KEY PAPERS ANNOTATIONS

Ash, D. (2003) "Dialogic Inquiry of family groups in a science museum." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (2) 138-162

In this paper, Ash draws on sociocultural theory to propose a new research approach for collecting and analyzing family conversational data as it occurs naturally in informal educational settings such as museums. The approach Ash advocates applies the multiple zones of proximal development of knowledge and focuses on the use of dialogic inquiry as a way to co-construct meaning. The units of analysis in this approach are fragments of conversations called “representative dialogic segments” (RDS), which Ash suggests reflect larger patterns of interaction.

To illustrate the proposed methodology, Ash analyzes, in detail, three different RDSs that were obtained in a biology exhibit in a science museum. In her analysis, she focuses on two components of the dialogic inquiry: theme content, which is provided by the interaction between the exhibit and the families’ agenda, and inquiry skills, such as observing, questioning, interpreting, etc. Ash concludes that the use of this method and theoretical framework is a new research tool suitable for a variety of research aims.

Brown, A.L., et.al.(1992). "Design Experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences.

Influential psychologist Ann Brown was based at the University of California at Berkeley when she wrote this article. Brown was noted for her substantial research on learning and learning situations, particularly those that occur in the classroom. Several members of the CILS community collaborated and co-authored papers with her.

This particular article is also relevant to the work of CILS researchers because Brown reveals some of the methodological challenges she encountered while conducting her own design experiments in classrooms, and makes suggestions for how to address similar challenges. She defines design experiments as attempts to engineer a working environment amid a complex set of interacting features.

Brown outlines three major methodological issues facing researchers attempting to assess conceptual change in a complex environment such as a classroom: (1) the relationship between laboratory and classroom work, (2) idiographic versus nomothetic approaches (grain size issue), and (3) the Bartlett Effect. She concludes the article by discussing what can be learned from well-known design experiments.

Crowley, K.,Callanan, M & Tenenbaum, H. & Allen E. (2001). "Parents Explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking." Psychological Science, 12 (3) 258-261

This report focuses on a research study that investigated whether parents at a children's museum offered scientific explanations to their children differently, depending on whether the children were boys or girls. The researchers, who include Maureen Callanan from UCSC, an active member of and contributor to CILS, videotaped interactions between parents and their children at different exhibits. Then they coded the interactions, based on whether the parents gave their children a scientific explanation for what they were observing, such as drawing a causal connection between what the child was doing and the exhibit display. The researchers found that when an exhibit didn’t require explanation, parents spoke with essentially the same frequency and in essentially the same way to both boys and girls. But if an exhibit did require explanation, parents were three times more likely to offer scientific explanations to boys than to girls.

This report discusses the findings of this study and how they might help explain the gender gap in children’s interest and achievement in science. In addition, the report discusses the importance of museums recognizing these gender differences so they can work on ways to address them.

Duensing, S. (in press). "Culture matters: Informal science centers and cultural contexts." To appear in Learning in places: The informal education reader. UK: Peter Lang Publishers.

Duensing argues that, like universities and K–12 schools, informal education institutions are extensions of the cultures in which they usually exist. This article discusses the different ways in which exhibits and programs have been adapted by exhibit designers and museum educators in science centers around the world.

The article is based on experiences that Duensing had when she helped to export Exploratorium exhibits internationally, and focuses specifically on her work at Yapollo, the national science center of the West Indies. The author suggests that science center presentations, exhibit designs, and styles of learning are rooted in the cultural contexts in which informal learning institutions are located. According to Duensing, the cultural experiences of the museum staff also have a substantial impact on the practices of the museum at large. The findings of this study offer useful ideas for understanding how a science museum can best serve its intended audience. This work also demonstrates how difficult it can be to precisely define informal education.

Moll, L.C. & Whitmore, K.F. (1993). "Vygotsky in classroom practice: Moving from individual transmission to social transaction." In E.A. Forman, N.Minnick, & C.Addison Stone (Eds.). Contexts for learning. New York: Oxford University Press.

This paper describes three studies that were included in a research project about community-based knowledge and its potential use in after-school and classroom instruction. The project was conducted within a Hispanic community located in Tucson, Arizona. The first study of the project documented the history and exchange of domains of knowledge (e.g., agriculture, automobile repair) among households in a complex social system, and labeled the result the community’s “funds of knowledge.” The second study looked at an after-school lab where the researchers collaborated with teachers to create writing modules that utilized the students’ social networks of knowledge. The third study focused on a teacher who took one of the modules from the after-school lab, brought it into her classroom, and extended it to tap into the community's funds of knowledge. She brought in community members and made them participants in the classroom activities, as well. Throughout the paper, the studies and the results are described in terms of Vygotskian theory and the importance of socially mediated resources for learning.

