Explore and discover!

Maartje Raijmakers

These are key lessons for life from today’s science museums. But does it work as a method of science education? As scientists or science educators we need to be discerning and take an inquisitive approach towards what might be obvious for many: science museums are great for science education. What I will argue below is that we need to develop good measurement tools to quantify the learning outcomes that we find most valuable about exploration and discovery.

Inquiry-based learning is the basic principle of presenting science to the public adopted by many out-of-school learning environments. In science museums people can explore scientific phenomena, do experiments, try-out ingenious constructions, be hands-on. Although the freedom of exploration varies between exhibitions, inquiry-based learning has become a standard practice for out-of-school institutions. Many of these institutions are also leading the efforts to establish this standard in school by offering a large variety of programs for children and teachers (see for example, exploratorium.info/ifi/about/offerings.html).

The theoretical origins of this recommendation are constructivist-learning theories (see the work of Piaget and Vygotsky). As an individual you construct a system of knowledge based on all experiences and information you encounter. Consistency and mutual connections within your constructed knowledge system are the driving forces for extending your knowledge. From this perspective it doesn’t make much sense having someone telling you some new, disconnected facts. Instead, it is important that, as an individual, you create the missing links in your personal knowledge system. Hence, the advice is to explore and discover!

The obvious question is, however: Does it work? Do we understand more about gravity after experiencing falling objects than after an Explainer telling us about gravity, or after doing a nicely worked-out example? (ie., two equally-sized balls with different weight fall equally fast! See Veritasium, 2011 and NasaGovVideo, 1971). The experimental, psychological literature tells us that  learning outcomes are not supported by discovery learning, even not if learning outcomes include generalization of knowledge, and deep conceptual understanding (e.g., Kirchner et al., 2006). One explanation for this shortcoming in discovery learning is that discovery learning requires so much multi-tasking that a learner’s working memory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_memory) gets overloaded, and they thus fail to learn anything more. The development of inquiry skills from discovery learning experiences have also been intensively studied.  Findings suggest that the skills of observing, measuring and designing experiments require explicit instruction and are not attained simply by doing. (see for example the classical study by Klahr & Nigam, 2004).

But there is a more to a learning experience than simply an increase in knowledge and skills. Sparking and developing interest and excitement for science are proposed as primary values of science museums (e.g., informalscience.org/research/wiki/What-kinds-of-learning-happen-in-ISE-experiences).  Enhanced attitudes, interest and excitement for science have far-reaching impacts above and beyond the enjoyment of a museum visit. Sparking and developing interest could result in intrinsic motivation to learn science (as opposed to extrinsic motivation, such as rewards and punishments from teachers and parents) for learning about science. Correlational research shows that intrinsic motivation is strongly related to positive learning outcomes (e.g., Vansteenkist et al., 2004; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_motivation). Who eventually learns most about science and technology? Generally it is those who choose science in future education and as a career. Intrinsic motivation for learning about science plays a big role here as well. Hence, increasing intrinsic motivation towards science might, in the long run, be much more important than increasing of knowledge and skills.

A key focus for informal sector science education research is to examine the efficacy of exploration and discovery learning.. The best way of doing this is by experimental studies, that is, randomized controlled trials. As yet, most studies about science centre impact are correlational studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation), which might be of great interest but tells us very little about impact. In these studies attitude towards science are mostly measured by questionnaires, as is interest and excitement. However, self-report responses may not be accurate indications: moreover it is behaviour that is the direct outcome of attitude. So, what are appropriate behavioural measures for interest and excitement? In the long term, options made for further education and careers are relevant outcome variables but these are almost impossible to include in an experimental study. For an experimental study about the effectiveness of interventions, such science workshops, one needs to assign people randomly to the intervention and the control condition. Such interventions could never be so intensive that they would have an effect long term.

For these reasons, we need to identify behavioural measures for intrinsic motivation and willingness to learn more about science. In the Dutch system an inquisitive approach (onderzoekende houding in Dutch) is the term that has become common with policy makers including the Dutch Minister of Education, Culture and Science (Bussemaker, 2013). The big question is how we do measure an inquisitive approach as a behavioural measure. I argue that if the sector is to continue to promote exploration and discovery as vehicles for effective science learning we need to put greater effort into this measurement question. We need to develop ways to measure an inquisitive approach to science by measuring observable behaviour of individuals. Only when we are able to robustly measure an inquisitive approach can we compare this measure to content and skills acquisition and thereafter conduct the randomized controlled trials necessary to demonstrate impact of science museums and centres and their explore and discover approach.

