The Science Center Learning Experience: A Visitor-Based Framework

Chantal Barriault

Science centers offer visitors exciting opportunities to explore scientific ideas and ways of thinking through fun, interactive, hands-on science exhibits. With increasing pressure on institutional budgets, educators, researchers and funders alike are looking for evidence that visitors to these informal learning settings are not just exploring but are actually learning from their experience. Most science center professionals agree that these attractions nurture curiosity, improve motivation and attitudes toward science, engage the visitors through participation and social interaction and generate excitement and enthusiasm, all of which are conducive to if not necessary for science learning and understanding.

The question remains: Can assessments be made which show that learning is indeed occurring when visitors interact with exhibits? How can we gain a better understanding of the visitor learning experience? Examples of studies which attempt to understand and measure visitor learning are quite numerous considering this field is still in its youth. Detailed literature reviews can be found in Rennie & McClafferty (1995), Ramey-Gassert et al. (1994) and Dierking & Falk (1994). Nevertheless, there are several issues which have not yet been adequately addressed.

• Much of the research attempting to measure learning in science centers involves investigating the effect of exhibit characteristics on "learning-associated behaviors." Studies are measuring visitor learning based on the educational objectives of the exhibit or intended learning outcomes, as determined by the designer.
• The "learning-associated behaviors" or "indicator behaviors" are predetermined by the researcher and used as checklists during the observations. Although researchers base their use of these indicator behaviors on other science center and museum studies, the decisions about what visitors should be doing with exhibits have already been made.

When assessing learning from exhibit based criteria, we are implying that all visitors should have the same experience with that exhibit, when in fact many different opportunities exist for different people. Similarly, predetermined lists of behavioral indicators may not be capturing the full nature of a visitor's learning experience in the science center.

Learning has been described as "changing through experience ... acquiring relatively permanent change in understanding, attitude, knowledge, information, ability and skill through experience" (Wittrock, 1977). It is now a widely accepted among educators that humans are not passive recipients of knowledge but that we actively construct new knowledge based on our experiences. Thus, a different approach for science center researchers is to objectively assess the visitor's experience with exhibits to better understand the nature of the learning and begin to recognize it when it is happening. This takes into consideration the individualized nature of each visitor's experience.

This study investigated the behavior of visitors as they interacted with exhibits to determine if there were consistent patterns of behaviors that occur which indicate that learning is taking place.

Method

The fact that each visitor has a unique experience is incompatible with experimental or quantitative methods of research which would dictate that all subjects experience the same treatment. Naturalistic methods on the other hand, are well suited for investigations in the interactive environment of the science center. This study's investigations were carried out through detailed observations and open-ended interviews with visitors to Techniquest, in the UK, and Science North in Canada. Since this study investigated the science center learning experience from a visitor's point of view, predetermined behavioral checklists were not used and exhibit characteristics did not influence the investigation. The data collection and analysis methodologies were consistent with the approaches recommended by Strauss (1987) and Miles and Huberman (1994) and explored emergent themes from observed patterns of behavior and open-ended interviews.

Three levels of analysis shaped the observational and interview data which led to this study's results. The first level of analysis summarized and packaged the data and involved coding. This was followed by trying out the emergent categories of behavior on subsequent data. This in turn led to the second level of analysis which is repackaging and aggregating the data. This process allowed for the identification of themes and categories in the data overall. Finally, the third level of analysis involved developing and testing propositions to construct an explanatory framework. Further observations and interviews contributed to the development of the conceptual framework of visitor learning behaviors.

Results

The data analysis revealed that there are eight discrete learning behaviors that occur as part of a visitor's interaction with an exhibit and that these behaviors can be grouped further into three categories that reflect increased involvement and depth of the learning experience.

Discussion

The eight learning behaviors do not describe the learning experience sequentially or in isolation. A rich learning experience means that many or most of these behaviors occur during an interaction with an exhibit. In fact, the behaviors can occur in a variety of sequences. However , the data did indicate broader sequential patterns in terms of the level of the learning experience.

1. Initiation Behaviors
a. Doing the activity
b. Spending time watching others engaging in the activity
c. Information and assistance offered by staff of other visitor
When visitors demonstrate these learning behaviors, they are taking the first steps towards a meaningful learning experience. Even though visitors are not yet completely involved in the experience, they are gaining some level of information through the experience which in turn, could lead to more learning. Above all else, visitors need to 'feel safe' about committing themselves to engagement with an exhibit. Initiation behaviors enable them to 'test the waters' with minimum personal risk and provide an entry point into further learning opportunities offered by the exhibit.

2. Transition Behaviors
a. Repeating the activity
b. Expressing positive emotional responses in reaction to engaging in the activity
Smiles and outbursts of enjoyment along with repetition indicate that a level of comfort has been achieved and that visitors are comfortable ... and even eager ... to engage themselves more thoroughly in the activity. Regardless of whether the activity is repeated in order to better understand it, to master the functions or to observe different outcomes, the net outcome is a more committed and motivated learning behavior.

3. Breakthrough Behaviors
a. Referring to past experiences while engaging in the activity
b. Seeking and sharing information
c. Engaged and involved: testing variables, making comparisons and using information gained from the activity
Each of these behaviors acknowledges the relevance of the activity, and the learning gained from the activity, to the individual's everyday life. The Learning Behaviors in this category reflect a commitment on the part of the visitor to gaining information and knowledge and to further exploring the ideas being presented. By Referring to past experiences, Seeking and Sharing Information and becoming Engaged and Involved, a visitor's interaction with an exhibit becomes a meaningful learning experience which takes full advantage of the exhibit's learning opportunities. A personal level of comfort has been established that encourages a free flow of ideas and exchanges, and enables real learning to occur.