Moschkovich, J. (2002). "An Introduction to examining everyday and academic mathematical practices." In M. Brenner & J. Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and academic mathematics: Implications for the classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph Number 11, 1-11.

This paper addresses two apparently opposing recommendations for the appropriate focus of classroom curriculum and pedagogy in mathematics. The first is to use “everyday” mathematics, presenting it in the context of solving real-world problems, such as the kind encountered daily at home and at work by nonmathematicians (for example, making change from a larger bill). The second recommendation is to use “academic” mathematics, presenting it in contexts that resemble the work of academic mathematicians as closely as possible (for example, constructing mathematical proofs).

Moschkovich discusses the view that everyday and academic mathematics are mutually exclusive from historical and sociological perspectives, and proposes that part of the reason the two have been seen as dichotomous may be due to the lack of ethnographic studies documenting the daily practices of academic mathematicians. The author suggests that rather than choosing between these two goals, a better strategy would be to synthesize them by, for example, having students work on applied problems and then construct mathematical arguments for alternative solutions, thereby incorporating both the accessibility and motivational aspects of everyday mathematics and the specialized skills of academic mathematics that are important for higher education.

Oppenheimer, F. (1976, June) "Everyone is you....Or me." Technology Review.

Frank Oppenheimer, physicist and founder of the Exploratorium, explains the experience that the Exploratorium seeks to provide, including offering visitors an unrushed tour of natural science, instead of the formalized goal-oriented teaching found in classrooms. Oppenheimer takes the reader on this unrushed tour, compares exhibits, and describes the links between exhibits, their multiplicity, and their beauty, along with their strengths and weaknesses. He elaborates on the affect this sort of tour has on cultivating “addicts” of individual discovery. He also speculates whether the cultivation of these addicts simply occurs through particular exhibits, or whether it requires supplemental museum materials, such as literature or broadcast videos. Finally, Oppenheimer describes the general atmosphere within the museum as a free-form, noninstructive, and nonjudgmental environment; critical characteristics for helping people feel comfortable pursuing their own understanding of nature.

Osborne, J. (2002) "What 'Ideas About Science' Should be Taught in School Science? A Dephi Study of the Expert Community." Journal of the Research of Science Teaching, vol 40,no.7 pp.692-720

This is a report on a small-scale empirical study about participant views on the nature of science using a Delphi study approach. The empirical study asked, “What should be taught to school students about the nature of science?” Twenty-three participants were drawn from a community of scientists, historians, philosophers, sociologists, expert science teachers, and experts who work on improving public understanding of science. The outcomes of the study are nine themes encapsulating key ideas about the nature of science for which there was consensus. These themes, described as simplified accounts of science, are suggested as an essential component of school science.

The paper begins with a historical account of the debates and disagreements in science education about the nature of science: whether science is socially constructed or objective, whether nature of science should be taught and, if so, to whom (all learners or future scientists?), and which aspects. Science education fails because it does not adequately communicate the nature, practices, and processes of science, therefore leaving kids with limited views and disinterest in the sciences. The paper speculates that current documents created by National Science Education Standards, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, and others are a product of compromises made by committees rather than a coherent account of the nature of science. The author also contrasts their study to Alters (1997) study of 210 members of the US Philosophy of Science Association, which found there was no agreement on philosophies of science and that members held 11 different fundamental philosophies of science positions. These helped to motivate the study at hand.

The Delphi study was accomplished in three rounds. The first was an open-ended brainstorm asking three focusing questions that generated thirty themes (with >80% reliability) categorized under three themes: Nature of Scientific Knowledge, the Institutions and Social Practices of Science, and the Methods of Science. In the second round, these statements were rated on a five-point Likert scale for their importance to compulsory school science curriculum, resulting in eight top themes, the top three being Experimental Method and Critical Testing, the Tentative Nature of Scientific Knowledge, and the Historical Development of Scientific Knowledge. In the last phase, researchers decided to take the top-rated themes (18) from round two and have experts rate them again. Finally, nine themes emerged on which there was both consensus and stability.

