would indicate not to touch, not to speak loudly, not to scream or run. As it presents one of the finest argentine dinosaur collections on display and kids love Jurassic Park, it´s still a major attraction. But there used to be NOTHING that would be participative.

I was mad at that and with a bunch of collegues we created an exhibition on frogs just to break those rules: Visitors would enter a dark hall, the sound of a storm sorrounds them while they calm down and understund the change. A storm at the museum, never happened.There they would discover what a frog is, the secrets of metamorphosis and have a glimpse to argentinean frog´s diversity through giant replicas to be touched and a photographic exhibition. Sound installations of frog choruses would be found in all the exhibit, they would come and go from different speakers, surprising people. Kids where running around searching for them. At a conservation spot we asked people how a frogless world would be like, and the answer was to be found through headphones: the sound of nerve­breaking mosquitos.We invited kids to bring their torches from home to have a special activity with live frogs. Kids would discover many local species, see them moving and touch them, it was a big hit at the museum.

On the new bird hall, at the interactive sound dioramas we decided to let them sound all together if people wants to, even when we have severe acoustic problems it allows families and groups to play together, have fun, scream a lot, imitate bird songs, etc. The visitors survey we are doing now reveals that this is one of their favourite parts, because they feel they´re "there", in the wild. We added many cubes of different colors that kids use to see higher dioramas or to jump from one to another. They have fun. We also use magnifying glasses to dicover feathers or owl´s feeding balls contents and put some ruler next to the biggest argentine bird silohuettes so they can see who´s taller. Simple and affordable to our local budget but completely new for our audience.

Kids and teenagers are naturals to this. They try to touch everything. Everything. They need to discover by themselves, experience things. I guess the key is to transmit passion. The power of Natural Science is that if properly offered, everybody gets hit.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Gabrielle Lyon ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 06:13 AM

This sounds wonderful!

Show parent | Reply

65

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences by martin weiss ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 07:13 AM

One thing I've been thinking about is the use of technology in this thread. I wonder if we risk excluding visitors who cannot use or are unfamiliar with technology because of many reasons that have little to do with interest in science. This is not a problem only in natural history museums and is not a condemnation of using technology but the potential for technology to exclude visitors. I guess this is a tangential subject of how to make science accessible to all our visitors but it is something to consider. For this and other reasons I would have posted earlier to Eric's post about taking a walk in the woods, park, or backyard to experience nature with perhaps nothing more than a magnifying glass and a guide (docent, Explainer or printed guide) to introduce family groups with younger children to exploring nature and asking questions as entry to studying nature. Some times we can get caught up in our passion for "advanced" topics without helping visitors with a broader view of nature in their "backyard". As an earlier post noted up until very recently science was observational and did not involve technology (unless we consider Darwin's magnifying glass of Leeuwenhoek's simple microscope technology).

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Melody Basham ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 08:47 AM

Martin, You bring up an excellent point. I have seen this especially with senior visitors. . .In addition to possible hearing and vision loss there can also be cognitive limitations­­all of which can create issues of accessibility to content, especially content that involves the use of technology.

Backyard science not only allows marginal populations to do science it also serves those who are unable to get to the museum. For example seniors in nursing homes can do citizen science by observing birds from their window or measuring the rate of change in plants. Observational science really is the ultimate participatory experience and has the potential to be used in so many different settings. The Natural History museum I think has the potential to play a central and major role in environmental education, promoting citizen science in the community, and becoming a more "social" museum that goes beyond the walls of the institution.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Eileen Smith ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 10:29 AM

Technology is just a series of tools ­ sometimes the best tools are a sketchbook and pencil to draw and record information. The real opportunity is to weave together "primitive" and "new" technology (not the best descriptors but hope it gets the point across.) Anytime that technology excludes rather than includes, it's not the right technology. That's the real fun in designing learning experiences­we need to consider anything and everything that's possible and practical, given our particular audiences and experiences.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Lynda Kelly ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 06:52 PM

Ralph Appelbaum said that people will visit museums with more technology in their pockets than can ever be available in the entire museum. So I don't think it is a question those who cannot use technology because we all have capabilities now via smartphones. The stats are showing that this will only increase.

66

Children will never not use a device that isn't plugged in and connected with others, so collaboration will be the norm.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Melody Basham ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 12:06 AM

This past week at the Arizona Museum of Natural History we had our annual Lifelong Explorer’s event which is a pilot program we have been developing for special needs adults. The definition for what is an engaging experience is going to be different for each individual who visits our museums and nature centers. . .this is especially true for those visitors who have different levels of cognitive abilities.

Engaging in our natural world should be for all audiences and what we are finding is that special populations like seniors and special needs adults need special spaces just as much as children do. For this event we designate the museum’s theatre as our Discovery Zone and set up engaging and interactive stations that are designed specifically to serve the learning needs of this population. Our theme this year was based around space exploration and we integrated galaxy shapes into several of the activities and art projects.

Docents and interpreters are central to the success of this type of program. They are more than just reservoirs of facts and knowledge . .but rather serve as mediators of learning in assisting these visitors in connecting with their experience.

The materials used in participatory learning are important, but it is the person behind the tools---- the docent or interpreter-- who are really key in assisting the visitor to attach meaning with those tools.

I believe the more a docent integrates any of the following the better the results when serving this audience.

1. Using clear prompts and simple English 2. Providing multiple pathways and opportunities for engagement 3. Being receptive and PREPARED to use the tools in ways not originally intended!

4. Providing opportunities for reflection, expression, and questions 5. The use of review and repetition 6. Frequent use of positive reinforcement throughout the experience The rewards in working with this under served population are many. . . While shining a flashlight onto a globe to better understand night and day one young man stated, “Let there be light. . .now I know how God works. . .” Participating in the natural sciences for this individual provided a meaningful and powerful context that he could connect 67

with and relate to in a very personal way.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Lynda Kelly ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 06:55 PM

Sounds great ­ so much can be learned from audiences with special needs. We have worked with NOVA Employment, a Disability Employment Agency in front­end and formative evaluation and gaining insights into how these audiences engage with museums has been very rewarding. More here: http://australianmuseum.net.au/BlogPost/Audience­Research­Blog/Working­with­NOVA­Employment Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Grace Kimble ­ Sunday, 2 October 2011, 11:40 AM

The OPAL (Open Air Laboratories Network), is based at a number of sites in the UK including the Natural History Museum: http://www.opalexplorenature.org/ This page explains their aims and I feel it is very relevant to this discussion: http://goo.gl/Vyiaq They have raised the profile of Bioblitz events, and by looking at particular habitats on specific days have increased awareness of different UK habitat types. Today for example is the Hedgerow Harvest Day: http://goo.gl/0hNUu

I mentioned Nature Plus, the Natural History Museum's dedicated social networking site a couple of days ago but I feel it is relevant here too: http://goo.gl/Rskq6 Visitors can sign in and personalise their version of the site by collecting links (on site, using screens and barcode cards) or by choosing which blogs they want to see.

You can see the museum ID service is a key point for participation on Nature Plus. They are also on twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/nhm_id I have worked with community groups who explored the Thames by canoe and brought in their finds (200 year old cattle, sheep and goat bones, we later found there used to be a farm nearby and that Chinese Mitten Crabs were responsible for revealing them recently!). It was highly motivating and surprising for the participants! This was a John Muir Trust initiative.

That brings me to a brilliant example I heard of lately: the Crowd­Sourced periodic table at the Dublin Science Gallery for the International Year of Chemistry http://goo.gl/WcqD8 Has anyone seen it for themselves? Or maybe Michael Gorman is here to add more....?

Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow have a community curated collection where people have selected specimens and objects that they find beautiful or ugly (natural history and social history). I have some pictures if you are interested as I couldn't find a link for you. It is enlightening to find out different associations such as an owl being selected as ugly for superstition, and marine specimens beautiful; one label reads 'the care and time that must have been taken finding and collating items, such as the tiny sea­ water mussel pearls, contributed to my delight in unwrapping these small boxes'.

68

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 3: Participatory Experiences

by Bill Watson ­ Monday, 3 October 2011, 08:29 AM

Wow. What a terrific discussion. I'm finding this thread more difficult to summarize than the others because there are many insightful perspectives. Each takes a piece of the question and teases appart its nuances very thoughtfully. Nevertheless, here is a first shot at identifying some patterns and high level ideas that are emerging: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Continuing refinement of what is meant by participation is important to offering diverse experiences that meet the needs of different audiences.

Our audiences already participate in many ways. We need to understand more fully how our audiences are defining their own participation so that we can support them and/or identify opportunities to fill gaps.

Audiences are key to identifying the purpose and goals of particpiation. For some audiences, "entry level participation" could help to inspire additional action, to make the step between "I like this" to "Hey, I can do that!" For others, participation could involve shifting from participation that is "authentic for me" to that which is "authentic to a field of study."

We are making strides in increasing opportunities for active participation in many settings.

Participation that involves feedback as a core ingredient could be an opportunity to maximize the benefits of participatoin.

Conveying the fun, excitement, and passion of natural history is important to inspiring particpiation that is authentic to/defined by our audiences.

Participation does not equal "includes technology".