How Can Other Science Center Practitioners Use This Tool?

The Learning Behaviors and Depth of Learning levels provide the framework for a tool which allows the highly individualized visitor learning experience to be assessed. As commented by Wheatley (1991), since learning is accomplished by constructing and elaborating schemes based on experiences, "it is very much a personal matter". Considering this assessment tool was developed from the point of view of the visitor, it can be sensitive to the personal nature of each visitor's experience with every exhibit he or she interacts with. Learning assessments which are based primarily on the educational objectives inherent in the exhibit's design cannot accommodate such individualized experiences. Any attempt to assess the visitor learning experience which relies on exhibit characteristics determined by the designer can fail to fully capture the potential learning experience of the visitor. As Lucas et al. (1986) point out "we should not focus only on the intended purpose of an exhibit, but need to be alert to unintended exploratory behavior, which might be as 'scientific' as the planned possibilities." Other researchers have found that much of the learning that takes place appears to be incidental and often is not the learning that developers intended (Anderson & Cook Roe, 1993a; Falk & Dierking, 1992). The data from this study showed that visitors are engaging in a variety of behaviors at different levels, all of which can or do lead to a meaningful learning experience.

Science center practitioners can apply this framework in order to better understand the nature of the visitor experience in their institutions. By observing and interviewing visitors interacting with exhibits, science center practitioners can determine which of the Learning Behaviors are displayed most often and consequently, assess the level at which visitors are taking advantage of the exhibits' learning opportunities. This assessment will not measure cognitive gains in terms of which facts are being learned. Other more quantitative methods have been used to assess this (Falk, 1983). However, as has been previously discussed, the highly individualized, free choice and random experience of the science center dictates that it is inappropriate to require every visitor to gain the same learning outcomes from exhibits.

This type of assessment can also have implications for exhibit design and perhaps more importantly, for 'experience' design. Assessing visitors' activities based on the proposed framework would allow science center practitioners to discover what types of experiences are encouraged by their exhibits. Such information can be invaluable in revealing changes needed to increase certain types of behaviors, and consequently, the richness of the learning experience. If most visitors only Do the Activity of an exhibit, other tools or more relevant context may be added to encourage visitors to Refer to Past Experiences While Engaging in the Activity or to become Involved and Engaged with the exhibit. A good exhibit will provide opportunities for most of the Learning Behavior to occur. Other researchers provide support for this assertion in the Museum Impact Evaluation Studies. For example, Anderson & Cook Roe (1993b) reported that what appears to be "the most important to visitors is their perception that there was an opportunity to learn." These researchers' findings suggest there are degrees of taking advantage of the opportunity, "but the important element is that the opportunity should be available". It is sometimes stated in science center circles that some exhibits are designed to do one thing a million times and others are designed to do a million things once. With this is mind, what are some of the ways exhibit designers can ensure that exhibits elicit many learning behaviors?

Giving visitors the opportunity to engage in Breakthrough Behaviors for example, could involve the following experience design:

• provide relevant, contextualized exhibits which make reference to visitors' everyday lives
• provide tools and activities which encourage exploration, interactions and involvement
• provide exhibits which have numerous outcomes and testable variables

Concluding Remarks

As an assessment tool, this Learning Behaviors framework can help science center practitioners better understand the nature of the learning experience in their institutions. In addition, the framework has applications for exhibit and experience design, giving practitioners insights into the types of learning opportunities exhibits should provide to increase learning behaviors. Other science center researchers can explore the usefulness of this framework, the methodology and its findings. Most importantly, this investigation is a starting point for visitor-based assessments of the learning experience. The individualized and personal nature of the science center learning experience demands that researchers continue to explore the learning experience from a visitor's point of view.

References

Anderson, P. and B. Cook Roe. 1993a. The Museum Impact Evaluation Study: Roles of Affect in the Museum Visit and Ways of Assessing Them, Volume 1. Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago, IL.

Anderson, P. and B. Cook Roe. 1993b. The Museum Impact Evaluation Study: Roles of Affect in the Museum Visit and Ways of Assessing Them, Volume 2. Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago, IL.

Dierking, L. D. and J. H. Falk. 1994. "Family Behavior and Learning in Informal Science Settings: A Review of the Research." Science Education 78(1): pp 57-72.

Falk, J. H. 1983. "Time and Behavior as Predictors of Learning." Science Education 67: pp 267-276.

Falk, J. H. and L. D. Dierking. 1992. The Museum Experience. Howells House, Washington, DC.

Lucas, A.M., P. McManus and G. Thomas. 1986. "Investigating Learning from Informal Sources: Listening to Conversations and Observing Play in Museums." European Journal of Science Education 8(4): pp 341-352.

Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman. 1994. An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd edition). Sage, London.

Ramey-Gassert, L., H. J. Walberg III and H. J. Walberg. 1994. "Reexamining Connections: Museums as Science Learning Environments." Science Education 78(4): pp 345-363.

Rennie, L. J. and T. P.McClafferty. 1995. "Science Centers and Science Learning." Studies in Science Education 27: pp 53-98.

Strauss, A. L. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Wheatley, G. H. 1991. "Constructivist Perspectives on Science and Mathematics Learning." Science Education 75(1): pp 9-21.

Wittrock, M., ed. 1977. Learning and Instruction. McCutchan, Berkeley, CA.

Chantal Barriault is a Science Communication Staff Scientist - Education Initiatives at Science North, Sudbury, ON, Canada.

Click here to subscribe

Back to ILR archive

Traveling
Exhibitions
Database

ile@informallearning.com