They go on to discuss the paper with respect to curriculum, science instruction, and implementation. The authors believe that while they run the risk of misrepresenting the essential elements of scientific practice and the values of the scientific community when they teach this simplified “vulgarized account” of science, the study can still provide a basic understanding of the processes and practices of science and the nature of knowledge produced in the process. This is groundwork for the more sophisticated accounts of science that may develop later in life.

Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejia Arauz, R., Correa-Chšvez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2003). "Firsthand learning by intent participation." Annual Review of Psychology, 54.

In this article, the authors describe the learning tradition of “intent participation,” where the learner obtains knowledge through active observation and “listening-in” during the course of ongoing and shared activities. The authors contrast intent participation with the type of instruction typically found in western schools, which they call “assembly-line instruction,” where knowledge is transmitted from the teacher to the student in small pieces, out of the context of “real-world” work.

Intent participation is shown to be particularly emphasized and valued in cultures where children are expected to take part in community activities at an early age. The authors outline the differences between intent participation and assembly-line instruction, in terms of who participates and how, the processes of instruction and learning, the roles of experts and novices, and the motivation and purpose behind the learning and the role of assessment.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). "Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education." Science, 182(4112), 553-559.

The central question the authors address in this article is whether differences in the social organization of education lead to differences in the organization of learning and thinking skills in individuals: Does formal schooling produce differences in the problem-solving techniques used by the person who goes through it?

The authors review the research and evidence (as of 1973), and claim that formal education fundamentally changes the way people approach problems, compared to people who have no formal education. In a study of Senegalese villagers, the researchers found that the villagers with even a few years of formal schooling had very different approaches to problem solving than their more informally educated peers, and that they used a variety of strategies to solve an assortment of problems, as compared to their more informally educated peers.

What is the significance of the differences in the organization of thinking and learning that are seen in those with formal education as compared to those without it? Are these differences useful in every cultural setting, or does formal education impede the participation of individuals in the everyday life of their communities? These are a few of the questions raised as potential implications and future research questions for the field.

Schauble, L., Leinhardt, G., & Martin, L. (1997). "A framework for organizing a cumulative research agenda in informal learning contexts." Journal of Museum Education, 22(2&3), 3-8.

In this paper, the authors introduce a theoretical framework for coordinating research on informal learning contexts that was developed to organize and catalyze the research agenda of the Museum Learning Collaborative (MLC). To start, the authors review what’s known about the nature of informal learning and describe the difficulties educational researchers encounter in the informal context. To inform their theoretical framework for research, the authors draw primarily on sociocultural theory, which asserts that the meaning of an experience emerges from the interplay between individuals and the mediators employed in social contexts. The variability of learning, the processes of learning, the role of learning in personal history, and the pursuit of meaning are all features with which sociocultural theory is concerned.

The authors articulate three major themes that constitute the framework: (1) learning and learning environments; (2) interpretations, meaning and explanation; and (3) identity, motivation, and interest. These themes are explained and illustrated with specific and concrete examples of learning research conducted in informal learning environments. The theme of learning and learning environments focuses on how learning environments or contexts should be designed so as to best support learning. The interpretation, meaning, and explanation theme considers these aspects as both processes and products of social interaction in museums. The identity, motivation, and interest theme emphasizes that the personal learning experiences of people in museums both depend on and change how people see themselves. The formulation and pursuit of this agenda aims to bring together research, theory, and practical problems of informal learning to work toward a cumulative and comprehensive knowledge base.

vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2001). "Exhibiting interaction: Conduct and collaboration in museums and galleries." Symbolic Interaction, 24(2); pp.189-216.

Most studies of visitor behavior in museums and galleries focus on a single visitor interacting with a single exhibit. The nature of the visitor’s interaction with the exhibit, along with the meaning the visitor drew from it, are assumed to be due primarily to the exhibit’s design and layout. However, as this article demonstrates, a visitor’s experience of an exhibit is also greatly affected by the social environment and the relationship between the exhibit and other objects within the physical space. The other exhibits encountered before and after, the behavior of the visitor’s companions, and the behavior of strangers within proximity all have strong effects on how the visitor engages with, and draws meaning from, the exhibit.

The authors advocate the use of videotape along with field observations as a method for evaluating important social, nonverbal, and sequential aspects of visitor behavior, and they present several video fragments from their own work, as examples of their findings. The authors summarize their contribution to the field of symbolic interactionism, as well as the implications for museum exhibit design and visitor studies.