I will look forward to continued discussion here and in other topics about participation. This seems to be an area that is particularly ripe for continued refinement and research.

Bill

Show parent | Reply

You are logged in as Grace Kimble (Logout)

69

4. Relevance Whether you spent your weekend thinking deep thoughts about learning in natural history settings, faciliating or taking part in that learning, or distancing yourself completely from the topic, welcome back to the forum!

The next topic is Relevance. This topic has been an undertone in much of the forum so far, including some new posts that came through on Saturday and Sunday.

We've discussed the many ways that natural history learning is relevant to individual learners and their social groups. However, we also know that natural history research and perspectives have incredible relevance for understanding today's world ­ from climate change and evolution to earthquakes and medicine.

Some questions to consider for this topic include:

• • • • • • •

How can we best help visitors to experience and understand the importance and value of the natural world?

Which topics present the richest opportunities to help our audiences connect natural history and nature to their everyday lives?

What types of new practices and approaches will enable us to highlight the relevance of natural history for individuals' lives?

How can we best use and connect our scientific assets to engage our publics and promote dialogue around current science and science issues in the news?

What impact does programming that connects natural events and natural history to people's lives have on interest, engagement, awareness and understanding?

To what extent and in what ways does programming on current science events encourage conversations about and new perspectives on those events?

How can we leverage advances in digitial collections and resources to rapidly access and make available content relevant to current events?

As always, these questions are just the beginning. We'll look forward to seeing how they are expanded and refined through this discussion.

70

Re: Topic 4: Relevance

by Jim Kisiel ­ Monday, 3 October 2011, 11:23 AM

First, I apologize if some of these ideas are repeated­­been struggling to stay up­to­date on this rich discussion!

Certainly relevance is a topic on top of mind for many museums and informal learning settings­­especially the 'brick and mortar' sites. I think the assets that natural history museums in particular bring to the table are key to their relevance. Not to take away from the growing variety of resources and innovations that are emerging from these institutions, I see two assets especially unique to natural history museums­­the collection and the scientists.

One of the challenges in leveraging such assets would seem to be the embedded culture of these historic institutions. It requires working with museum scientists (curators, collections managers, etc.) and helping them to understand their audiences. To realize that it's not about telling, but about sharing, interacting, and potentially co­construction of understanding. SUch a paradigm shift is not easily done. In many cases, you have a community of practice­­the scientists­­who have done amazing work, but may not truly understand their role as communicators, or even see interaction with publics as a primary objective for their efforts.

This was quite evident during my tenure at a natural history museum a few years back. Changing a culture, which has been in place since the beginning of natural history museums (over 100 years) is not trivial.

Breaking tradition, while still valuing the assets that make natural history museums the important institutions that they've come to be, is difficult. However, I expect that many of those in this forum have ventured into this pathway, with interesting results. I look forward to hearing successes, as well as challenges (because it's important to understand these as well) that others have encountered in bringing the unique assets of these museums to bear on the relevance of natural history and science for the public.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 4: Relevance by martin weiss ­ Monday, 3 October 2011, 12:23 PM

Jim you raise a good point. I am involved in a series of projects on evolution and its misconception by the general public. None of these projects are in natural history museums though they could be as evolution is a large part of their narrative. One exhibition, Charlie & Kiwi's Evolutionary Adventure was designed to understand how we can help children understand evolution. We learned through Margaret Evans' research (summarized in a CAISE study) that we could move children from a natural creationist view of the natural world to one of understanding of change (evolution) in the natural world. Children love dinosaurs and are a natural constituent of natural history museums because of this. Another project is on the relationship between evolution and health two topics that are not usually joined although the Cleveland Natural History Museum a number of years ago absorbed the Cleveland Museum of Health and I understand they too are pursuing this topic. In this instance it is hard not to see the relevance of evolution beyond agriculture and medicines, for example. We are embarking on a third project (hopefully) about misconceptions about human evolution that is rooted in the idea that we, humans, occupy an exceptional position (either due to special creation or special characteristics—intelligence) in the natural world and therefore are not subject to evolution. We are hoping to explore this idea (via research) with visitors and develop a program that will serve as an intervention to the misconception that we are not animals through an exploration of our evolutionary history way back past past hominins. Studies that Evans (and I hope she will join this conversation) did as part of work on Explore Evolution indicated that the public can accept evolution for small, less complex organisms like bacteria and viruses but not for more complex organisms like us. Our hope is that through understanding of evolution the public will gain more insight into the relevance of the natural world to their own lives and the rest of the biosphere.

71

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 4: Relevance

by Stephen Roberts ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 12:21 PM

Hi Jim, I too am somewhat dazzled with the richness of this forum that I have barely skimmed but wanted to come in on your point about culture that I feel we have seen a real success story in.

Here at the Natural History Museum in London I feel that we have seen a significant shift in culture since the opening of the Darwin Centre back in 2002. We are fortunate to have a growing number of science staff (especially researchers) who actively advocate participative/audience led (or at least partly)/informal discussion based approaches to direct public engagement (vs. "telling") as a means to benefit their own work. I feel that this positive culture has also seen us better able to engage wider audiences with more challenging subject areas, to be more innovative in terms of formats and, arguably, create greater impact.

For example we had an event last Friday evening that saw 320 scientists taking part (209 of the 300 NHM science staff) in a vast range of activities leading to over 27,000 interactions with nearly 6000 visitors. The impact of this effort is being collated as we speak but I feel confident that this would not have been possible were it not for this shift in culture.

I would say that "embedded cultures" can certainly change and sometimes quite (perhaps in museum terms!) quickly. It would be good to hear other case studies around culture change.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 4: Relevance

by Linda Wilson ­ Monday, 3 October 2011, 01:53 PM

Thanks for the questions Bill, each one could be a day's topic!

Two points come to mind: ­ One of the outcomes, intended or not, for public science institutions, is to continue to be considered a trusted source of information. Polls show the public still trusts us, but essentially dismisses or questions the information coming from mainstream media and governmental agencies. While both purport to be reporting on science, each is aklso subject to internal and external sources that bring their trustworthiness into question. What can we do to maintain and increase that sense of trust in what we say, and what are the external factors that could erode that trust? ­ Personal values are involved in any issue­related topic. We used to think, in the not­so­distant past, that the K­A­B model was the way to know, that increased knowledge had the capacity to change attitudes, and changes in attitudes could lead to change in behavior. Now it's generally accepted that these are weak links, and that the underlying value system each of us has influences environmental behavior choices far more than knowledge or attitudes. These value systems must be acknowledged and accepted, as previous posters have noted. Our jobs have become much more challenging, but also allow us to move from dogma to our own growth.

I have especially enjoyed the descussion of interactivity/participation/give­and­take with visitors and look

72

forward to reading more example and, especially more references, especially to how we might measure our implact in these areas.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 4: Relevance

by Robert Bixler ­ Monday, 3 October 2011, 02:24 PM

RELEVANCE­­when I introduced myself, I mentioned that I used the sociology and psychology of leisure/recreation as a major tool/lens in my research. Based on my past experiences, I bet some of us quit reading my post right then and there. I once got seriously and publicly chewed out at a conference by an educator from a major east coast zoo for suggesting that leisure/recreation was part of the solution.

How dare I suggest that something so trivial and frivolous could help save her critically endangered wildlife.

Leisure has three major definitions. It is the time after work and subsistence activities are completed, it is also "activity" (butterfly collecting), and it is a psychological motivational state. As a psychological experience, leisure is any activity that is intrinsically interesting. In fact, since none of us are getting paid to do this, and we are participating out of strong, meaningful personal interest, participating in this forum easily qualifies as meeting the psychological definition of leisure as activities that are intrinsically interesting and freely chosen. Leisure isn't just watching TV and going to football games.

Let me state the above leisure stuff from the negative: No one has to come to your zoo or museum or visit your web page. If they do visit, they don't have to read your exhibit labels, and if they do they will think about the information from those labels, their way, not your way. They don't have to go to your programs, and if they do their motivations will vary widely. They may be there to learn what you intended, to challenge you to show everyone that they know more than you do, to confirm that you and your organization are a godless evolutionist, to get out of the house, to do any old thing with out­of­town relatives, etc. One of the first activities I do with my interpretation methods class is complete a chart that compares and contrasts formal classroom learning with a visit to a museum for a program.

Richard Louv in his "Last Child in the Woods" book popularized a phenomenon that had been discussed in academic circles for years­­Childhood play in nature is a foundational experience for later interest in nature and the environment. Play­­frivolous, silly, play. There are some correlational studies that tie participation in natural history dependent recreation activities (mushroom hunting, birding, hunting) to significantly greater pro­environmental attitudes. One of the challenges we have, given the withdrawal of natural history studies from all levels of formal schooling, is how do we generate INITIAL interest in people.

Why in this day and age, would anyone want to spend time with natural history experiences? What are those foundational experiences that begin to make going to a natural history museum or a nature walk an appealing freely chosen, intrinsically interesting activity?

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 4: Relevance

by Eric Gyllenhaal ­ Monday, 3 October 2011, 03:21 PM

One of the nice things about natural history is that it has a way of forcing its way into your life, often in highly personal and instantly meaningful ways. The hawk on the back fence, the crinoid fossil in the dirt, a flight of Sandhill Cranes overhead, the baby bunny in the backyard­­instant relevance, even for many adults. Or maybe a less positive form of relevance­­the centipede in your bathtub, wasp nest in the backyard, front­yard tree that starts to die. Sometimes nature chooses you in ways that are hard to resist.