References

Bussemaker, J. (2013). http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/toespraken/2013/06/13/toespraak-minister-bussemaker-bij-conferentie-cultuureducatie-met-kwaliteit.html

Kirschner, Paul A. , Sweller, John and Clark, Richard E.(2006) 'Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching', Educational Psychologist, 41: 2, 75 — 86.

Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661-667.

NasaGovVideo (1971). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWgzlyF8yuI

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goals and autonomy-support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260.

Veritasium (2011). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mCC-68LyZM

Ecsite 2014: Looking forward, looking deeper

Justin Dillon & Heather King

This is the inaugural blog of the Indepth group – a small collaboration of European academics and practitioners. Our quest is to ask questions about how visitors engage with museums and science centres. We share that mission with a growing number of colleagues around the world. Some focus on ‘measuring’ the experience; others are more interested in exploring the nature and potential of the experience. We see ourselves more aligned with the latter group than the former.

So, are we looking forward to Ecsite 2014 – the largest gathering of informal science institution practitioners and researchers in Europe this year? Well, yes. And no. While the conference, which takes place in The Hague, offers a rare opportunity for sustained dialogue between designers, content developers, researchers, evaluators and managers, the reality is that we rarely tackle the big issues and so change in the field is incremental rather than radical.

Every sector of public life has its rhetoric and its reality and science engagement is no different. The conference website proclaims, for example, that: ‘Science centres and museums channel the power and rationality of science to solidify their roles as socially inclusive and inspirational forums for learning’. What we argue, though, is that science centres and museums are not just forums ‘for’ learning, they are forums ‘of’ learning. That is to say, we should see experiences in such settings as opportunities for understanding learning, as much as we see them as resources promoting learning.

The goal of Indepth, then, is to promote the value of learning about learning in the ‘informal’ science sector.

So, where does learning fit into the Ecsite conference? Our own session – ‘In search of an in-depth experience’ – asks how institutions can systematically create an enjoyable experience, which meaningfully integrates visitors’ personal context and that also supports in-depth learning about science and technology? This is a crucial issue. How can institutions with several million visitors per year provide each person with an experience that values their individuality? And, at the same time, do more than simply provide them with a short-lived cluster of barely-related facts garnered from labels, audio-commentaries and explainers?

We are looking forward to a rich and productive discussion.

Another session, not one of ours, asks how can you measure and increase the impact of a visit if you do not know who your audience is or what ‘cultural baggage’ (i.e. thoughts, opinions, experiences, motivations, learning preferences etc.) they hold pre-visit? Questions such as these move the sector’s thinking forward. Other sessions, however, still make simplistic assertions such as ‘The business of exhibiting short documentary films enhances learning for students and general audiences’.

The conference website asks a number of interesting questions including:

How can our institutions use exhibits, collections, design and marketing to make the science and technology of global challenges more accessible to audiences?

What about inter-generational learning? Are science centres and museums thinking about visitors of all ages when communicating the problems and possible solutions of our times?

These questions suggest a sector that is seeking to expand its reach and its impact. Part of the approach to answering both questions should involve looking at what research has to say.  Interestingly, the word ‘research’ appears in the conference programme three times as often as ‘evaluation’ – a sign that times are changing. Moreover, an encouraging number of universities are represented at the conference, an indication that partnerships between academics and museum and science centres are increasing.

Novel practices, however, such as the increasingly popular ‘tinkering’ and the involvement of visitors in co-designing exhibits and exhibitions are surprisingly poorly researched. Sometimes the sector jumps on innovations rather than taking a more considered look at whether or not they offer effective engagement or value for money. Tinkering is a case in point – Ecsite is unequivocal: ‘Equipping visitors with physical tools to innovate by tinkering is an inspiring mode of engagement gaining greater momentum and pushing more people to seek solutions’. This may be true, but to find out, we need to research it. We need to take, dare we say it, a scientific approach to testing out new formats of science engagement.

And what of this year’s novelty item – gamification? We are told that exhibits that learn from serious gaming ‘can reach visitors emotionally and personally so that the messages we want to convey get imprinted in them through their experiences’. ‘The messages we want to convey’? ‘Imprinted’? Is this the language we should be using in our all inclusive, empowering science centre of the future? #No.

One thing we are looking forward to is the opportunity for conversations about the European Commission’s new funding programme, Horizon 2020. Our experience of working with European colleagues in projects such as PENCIL, IRIS, PLACES, FEAST and ACRONYM has generally been very positive. It has made us value looking east, across the Continent, as much as we had valued looking west, towards the US, for collaborations and collegiality. We are sure that Horizon 2020, which has a stronger research dimension, than Framework 7, will allow us to answer some questions that the Indepth group has identified as its priorities.

See you in Den Hague.

@justindillonkcl

@heatherkingkcl