Personal­natural events seem to inspire at least situational interest in many sorts of folks. These events are ephemeral, but often predictable and seasonal. So, who's out there trying to make folks' interest a bit less ephemeral? Online, Cornell Lab of Ornithology has the birds well covered, extension services and

73

state university departments do the bugs and trees pretty well, amateurs (like me!) fill in some of the gaps.

I know some state parks and nature centers that have the social media pretty well covered for their areas.

But googling these sorts of natural events rarely links me to museum websites.

Eric Gyllenhaal Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 4: Relevance

by Jane Pickering ­ Monday, 3 October 2011, 04:55 PM

I wanted to make a comment about the last question – how to leverage digital collections. As we know the development and growth of the World Wide Web has revolutionized the process of seeking and obtaining information about museum collections for research and education purposes. Online catalogs are an effective way to make information about a collection available to a wide range of users, and the massive potential for increased collection usage that could be realized by this web­based mobilization of collections data was a motivating factor in the development of the NSF’s new $multi­million initiative “Advancing Digitization of Biological Collections.” However to make collections truly accessible, and to promote their use for the sort of rapid access to relevant content, as suggested in Bill’s question, we need to go beyond simply capturing vast amounts of data and enlist the broader community in the enhancement of those records. In conventional natural history data portals (e.g. MaNIS HerpNet etc. – a lot of acronyms) there is little that users can do once data have been delivered in response to a query other than view or download them. The massive growth of social networking technologies facilitates movement away from static web pages to dynamic and shareable content. As our art museum colleagues found with the groundbreaking Steve project (http://www.steve.museum/), the impact of social tagging of object metadata can be significant. 86% of the contributions during the Steve project did not match existing museum metadata and 88% of all tags were judged by the museums as being useful for finding or describing the particular works of art from their collections. Natural history collection databases need tools to enable users to interact with data; e.g. to group, share or enhance records, or to return comments on the data to originating institutions.

As educators we should be proactively working with collections staff to jointly devise and implement such projects, rather than leaving collections digitization initiatives to our colleagues.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 4: Relevance

by Bill Watson ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 09:17 AM

This might be our deepest and most diverse topic yet, despite having the fewest number of entries. It dovetails with the thread that Lynda started on "Learning in Natural History Settings" so I think it's worth considering the two here together.

Some of the high level patterns that are emerging from these threads are:

• • •

It is important to us that we involve our visitors in experiences and content that help them to understand that humans are a part of nature. From the discussion, there seems to be agreement that there are many challenges to this basic understanding.

We have much to learn about our audiences, their motivations, their relationships with nature, their decisions for leisure time activities, and what they find exciting about our respective and collective environments.

Valuing communication of our relevance ­ particularly for museums ­ will require cultural shifts in the way we frame and pursue "access" to collections, data, and experts.

It is encouraging to see synergies between this topic and previous ones. We will all look forward to continued discussion!

74

Bill Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 4: Relevance

by Linda Wilson ­ Thursday, 6 October 2011, 09:54 AM

Regarding technology and partnerships and audiences with not­quite­citizen science:

Taking data in an institution with living collections is a little problematic in balancing data collection with animal safety and welfare.

I attended the aquarium's teacher open house last night, and one of the exhibits they were viewing was our special exhibit, Jellies. I was impressed with the display from one school that used the exhibit to direct observation and teach science process skills, even though the exhibit covers those topics only indirectly.

The teacher had the 4th grade students develop hypotheses about the actions of the animals and the students took data of how many times the various jellies pulsed per minute, followed by their discussion of the results.

I mentioned to the education manager who was in the area how impressed I was, and how much parents with children would have enjoyed such an activity. She said we have two ways of pursuing this ­ putting up a sign outlining the activity and providing space where families could post their data, or work through something like Project www.

projectdragonfly

.org/ , where we could set up a project for visitors to take data, enter it into a computer, and then see a display of their data against all who entered, or some subset (automatic crosstabs <grin>.

I've thoroughly enjoyed these late comments, bringing in even more diversity in our topics Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 4: Relevance

by Linda Wilson ­ Thursday, 6 October 2011, 12:06 PM

And this just showed up on the Conservation Psychology List Serve

Linda

SAVE THE DATE: Important Environmental Literacy Event -- Inperson and Online Save Dec. 1 for the roll-out of "A Framework for Assessing Environmental Literacy" at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, and live via the internet.

Mark your calendars for Thursday, December 1, 2011, 1:00 – 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time This new framework for assessing environmental literacy was developed with experts from the fields of environmental education, social studies education, and science education, plus related policy and social science fields. The development team will be joined by leaders from large-scale national and international assessments to discuss how to define and assess environmental literacy.

The North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) spearheaded this project with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), and is partnering with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (NMSF) to release the framework.

Details about pre-registration and directions for joining us for this important event will be posted on www.naaee.net in early November.

75

Show parent | Reply

You are logged in as Grace Kimble (Logout)

76

5. Collaboration Congratulations to all for making it through to the final topic of this discussion! As many have noted, each of these topics could be a forum unto itself. In some cases, individual questions could be.

It seems appropriate to shift our focus for the final day from "What do we know about learning in natural history settings?" to "How should we work together to learn more and develop new amazing experiences for the people we serve?"

There have been some hints in the posts in previous topics that we need to find or adapt models of working together, within and across institutions, to continue to be relevant to and enjoyed by audiences in the 21st Century.

Some questions to consider:

• • • • •

How should we, as nature and natural history focused organizations and projects, work together to learn more and develop new amazing experiences for the people we serve?

What is an appropriate balance between theory & research and practice as we develop new models for engaging audiences?

What existing models for collaboration can be leveraged or adapted for working together as a field of providers in "natural history settings"?

What are the roles for ­ and how should we collaborate with ­ innovators outside of institutional informal learning communities (e.g., game designers, theme park designers, university outreach and extension offices, venture capitalists)?

How can we best balance the needs and priorities of various settings (natural history museums, nature centers, media, zoos, etc.) with the need for pursuing synergies in our efforts to best meet our publics' needs?

As before, these are intended as only a beginning. We'll look forward to the discussion.

77

Re: Topic 5: Collaboration

by Margaret Evans ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 12:24 PM

What do we know about our audiences? There are various pockets of knowledge in both the academic (anthropology, learning sciences, psychology) and informal science communities, but it is rarely integrated or focused on relevant topics. Some mechanism for bringing this diverse group together and making the collective wisdom available would be tremendously useful. One way is to post topics and request posts of successful models for engaging the audience on that topic ­ specifying both the model and the audience (age­group, educational­level, etc.,). But we also need a resource for accessing this information. Perhaps CAISE/ASTC could provide digital resources.

For example: **One major topic is evolutionary biology, which should be of relevance to all settings that deal with the presentation of nature from media to zoos to museums. It is difficult to devise models for engaging diverse audiences until we know who they are and why they do/do not engage. One surprising finding (at least it surprised me) was that between 25­30% of natural history museum visitors (adults, 60% with a college degree or above) do not accept that humans evolved, but are happy to accept that other animals evolved.

These are not creationists who do not accept evolution at all. A key predictor of whether or not they accept evolution for humans is whether or not they believe that humans are animals.... so whatever the informal science community could do to make it clear that we are part and parcel of the animal world should be of major concern to all. An issue that few have addressed (I would love to hear about it if it has been discussed) is whether different ethnic groups view the human­as­animal connection differently. ** Conservation/climate change. How can this topic be addressed without bringing in evolution, which provides the foundation for understanding our relationship to the environment. The Smithsonian's hominid exhibit did explore the relationship between human evolution and climate change. Was this successful?

Are there other models for exploring this relationship ** What kinds of evidence do people find most convincing? Children can grasp that fossils represent organisms that used to live on earth. What about genetics? The formal science community is developing learning progressions the cover students' emerging grasp of genetics. How can we leverage this knowledge in the informal science community? ­­­ I am sure there are other many examples of topic that should be of relevance to all? ==== Margaret Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 5: Collaboration

by Robert Bixler ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 01:14 PM

Bill asked:

•

How should we, as nature and natural history focused organizations and projects, work together to learn more and develop new amazing experiences for the people we serve?

I don't really know, but the word "experiences" as opposed to "education" is a good start in thinking about this. We need to work on not just what the experience we orchestrated for our audience accomplished but also evaluate whether it stimulated future continued engagement­­sometime/somewhere after the program.

78

•

What is an appropriate balance between theory & research and practice as we develop new models for engaging audiences?

In the end we must all become reflective practitioners. When I hear terms like "best practices" or "evidence based practice" my bull­excrement detectors go off. There are no such things, as any strategy only works with some types of people in some types of place. No one could possibly find enough research to make all of their decisions based on research..and research on teaching natural history is particularly lacking. I am currently spending a year visiting lots of nature centers. This little NGOs are practically broke, and having to make ends meet on small grants and fees, and consequently are trying anything and everything. They are doing some really innovative things­­and they don't even realize how innovative they are being. Their work is not going to show up in any of those "Best Practices" manuals.

We work in many venues from the large "Y" National Parks in the western United States where almost everyone is a first­time/only time visitor never to return, to local and regional attractions with memberships and a strong sense of community where dozens of visits a year from the same person are not uncommon.

Much of the existing research in my field has been done in the large national attractions who have the resources to fund research projects ($20K to 500K). Those little 'o nature centers have had almost no research done at them. I would be hard pressed to even point to a published simple visitor profile from a nature center in terms of demographics or experience use history. While there are some research projects which are widely applicable, evaluative research in particular must recognize contextual differences between a large national museum, a regional zoo, a residential summer camp, and a local nature center.

In the end research is valuable to practitioners when the findings enhance reflection by practitioners.

Research should confirm or discofirm that a current practice is correct and/or help practitioners view their work through additional lenses. Research will never conduct programs, only practitioners do that.

o

What existing models for collaboration can be leveraged or adapted for working together as a field of providers in "natural history settings"?

o

What are the roles for ­ and how should we collaborate with ­ innovators outside of institutional informal learning communities (e.g., game designers, theme park designers, university outreach and extension offices, venture capitalists)?

I don't know.

Over the years, I have found that almost every field is inbreed. We tend to read and reference stuff created by folks just like us. I have started reading golf management literature, business texts about services/experiences design, and youth sports developmental literature. Of particular interest has been books written by marketing researchers about marketing to children (gasp!­­even more offensive than refering to our field as being in the leisure sector). These folks reference all the standard Piaget, Kohlberg, Erickson developmental models that we all got in our educational psychology classes in college, but analyze the affective and behavioral components of successful products and services for children. I found the book "What Kids Buy and Why" a valuable extension to my understanding of the differences in different age groups.

We are competing with well funded and talented leisure sector competition. To some extent we have to get down at their level and do some things that make us a little uncomfortable. These low life scum have much to teach us.

o

How can we best balance the needs and priorities of various settings (natural history museums, nature centers, media, zoos, etc.) with the need for pursuing synergies in our efforts to best meet our publics' needs?

As I alluded to above, there are some pretty important contextual/setting differences. We need to figure out what are the (meaningful) differences between these natural history organizations, and how those differences can be used in a complementary manner to provide varied and continuing experiences for the emerging natural history enthusiast. A zoo director I know often quotes a study that suggests that 97% of

79

the US population has been to a zoo at least once. I don't think that kind of "market penetration" would apply to other natural history organizations. Some local attractions seem to have a small number of highly involved members, and the general population in the area is not even aware of the organization's existence. With this question I think we need an understanding of what each type of organization does best­­and then we can tie these organizations together in a complementary way.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 5: Collaboration

by James Bryant ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 02:05 PM

I really appreciate Bill Bixler's insights, especially with respect to the differences in audiences between the large and small natural attractions around the nation.

How should we work together? Well, we definitely need to stop competing, and do whatever we can to break down the barriers between our programs and institutions. I have institutions that are mere minutes away by car, with which our museum shares elements of mission and even collections, yet I have never been able to develop an ongoing correspondence in ideas. Very few of our organizations have resources over which we can make truly proprietary claims: we all hold these resources in trust for the general public. The development and delivery of our services needs to always be mindful of this.

What is an appropriate balance between theory & research and practice? Bill makes a good point that public programs research often follows practice, and seldom anticipates it. I have to admit that my eyes glaze over at lengthy descriptions of informal science education outcome measures. Every nature educator who works face to face with visitors has a good, personal gauge of how strong the contact is with any particular audience member during a program. If that person returns for more interaction, then real in-depth learning can begin. As Bill points out, the little store front nature centers are probably where this phenomenon most often occurs, and most often is completely overlooked by research. I guessmy suggestion would be that the larger natural history institutions around the nation can lead with research, using their organizational infrastructure to constantly shore up the casefor informal nature education to the nation's leadership, all the while mindful that the smaller community-based organizations are the "ground troops" of nature education.

What existing models for collaboration can be leveraged or adapted for working together? I don't know that I've happened to see a good example, yet.

Show parent | Reply

80

Re: Topic 5: Collaboration

by Eric Gyllenhaal ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 03:12 PM

In response to Bill's question, "What existing models for collaboration can be leveraged or adapted for working together as a field of providers in 'natural history settings'?": Here are two somewhat different ways to think about collaboration: 1. When parents have a child who is really interested in a particular natural history topic­­dinosaurs, rocks, butterflies, birds, whatever­­there are lots of resources available to them to help support their child's interest­­libraries, the web, Netflix, museums, school, parks, zoos, gardens, neighbors with the same interest, clubs, whatever. They can construct their own sort of highly personalized de facto collaboration among all these potential sources of support, especially if other adults help out with advice and effort. It's a sort of bottom­up approach to collaboration, where the players have to earn a place by being easy to discover and providing good and appropriate services.

2. Some natural events seem to lend themselves to very decentralized, unplanned, self­organizing sorts of "collaboration" between a broad sweep of individuals and organizations. The 2007 emergence of periodical cicadas did that in the Chicago area. Cicadas always have a presence on the web, a mix of amateur and professional scientists' efforts. As the late spring emergence date approached, all sorts of Chicago­area organizations kicked in with their own efforts­­exhibits at museums and nature centers, festivals at county parks, a range of citizen science efforts, and garden writers at local papers and other media types who helped to spread the word. When the cicadas actually started coming out, ordinary folks started getting into the act, including mommy and music bloggers, internet natural history forums, and old­ fashioned word­of­mouth through the neighborhoods. By the time you found the first little red­eyed monster on your front steps, there was this huge network of resources ready to help you make sense of it.

(And tell you when it would go away.)

I'm not sure what sorts of conclusions to draw from this, other than that top­down collaboration is not the only way to go.

But, if you want a somewhat more top­down approach, then check into Chicago Wilderness: http://www.chicagowilderness.org/stage/index.php Eric Gyllenhaal Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 5: Collaboration

by Wendy Derjue­Holzer ­ Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 12:23 AM

As for collaborators both inside and outside our fields there are lots of directions to pursue. Here are two that have been relevant for us at the Harvard Museum of Natural History.

First, unlike most larger natural history museums, we don't have curators or staff scientists. We are the public facing staff of the museum and we work with our "parent" research museums which host the science researchers and curatorial staff. Because of that, I am very conscious of our relationship with them whether it’s the botany faculty who have agreed to speak to our new docent group, the geology grad student who helps out with a family festival by showing what field work looks like, or the entomology post doc who needs a letter of support for their NSF proposal outreach component. We work to maintain a relationship that is a two way street where we all get and give. We also focus on how we can serve the larger Harvard community – from today’s glass flower tours for the Landscape Design students to serving as the site of folklore class storytelling final project last winter. I do feel lucky to have the resources of the university here even while we all work hard to make and maintain connections.

I’m also interested in the entry points that artists provide into considering the natural world. I appreciate that artists are creating ways to get people to look at the world around them differently. The Harvard Art Museums currently have an exhibit called “Prints and the Pursuit of Knowledge in Early Modern Europe”.

81

We co­lead a teacher PD with them this summer and it was really interesting to think about how we communicate knowledge of the natural world both historically and today. As part of the show they’re hosting a conversation between artist Alexis Rockman and scientist James McCarthy with a focus on how to engage the public in scientific issues.http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/calendar/detail.dot?id=39115 Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 5: Collaboration

by Richard Efthim ­ Thursday, 6 October 2011, 08:42 AM

Wendy,

I'm glad to see the recognition of using art as an entry point to learning about the natural world.

As manager of the Naturalist Center at the Smithsonian's Natural History Museum for some 30+ years, I saw first hand the wide variety of "entry points" that bring people in to use our 30,000 object public study collection. The reality is that each person follows a unique path of prior experiences and their needs are often equally unique. What intruigues me is how few people in museums ever refer to themselves as "facilitators" ... which in many ways is what you are doing at Harvard. As a faciliator we work to assemble the resources in unique ways depending on the educational needs of the user (whether faculty, scientist, student, or general public). I took immense pleasure and pride in being able to find the resources, sometimes on the fly, to address my audience of the moment.

When we talk about leveraging assets, I look at the collaboration we established with the Loudoun County (VA) public schools over the past 15 years. The county assigned a teacher to the Naturalist Center on a year long sabbatical to work with museum staff, use the collections and develop and lead school group programs for grades 5­12. The advantage for us was the enthusiasm that each teacher brought to our program. In addition we benefited from their professional training in curriculum development and teaching to produce school group programs that were linked to state standards and were on topics that as a front line teacher, they knew what teachers needed most. We in turn introduced and trained them in inquiry based and problem based teaching in informal settings, using museum collections. As a result we served upwards of 7­10,000 students each year. Not only were learning experiences developed that focused on science, but some were developed for art, social studies, and language arts. Because they were inquiry based, they proved to be well suited to all learning abilities, and even ELL. For me personally, it was wonderful to see such diversity of programs. It really spoke to the rich learning potential of our museum resources.

Evaluations of both students and teachers showed that for over 85% of them the experience changed the way they viewed museums... as resources vs cabinets of curiosities and dead things. Together we developed the Iwonder professional development program for teachers, a year long program in mastering inquiry based learning that impacts well over 12,000 students each year.

I have often suggested that we partner with a university's education department to serve as both a location for their students to practice teaching skills, try out components for lesson plans, and for graduate students to conduct research for us in inquiry based learning and the impacts we have on teaching and learning in schools. I hope that we can see that kind of partnership in the near future.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 5: Collaboration

by Emma Pegram ­ Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 08:35 AM

I'm interested in the question of using of theory and research to underpin practice or rather for practioners to be considering what they do, how and why in order to further thinking, push boundaries and create opportunitities for innovative experiences that impact on visitors' learning (in all ways!) about natural

82

history.

At the Natural History Museum in London we do this by sharing papers at reading groups, internal and with other institutions and by encouraging reflective practice. The evaluations we do of our programme development and delivery are also part of this, but i have a frustration that we spend too much time on what 'works' (!?) and not enough on the why it works. I think its the 'why' that furthers thinking and pushes boundaries.

Increasingly we are looking to academic partners to help us in understanding the 'why'. I often dissapointed by academic literature that does not have direct relevance to practice and so perhaps partnerships between natural history institutions and universities are a way forward. We have begun with our first collaborative PhD between the NHM's Learning department and Kings College, London. Amy's research is exploring an issue at the heart of our practice ­ the impact of meeting museum scientists (we have a number of programmes for public and school students where this occurs). She is looking at this with the academic rigour that we don't have time to give, and not only considering what works, but why.

The results of this research will hopefully be of value to the academic field and will also inform our practice ­ what we can say about what we do and how we can improve it.

A late posting, but I'd love to hear how other institutions balance theory and research with practice.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 5: Collaboration

by Maija Sedzielarz ­ Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 10:19 AM

We have received a small grant to provide Family Days for our trading places (natural object trades). Our institution has been interested in how we can better support adult caregivers to enhance family learning experience. As we develop activities (for example, patterns in nature activities), we are using a checklist of features of family learning support to assure that we are including things that research has indicated are important in family learning situations. As a work group, we began the project by identifiying, reading and sharing studies on family learning in informal science settings to develop our checklist.

We are also including an evaluation component in this project to compare family interactions before, during and after the Family Days. We will also use the checklist to support our volunteer facilitator training.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 5: Collaboration

by Bill Watson ­ Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 08:39 AM

It seems to me at the conclusion of the final day of this forum that our discussion has come full circle. We started talking about our audiences and what makes a "natural history setting". We've now returned, under the banner of Collaboration, to some thoughtful consideration of who we are and who we serve.

The collaboration models we pursue (and thanks to those who submitted examples) must recognize and capitalize on the uniqueness of individual natural history settings and the audiences they serve. Size, focus, and location are among the many considerations for us moving forward.

I would offer that this discussion has been an important step forward in building the networks necessary for collaboration. I know of some cases where participants have contacted each other outside of the discussion to pursue new ideas. I hope there have been and continue to be many more of those instances.

We will host a second discussion leading up to the February conference on 21st Century Learning in Natural History Settings from November 30 ­ December 6. The conference planning team will use that forum (and this one) to pursue the agenda for the conference. I hope it can be an extension of this conversation and clarification of the ideas we've shared here.

83

If you have ideas for discussion topics for the next forum, please do not hesitate to send them directly to me through ASTC Connect or at watsonb@si.edu.

Thank you for your participation in this discussion. I am looking forward to re­reading the posts and continuing to bring our collective vision into focus.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 5: Collaboration

by Grace Kimble ­ Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 05:25 PM

Teachers looking at adaptation often see a visit to a Natural History collection or an environment centre as equivalent; both experiences can meet the aims of knowing how species are suited to where they live.

For the initial stages of part time PhD research (looking at 'bringing natural history collections to life'­ schools audiences) I surveyed education providers who offered activities for schools audiences for the International Year of Biodiversity. You can see the results for participants here:http://goo.gl/V4Ojp There was agreement on the benefits of using of props, models and specimens for hands on learning experiences. There is a great deal of literature in the field of museum education about the value of learning from objects.

For environment centres, the opportunity to be outside and to connect with nature were key.

These observations about the value of authenticity are not surprising, however I had wanted to gather this information systematically. I heard a lot of inspiring anecdotes of good practice throughout 2010 and I felt it was important to gather reflections as a snapshot of practice in biodiversity education.

Previously, I had studied an MA and looked at the history of learning at NHM in London. I found that in the 1950s, the main educator Jacqueline Palmer felt it was essential to integrate both outdoor and indoor informal education experiences.

She typically visited classes and took them to local parks to look at wildlife. They then visited the museum several times to focus on specific features in the British wildife gallery.

Subsequently, she accompanied them to the park to review their learning and progress in observation skills.

In the archives there are examples of children's drawings, showing how much detail they had assimilated after these extended experiences.

In the current UK context repeat visits are unusual. However, if seeing living animals and handling specimens are both effective learning experiences, it would make sense that combining them should lead to greater understanding of both what species are, where they might be found, and why.

Would there be a benefit to learners for local environment centres and natural history collections to work in partnership?

I plan to collect data aiming to answer this question in June 2012 (I undertook a pilot study in June 2011).

In the next forum it would be great to hear examples of animating natural history collections by integrating them with opportunities to see living animals; either in their natural habitat or in handling sessions or shows (e.g. http://goo.gl/ytHo2).

84

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 5: Collaboration

by Dawn Sanders ­ Thursday, 6 October 2011, 02:33 AM

Hi Grace Your work is really exciting. You may want to visit Greenwich Environmental Curriculum Centre re using taxidermic specimens in a context where outdoor living specimens are also experienced­they have about five native British animal specimens­ both birds and larger mammals such as the badger (there is a sett in the outdoor environment). Re Ms Palmer and her work­I have also researched her work at NHM and there were some tensions around her mix of indoor and outdoor­described at one point in a museum management memo as­being too fond of "running around"­she left the museum to take up a peripatetic role supporting schools to use their local outdoor environments. Reflecting on her work brings up serious questions about the spaces we work in and our pedagogical outlooks ­critically it highlights institutional tensions around how learning spaces/experiences/ were/are perceived and constructed within natural history museums.

Love to meet up and discuss more Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 5: Collaboration

by Grace Kimble ­ Thursday, 6 October 2011, 05:24 AM

Hi Dawn, Thanks so much for the advice about Greenwich, I did not know that so will find out more...

Great to hear you have also researched the development of learning at NHM! (It will be 100 years since the first guide lecturer was appointed in May 2012).

Your post really made me smile­ have you seen the archive diaries that educators were required to keep?

The entries and 'to do' lists reveal exactly the tensions you mention, there are some gems of comments in there!

Through looking at recommendations from educators arising from the International Year of Biodiversity, and reflecting on historical learning activities, I personally thought that there was potential to investigate the feasibility of a loan collection model. For example, could handling specimens go to environmental centres, supported by CPD for environmental educators before a terms worth of sessions? A video link back to the museum during sessions could be used to explain the significance of museum science collections.

However, this idea would only be worth pursuing in any case if there is evidence that combining experiences of real '3D' and real 'outdoors' confers a benefit to learners.

I would be delighted to hear if anyone has already done work on this, please let me know....

Apologies for going into detail but I thought it was worth outlining the way that the idea could increase learning, contacts and relationship building opportunities for both organisations in a long term capacity building way­ rather than emulating Ms Palmer's daily rush from one place to another!

See you soon Dawn!

85

Show parent | Reply

Re: Topic 5: Collaboration

by Richard Efthim ­ Thursday, 6 October 2011, 08:52 AM

Grace,

I think the idea of museums and environmental centers collaborating is very important. In some ways a learning experience in a museum allows visitors to be able to develop certain observation and problem solving skills in a controlled environment. With the ability to know how to look and what to look for often makes their visit to an outdoor setting more meaningful. It is truly a case of not being able to see the "forest for the trees." In some ways, when it comes to learning the outdoors can be a daunting, sensory overload of "data" that leaves novices feeling lost. While they may enjoy their visit, their ability to know what questions to ask and how to find the information they need to understand can be a bigger challenge. Once equipped with the initial knowledge base and some questioning and problem solving skills, visitors can be better prepared to use the environmental centers for meaningful, deeper learning.

And if done right, they should end up with more questions for which return visits to the museum and visa versa become more... well... "natural"...

Show parent | Reply

You are logged in as Grace Kimble (Logout)

86

Participatory Exhibits and Nature Centres Participatory exhibits and nature centers by john scott foster ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 09:35 AM

i have been reading and following nina simon and her work with participatory museums. i am very interested in taking some of these ideas and applying them to our facility. and my personal view of nature centers. we are often small museums that have the benefit of interpreting the landscape that they are embedded within. it provides a certain advantage given the closeness of the relationship between the interpretive experience and the "real life experience". Also, interested in blurring the lines between what happens inside the interpretive center and out on the property.

Reply

Re: Participatory exhibits and nature centers

by Kaleen Povis ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 11:33 AM

This seems to be a current trend, so I imagine more people are interested. Thanks for getting us started.

I would love to hear some creative examples of meaningful participation going on in your institutions. Have you been able to create useful mechanisms to spur inter­group conversation?

Show parent | Reply

Re: Participatory exhibits and nature centers by john scott foster ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 12:17 PM

we are going to be prototyping an exhibit where we are encouraging people to be part of a box turtle census on the property. our woods are prime box turtle habitat and large enough for a genetically viable population, with the literature suggesting anywhere between 80 and 200 adults. so, we are asking people to take a picture of any box turtle they see on a hike in the woods. looking straight down and then a side view and note/take a picture of the location. if it is a first, their picture is used on the exhibit, they name it and it is noted who found it.etc. it's their turtle. future sightings will include the names of who saw it. we can then start to build range maps for each individual. all of this woven into an exhibit on threatened species, and what people can do.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Participatory exhibits and nature centers

by Leah Melber ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 10:02 AM

87

Hi JSF­­­

Nice thread... thank you for starting this topic... and I'm very interested in knowing more about your project... (nice picture too!)

I'd really like to have you weigh in (and the rest of the folks) on one of the points of 'citizen science' that we go round and round on...

By the true definition... and in our personal experience... folks want to know what data they are collecting is being actually used by our researchers. The reality as many of know about field research... is not all projects will lend themselves to this.

It's my goal to ALSO empower folks to use resources (see www.ethosearch.org our new IMLS funded webpage) to dabble in this area... collecting data to meet their own questions of curiosity... and see the value of the experience rather or not the data is then in turn used by researchers as well. I feel this is a critical aspect of science literacy...

Has any managed to achieve both?

Show parent | Reply

Re: Participatory exhibits and nature centers

by James Bryant ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 11:08 AM

Good points. We often forget that the label "citizen scientist" could have been applied to most of the major contributors to natural hsitory and science collections and data sets, right up until the end of WWII. Post war was when science really began to be balkanized within discreet academic disciplines. Whether those millions of specimens were collected just out of a "get 'em all" mania or an intense desire to describe and document nature, few of those folks could have anticipated the future applications of the data. Gathering data for posterity, absolutely a critical apsect of science literacy.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Participatory exhibits and nature centers

by Bill Watson ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 01:34 PM

We are grappling with a question along these lines right now, as well. In reading the CAISE report on Public Participation in Scientific Research I noticed that while almost all of the examples were in "natural history settings," none were in museums, and none used collections data, which are one of the biggest assets we bring to the table.

I could imagine, for example, a site like www.ethosearch.org (thanks for sharing it!), but for collections-based explorations.

Scientists at natural history museums (and elsewhere) use collections as data points in the service of new research questions all the time. Data from the same collection of birds, for example, could be used to study comparative morphology, evolution of beak size, predator-prey relationships over time, species range, or even DNA patterns and evolution.

So the big question for us is about "authentic scientific research" - authentic for whom?

It is plausible that an interested party could ask a question of ethogram data or of collections data that is of real interest to them, but of marginal or no interest to a scientist. If done properly, that is very much an authentic process, and I think it suggests 88

the value of data in its own right as a foundation for future inquiry.

For ethosearch, the real impact might be in creating an online community around the data so that people know when "their" data have been used - reinforcing that data that don't have an "immediate" impact are still useful. This is essential for natural history museums, as when we collect a bird (for example), its data are not necessarily immediately useful.

(Edited by Wendy Hancock ­ original submission Thursday, 29 September 2011, 01:00 PM) Show parent | Reply

Re: Participatory exhibits and nature centers

by Ellen McCallie ­ Thursday, 29 September 2011, 01:34 PM

Hi all,

As a co­author on the CAISE paper, we worked hard to find examples of PPSR in all types of informal settings, including that in museums. If anyone has examples in museum, especially using collections, we would like to hear about them!

Your comments, Bill, make me realize, however, that we didn't consider all the volunteer hours when people work in natural history labs. For example, Carnegie Musem of Natural History's PaleoLab. These are volunteers making very important and meaningful contributions to research. Their work ranges from preparation to discussion of findings, etc. I now realize that we need to think about those contributions collectively.

Also, the DEVISE project, led by Cornell Lab of Ornithology and funded by NSF, is taking PPSR in informal environments a step further by focusing on evaluation. Tina Philips, Rick Bonney, and Kirsten Ellenbogen are leading this work. The results of this work (instruments and tools, among other products) should help us all better understand what people learn as they participate in PPSR. Ellen Carnegie Museum of Natural History Show parent | Reply

Re: Participatory exhibits and nature centers

by Rick Bonney ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 04:56 PM

Echoing Ellen, I am not aware of any PPSR projects that use collections, but would love to hear of any that are out there.

Our experience at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology is that most participants in our projects are excited about data collection, whether to contribute to one of our databases or to answer their own questions. But few are interested in studying previously collected data, esp data housed in databases (clearly many do like to sort data, like in the new astronomy projects).

Projects that come up with ways to excite participants about studying and analyzing pre­existing data could be very important to environmental biology and related fields.

Show parent | Reply

89

Re: Participatory exhibits and nature centers

by James Bryant ­ Friday, 30 September 2011, 05:59 PM

Bill, Ellen and Rick: Collections can be the basis for PPSR and similar programs. One project we've been developing here in Southern California has brought citizen scientists into the study of change over time in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountain ranges. Historic collections data from the Smithsonian's National Herbarium, the Clark Herbarium here in Riverside, and the on­line database of the California Consortium of Herbaria (see http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/) has been the "launch pad" for the project, and the basis for field trip planning to verify these plant locality records. For four years now, teams of volunteers recruited through Earthwatch (see http://www.earthwatch.org/exped/russellr.html) have worked with Rusty Russell to ground­truth the historic localities and make new collections to fill gaps in the botanical record, as many taxa turn out to have been ignored, or botanists have just not been in the field to maintain a continuous record, even of the most common species. So the Smithsonian's legacy collection of plant records for this region is updated with new material, and these records can then be examined vis a vis other temporal studies (most notably the 2008 report for the National Academy of Sciences on possible changes in plant distributions in this same study area, changes that could possibly be attributed to climate change: see http://www.pnas.org/content/105/33/11823.full).

Show parent | Reply

Re: Participatory exhibits and nature centers

by Jennifer Shirk ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 01:16 PM

James, these are some great examples. Right now, with phenology studies taking an opportunistic look for historic data, we're starting to see more and more studies that integrate herbarium/specimen data, field journals, and current observations. So it is great to see a return to some of the traditions of amateur work in collections.

Another interesting example is The Open Dinosaur Project, http://opendino.wordpress.com/, which I’ve learned about since being involved with the PPSR report. The ODP is building a “comprehensive database of dinosaur limb bone measurements,” and they accept, “… measurements from specimens held within publicly­accessible, permanent institutions.” I don’t know of specific institutions that may be taking part in this, but it seems like there’s certainly an opportunity here to facilitate volunteer contributions via collections (I believe that most of the contributions, somewhat surprisingly, come from volunteers who extract the data from peer­reviewed publications).

But what if we think about collections in a virtual sense? There are a number of initiatives right now that capitalize on smartphones and social media technologies to encourage sharing of photos as documented “specimens” of sorts (certainly, as documented observations). The best example of such a platform integrated directly with museum work is iSpot, http://www.ispot.org.uk/ , tied to OPAL (Open Air Laboratory), http://www.opalexplorenature.org/ , at the Natural History Museum, London. OPAL runs a number of surveys (on air, water, biodiversity) dependent upon public observations and data submissions. iSpot lets users share photos to help each other confirm species identification. Part of the intentional design of this project, as I understand it, is an effort to rekindle/recognize/support a tradition of amateur natural historians. So while I may be an amateur expert in butterflies, I can learn from you and your expertise about mosses (and vice versa).

Show parent | Reply

Re: Participatory exhibits and nature centers

by Jennifer Shirk ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 01:48 PM

Leah, the time lag in citizen science data use can sometimes be a hard thing to overcome in terms of recognizing and building on the contributions of participants. It takes time to analyze data, and as others have mentioned here, it can also be years (in some cases decades or more) before the real value of observations is recognized... I'm thinking here of phenology research, that is now turning to historical

90

records (e.g., 30 years worth of personal nature diaries) as rich sources of information.

With that said, many citizen science projects do a great job of communicating both the importance of contributions and the outcomes of research, in a timely a manner as possible. And, a number of projects provide infrastructure that allows people to investigate citizen science data on their own. It seems, though, that there may be one kind of person who is interested in collecting data, and a different kind of person who is interested in looking at datasets to ask and answer their own question... or at least different kinds of motivations. More work is needed to better understand this kind of participation opportunity and likely outcomes, in order to help build the best platforms for supporting public engagement with data resources.

But, to your question about whether projects can achieve both scientific and educational outcomes, the answer is yes. It can just be a bit hard to pin down, because research into educational and research outcomes are generally published in different places. One good summary resource is a 2009 Bonney et al publication in BioScience: "Citizen Science: A Developing Tool for Expanding Science Knowledge and Scientific Literacy." We also have a growing library of publications on citizen science outcomes athttp://www.citizenscience.org/references. And, we'd like to encourage (and learn about) more research on learning outcomes of citizen science!

Show parent | Reply

Re: Participatory exhibits and nature centers by john scott foster ­ Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 08:13 AM

i am stealing this/pulling this straight from nina simon's blog. museum 2.0 i think it has a lot to say for us and wish she had been part of our conversation.

What Are the Most Important Problems in Our Field?

Posted: 03 Oct 2011 09:39 AM PDT

I'm working on a keynote address for next week's MidAtlantic Association of Museums conference in Baltimore. The speech is in memory of Stephen Weil, one of the giants of contemporary American museum thinking--a radical in a bowtie who strove to "make museums matter."

As I think about what can and might make museums matter today, I keep rereading a 91

speech by Richard Hamming, a mathematician who made major research contributions to the fields of computer science and information technology. In 1986, Hamming made an incredible speech, "You and Your Research," about the question of what makes some scientists achieve great things and others, not so much. The crux of his argument is this: make sure you are working on the most important problems in your field. He explains: If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work. It's perfectly obvious. Great scientists have thought through, in a careful way, a number of important problems in their field, and they keep an eye on wondering how to attack them. Let me warn you, `important problem' must be phrased carefully. The three outstanding problems in physics, in a certain sense, were never worked on while I was at Bell Labs. By important I mean guaranteed a Nobel Prize and any sum of money you want to mention. We didn't work on (1) time travel, (2) teleportation, and (3) antigravity. They are not important problems because we do not have an attack. It's not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack.

That is what makes a problem important. When I say that most scientists don't work on important problems, I mean it in that sense. The average scientist, so far as I can make out, spends almost all his time working on problems which he believes will not be important and he also doesn't believe that they will lead to important problems.

This last sentence, I fear, describes the average worker, not just the average scientist.

Most of us spend most of our time working on problems that are not important. That's somewhat reasonable--we all have to make payroll and run our programs and keep things going. My bigger concern is that when we DO make time for the bigger picture, the problems we choose to tackle are not the most important ones.

What are the most important problems in the cultural sector? The two hot problems seem to be: 1. finding new business models to sustain funding and support operations 2. making offerings relevant and appealing to shifting audiences These topics may flood the blogosphere and conference circuit, but I don't think they're ultimately the most important. These problems are fundamentally self-serving; they come from the root question "how can we survive?" These questions could just as easily apply to any struggling industry (postal service, cigarettes) as to cultural institutions.

I suspect there are other problems we can work on that are more about culture and learning and less about institutional survival. When we think about "making museums matter," the important parts are the "making" and the "mattering"--not the museums.

The goal is not to justify museums' existence but to make them as useful as possible.

So what are the important problems we need to tackle to become more meaningful institutions? I'm trying to mull a few for this talk next week, and I'd love your thoughts on what you see as the most important problems in our field. Here's what I've come up

92

with: 1. How can we make cultural knowledge--content, context, and experience--as widely, freely, and equitably accessible as possible?

2. How can our institutions and programs improve quality of life for individuals and communities?

How should we structure our institutions and funding programs to do 1 and 2?

Show parent | Reply

Re: Participatory exhibits and nature centers

by Jennifer Shirk ­ Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 05:12 PM

These are some fantastic questions from Nina Simon via John. For folks who may be interested in thinking and discussing more about meaningful integration of public participation in scientific research into museum programming (meaningful for communities and for our institutions) we will be hosting a discussion forum on this topic later this month at CitizenScience.org/Community.

Learning in Natural History settings?

Learning in natural history settings?

by Lynda Kelly ­ Saturday, 1 October 2011, 07:03 PM

What does (and will) learning look like in the natural history museum of the 21st century? Will the theories of constructivism and socio­cultural still apply across all the settings we now operate in?

What does this mean for the ways that educators, curators, audience researchers, program developers will work in the future.

What will our pedagological values be, especially as we need to engage audiences in an equale two­way relationship?

Reply

Re: Learning in natural history settings?

by Lynn baum ­ Sunday, 2 October 2011, 06:25 AM

I think one of the key objectives for natural history exhibits is to help embed in visitors the importance and value of the natural world. To do that, we need to help visitors understand how they(we) are connected to all that is around them.

While working on an exhibit at the Museum of Science, Boston, we recognized this as a big an issue through a prototype activity that we developed. We asked visitors to sort picture cards of images including animals, plants rocks, minerals, etc.Invariably, no matter how they sorted, humans were always in a separate group from all the other animals. This prototype was for an exhibit called Natural Mysteries. As a result of the prototype activity, a major goal for us was to create experiences for visitors indoors in

93

immersive environments so that they would be encouraged to actively engage in the out­of­dors with greater appreciation for and connection to what they were seeing. In addition to activities within immersive environments, visitors had access to open storage collections and interactives that allowed them to handle collection materials. The exhibit surrounded a central resource room for small classes to make use of the environment for teaching or to be used as place to sit and read. We wanted people to slow down and take time to be in the "environemnts". The exhibit has been used as a training ground for preparing people to take part in Citizen Science projects, and because it includes perspectives from a variety of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds it has been a conversation point for people to comfortably talk about the ways their families interact with the environment.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Learning in natural history settings? by martin weiss ­ Sunday, 2 October 2011, 10:01 AM

Lynn Very interesting post.

I'd be interested in hearing from other practitioners in natural history or science museums who are using similar or different approaches to engage visitors in an understanding of their relationship to "nature" especially to animals. We are interested in these approaches given the misconception held by a large portion of the public that we humans are either a "special creation" or who believe in "human exceptionalism" (referring to a belief that human beings have special status in nature based on possession of unique capacities).

Martin

Show parent | Reply

Re: Learning in natural history settings?

by Margaret Evans ­ Monday, 3 October 2011, 08:03 PM

Hello All, this is an intriguing issue... how to help visitors/us realize that we are part of the natural world, not just observers of nature. One approach that seems crucial is to engage in a "narrative" ­ to see that we, too, are part of the story of life on earth ­ in effect, a way station between the past and the future. This means that we have to eschew objectivity and engage in the subjective experience of being part of nature. Every authentic object in a natural history museum is part of our own history as it reveals something of our nature, such as our behavior, our basic body plan, our DNA. How can we achieve such goals? I am not sure... but it does mean a radical rethinking of the way objects are displayed. Should evidence of human evolution be separated from other displays, indicating that humans are somehow privileged? This is an inevitable outcome of arranging objects in a time series. Perhaps there are other ways of organizing objects so that humans are not always portrayed as the inevitable outcome of an evolutionary process. ­­ Margaret Show parent | Reply

Re: Learning in natural history settings?

by Lynn baum ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 05:44 AM

I think this is indeed a challenging issue. And especially for cultures where humans are viewed as so separate from the rest of the planet. It is also magnified by people, and especially children who have less and less connection to the natural world in their lives. I think creating experiences that are within environments is one way to help people see the connection among all sorts of living things including themselves. Natural Mysteries is a very narrative­based exhibit. Each environment we created had a story and "mysteries" for visitors to solve. For example, we made a beach environment

94

based on a site from the National Tropical Botanical Garden in Hawaii ­ visitors had to examine tracks, footprints, plants and shells to figure out where they were.

We recreated a one­room school house in New England and asked visitors to figure out when it was last used. There were clues in tree stumps, lichens and stones in addition to the the photographs and objects in the school ­ All around these environments are collection draws visitors can open and explore. We also included "wall stories" panels ­ with audio ­ of different people talking about their relationships with the natural world ­ from a variety of cultures ­ we wanted everyone to find a connecting point.

For me, the challenge is how to help people see that they are part of, and not separate from their environment. I think Citizen Science projects are great ­ and anything museums can do to help amplify them, and raise awareness for visitors about them is wonderful Richard Louv talks about the nature deficit ­ I think its a big issue.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Learning in natural history settings?

by Bill Watson ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 08:53 AM

NMNH_HOI_Evaluation_Executive_Summary_­_FINAL.pdf At the National Museum of Natural History, our vision statement is "Understanding the Natural World and Our Place in It".

We are increasingly interpreting the "and our place in it" not only through Cultural Anthropology but also through making the links between nature and humans explicit.

Our largest efforts in this regard have been to convey evolution through human evolution examples. This effort includes the 15,000 square foot Hall of Human Origins, its companion website, humanorigins.si.edu, and a slate of programming.

We've also just begun work on two new projects to extend our efforts. The first is Teaching Evolution through Human Examples, an NSF­funded DRK12 project to develop resources and instructional materials for teaching human evolution in high school classrooms. The second is a series of collections­and­data­based programs and activities for the 10,000 square foot participatory (interactive?) space we are developing to open in Spring 2013.

We did a comprehensive evaluation of the exhibition, website, and programming and found some promising findings.

Here's how we summarized it for the Board (so it's pretty high level): "Findings from this study of over 4,500 visitors to the exhibition, website, and programs include: visitors substantially increased their use of scientific understandings when describing human features, showed a greatly heightened connection to early human ancestors, and engaged with the content in meaningful and powerful ways, especially with interactive displays and reconstructions of early ancestors in the exhibition." I've attached the Executive Summary.

One example of how approaching evolution through human examples helps people to see their connections with nature is that in the exhibition, they come face to face, literally, with reconstructions of early human species. (You can see them here:http://humanorigins.si.edu/exhibit/gurche). The understanding that multiple species other than Homo sapiens can be called "human" and that many lived on Earth at the same time rocks a lot of worlds. I think these artistic representations, in conjunction with the data, are a very powerful combination.

Show parent | Reply

Re: Learning in natural history settings? by john scott foster ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 09:36 AM

a few random comments.

1. zoo exhibits are just dioramas with living animals. and sometimes without the visual detail and richness of a museum exhibit.

2. what are the cliches that different types of natural history settings need to leave behind to have visitors see them in a new light. i.e. how many Adirondack rustic outfitted nature centers are there out there?

95

3. a statement i heard a long time ago but still resonates. are your exhibits so packed with objects that people subconsciously start to avoid them as they feel guilty for not paying attention to each and every one?

Show parent | Reply

Re: Learning in natural history settings? by martin weiss ­ Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 11:17 AM

Bill this is very good however how do we help visitors make the connection further back in our evolutionary history? It may not be easy for some visitors to see themselves in Lucy but far easier than to see their history back to say Tikaalik, for example. We should be able, based upon the research Margaret Evans has done with Charlie and Kiwi's Evolutionary Adventure to use fossil evidence. She found that children were able to accept the evidence in Archaeopteryx for bird evolution from dinosaurs as good evidence (She may comment on this). I hope that fossil evidence coupled with genomic evidence (a harder issue given the publics difficulty understanding of genomics but worth the effort as the evidence is so strong) would help us make the case. any ideas about this? Pointers to other exhibits or programs in natural history settings to this issue?

Martin Show parent | Reply

Re: Learning in natural history settings?

by Dawn Sanders ­ Wednesday, 5 October 2011, 05:46 AM

hi Martin very interesting post­has made me think a lot about which human evolution characters reflect visitors' perceptions of themselves as a species. Re your comment about genomic evidence and public understanding I and my colleague Emma Newall (a human geneticist) at Charles Darwin Trust have found the narrative structure of Reading the story in DNA by Lindell Bromham (Oxford University Press) an inspiring model.

96

Appendix: Forum Outline and Process

by Bill Watson ­ Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 09:43 AM

Now that the introductions are well under way, I'd like to provide an outline for the next week to give some sense of how we'll try to organize the discussion.

The foundation of this project is that natural history learning environments ­ and particularly museums ­ have vast, highly relevant, engaging collections, research, and scientists. We have taken important steps to design innovative experiences for our audiences, but there is so much more we can do to collaborate with and learn from each other, and to design experiences that launch us into a new era of audience engagement, access, and learning.

The Executive Committee for the 21st Century Learning in Natural History Settings Project has identified 5 potential themes or strands for understanding what we know and learning more so that we can truly engage a 21st Century audience. To focus our discussion, we will introduce 1 of these each day of the forum: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Understanding audiences across natural history settings (Today, around noon EST, US) Leveraging new technologies for discovery, learning, and social engagement (Thursday) Rapid response programming, current science, and current events (Friday) The role of public participation in scientific research in natural history learning (Monday) Models for effective collaboration across the natural history field (Tuesday)

Our expectation is that discussion about each will continue throughout the forum, and we hope that links will be made within and across these topics.

Another hope is that other ideas will emerge as potential themes, starting new discussion threads. For example, Martin has already suggested in his introduction that engaging our audiences around Evolution is an interest. This might be part of an "Important topics for 21st Century Audiences" thread if that is of interest to the group. Feel free to introduce a new thread or, if you would prefer, to email me directly and ask me to do it.

I will look forward to checking in a little bit later to introduce the first discussion topic!

Bill

97

Participants Name Alison Young Amaris Alanis Ribeiro Amy Harris Amy Rutherford Amy Seakins Ana Rodrigues AndrĂŠs Sehinkman Andrew Redline Andy Lee Anna LindgrenStreicher Annick Deblois Berna Onat Betsy Adamson Bill Watson Brad Irwin Bridget Butler Caitlin Van Ness Cappy Smith cat urban Catherine Sutera Cathy Regan Cecilia Garibay Celeste Sturdevant Reed Charles Browne Chris Myers Chris Stockner Christine Chandler Christyna Solhan Dale McCreedy Daniel Babbitt Darcie MacMahon Dawn Sanders Dennis Schatz Donald Pohlman Eileen Campbell Eileen Smith Elee Kirk Elio Cruz Elizabeth Babcock Elizabeth Burke Elizabeth Chilton

City San Francisco

Country United States

Chicago

United States

Ann Arbor Washington London London - Lisbon Buenos Aires Lancaster London

United States United States United Kingdom United Kingdom Argentina United States United Kingdom

Boston

United States

Gatineau Washington Albuquerque Washington London Burlington New York Austin washington Washington, DC Boulder Chicago

Canada United States United States United States United Kingdom United States United States United States United States United States United States United States

E. Lansing

United States

St. Johnsbury Oxford Portland, OR Davenport Washington, DC Philadelphia Washington Gainesville London Seattle, WA Oakland Pacifica, California Orlando Leicester DC San Francisco Vienna Detroit

United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United Kingdom United States United States United States United States United Kingdom United States United States United States United States

98

Elizabeth Farnsworth Ellen Giusti Ellen McCallie Emily Stein Emma Pegram Eric Gyllenhaal Erin Downey Howerton Erin Snow Florian Block Gabrielle Lyon Gale Robertson Gilly Puttick Grace Kimble Greg Danner Greg Walters Gretchen Bertolet Harry Schram Heather King Heather Segale Heather Zimmerman Helena Carmena James Boyer James Bryant Jane Pickering Jeanne Moe Jennifer Arseneau Jennifer DeWitt Jennifer Shirk Jim Kisiel John Falk john scott foster Jose I Pareja Josh Gutwill Judy Archer Judy Scotchmoor Julie Fick Justin Dillon Kaleen Povis

Kara Blond Karen Edelstein

Royalston

United States

New York Pittsburgh Washington London Oak Park

United States United States United States United Kingdom United States

Chicago

United States

Ottawa Cambridge Chicago Washington DC Cambridge London Anchorage Hays, KS Lafayette Antwerp London Tahoe City

Canada United States United States United States United States United Kingdom United States United States United States Belgium United Kingdom United States

State College

United States

San Francisco New York Riverside New Haven Bozeman Fairbanks London Newfield Long Beach Corvallis evansville Richmond San Francisco Calgary Berkeley East Lansing London Pittsburgh

United States United States United States United States United States United States United Kingdom United States United States United States United States United States United States Canada United States United States United Kingdom United States

Washington LANSING

United States United States

99

Karen Hays Karen Knutson karen vernon Kate Clover Kathleen McLean Kathleen Tinworth Kathy Fournier Katie Velazco Kevin Crowley Kitty Connolly Kristen Poppleton Kurt Campbell Laureen Trainer Leah Blaney Leah Melber Lee Anne Bastian Leigh Kish Lewis Stevens Linda Vigdor Linda Wilson Lorraine Czolba Lucy McClain Lynda Kelly Lynn baum Maija Sedzielarz Margaret Evans Margie Marino Maria Womack Marie Studer Marjorie Prager martin weiss Mary Ann Steiner Mary Harper Mary Marcussen Mary Regan Maura Thompson Mele Wheaton Melody Basham

Denver Pittsburgh chevy chase St Paul Berkeley Denver Birmingham Washington, DC Pittsburgh Pasadena St. Paul Temecula Denver Vancouver chicago Santa Barbara Pittsburgh Boston Champaign Chicago Pittsburgh State College Sydney Needham St. Paul Ann Arbor, Michigan Lancaster Alexandria Cambridge Somerville Corona. New Yorh Pittsburgh Redding Sonoma, CA Petaluma New York Santa Cruz Phoenix

United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States Canada United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States Australia United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States United States

100

Michel Miller Mike Jensen Molly Phipps monica mod palmyre pierroux Patrick McShea Paula BrownWilliams Paula Holloway Rachel Bergren Rebecca Bray Remy Dou

Downingtown Winnipeg St Paul las vegas oslo Pittsburgh

United States Canada United States United States Norway United States

Bishop

United States

Wilmington Chicago Washington Arlington

United States United States United States United States

Rich Blundell

Boston/London/Sydney

United States

Richard Efthim Rick Bonney Robert Bixler Robert Costello

Washington ithaca Seneca Washington

United States United States United States United States

Rusty Russell

Washington337, ittec

United States

Sandy Tanck Sarah Banks Sasha Palmquist Sheila Grinell silvia da re Stacey Bucklin Stephen Roberts Steve Yalowitz Steven Guberman Sue Murphy Susan Foutz Teresa LloroBidart Teresa MacDonald Tim Walsh Timshel Purdum Toni Wynn Tove Irene Dahl Valerie Fish Vicki Boone Wendy DerjueHolzer Wendy Hancock Wendy Pollock Winifred Kehl

Waconia Washington Edgewater Phoenix, AZ Buenos Aires Dallas London Edgewater, MD

United States United States United States United States Argentina United States United Kingdom United States

Saint Paul

United States

Ogden Edgewater, MD

United States United States

Chino

United States

Lawrence

United States

Sanford Philadelphia Hampton Tromsø Albany Cambridge, MA

United States United States United States Norway United States United States

Somerville, MA

United States

Washington Evanston, Illinois Seattle

United States United States United States

101