Project description

Expand - Research in Norwegian Science centers.

1. Short summary

The research program Expand - Research in Norwegian Science centers, was initiated by Statoil in

2011 in collaboration with INSPIRIA Science Center, Section for Learning and Teacher Education,

Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences,

Norwegian Centre for Science Education and Norwegian Research Council. The project collaboration

has as its main objective to address the need for research based development of science centres. Based

on two evaluations (Quin 2006, Persson et al 2009) initiated by The Norwegian Research Council,

there is an expressed need for research understanding the role of Science centers as learning arenas in

Norwegian context, in what ways science centers may supplement science communication and

learning, and to understand the unique aspects about science centers as learning arenas between

between schools and other learning sites in the Norwegian educational context. Also, these

evaluations pointed to the need to understand science centers role for engagement, interest and

recruitment to science, and the need for further education and training of science center staff.

Expand will include the aspects raised in these evaluation in its research and development program.

This with the aim to approach the relation between design and learning in science centres from

multiple empirical and theoretical angles. This will include a focus on the various forms of

interactions in science centre exhibitions, a focus on developing sustainable research and observation

methods to guide future for developments, a focus on the collaborative relationship between school

and science centre, as well as a focus on continuing professional development (CPD) for science

center staff and teachers by way of a CPD module, a research network and a national conference.

Expand will especially focus on the social and cultural aspects of students building linkages to

learning subjects across science centres and the school. Expand in this way raises questions around

the conceptualisation and implementation of science learning in the age of open education and

learning 2.0 (Brown and Adler 2008) in design of interactions and learning in science centre

exhibitions and in collaborations between science centers and schools.

Expand is a practise-based research and development project that builds on methods of user

engagements drawn form action-research and participatory research. By way of multiple methods and

approaches does the project seek to address following aspects;

1. Science center as learning arenas: In what ways are science centers important, supplementing

learning arenas for learning in schools. What are the unique aspects about science centers as

learning arenas?

  2  

2. Engagement: How may science centers increase interest in science? In what ways do science

centers contribute to society? Does the visits to science center increase interest for future

carriere in science?

3. Competence building among staff: How should science centers continue their development in

the future? How can science centers build a sustainable grounding?

These focus points build central topics of that frame 5 subprojects crossing qualitative and

quantitative approaches. The Expand research program collaborates closely with INSPERIA science

centre as a central pilot case for collaborative development, involving INSPERIA educators in

developing observation methods suitable for ethnographic based observation of interactions with

objects and interactives in exhibitions. And also in the development of evaluating didactic aspects of

science centre teaching in educational programmes with this specific centre as a pilot for a more

general development of evaluation systems. It is a central objective for the project that the evaluation

methods developed will also be transferable to other centres.

The project involves two researchers, a PhD as well as master students at Teacher Education in

Natural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences in addition to museum professionals at

INSPERIA and several of the 8 regional science centres in Norway.

  3  

2. Introduction: Learning research in science centers Many science centres are transforming towards highlighting the complexity of science and complex

issues that confront citizens in modern democracies (Henriksen and Frøyland 2000) and become

places for encounter with controversies of scientific development, such as in the Norwegian BRUDD

projects (Frøyland 2006). In this way, the discussion of the educational role of science centres

becomes part of broader debates on science communication, science literacy and engagement with

scientific issue that is discussed in various fields such as media studies, science and technology

studies, environmental and sustainability discussions, as well as in the field of education and learning.

The various fields and approaches are closely related to the diverging forms and aspects related to

learning and knowledge of science; the science learning in school, the out-of-school learning

programs, issues of diversity, gender and learning, learning form media and digital technologies,

learning in museums and designed environments, the nature of learning and everyday and family-

based learning. These diverging venues and approaches to learning science do also elicit a number of

gaps that might influence people`s engagement and participation with science, in and across contexts

of educational institutions.

The role of informal environments for learning science has especially been underlined by

studies that focus on the various aspects of how people make meaning related to science and the range

of actors involved in their learning (Bell et al. 2009, Falk et al 2012). Mainly, science learning has

been related to issues such as how to develop interest for science, how understanding science

knowledge develop, how to engage in scientific reasoning, how to stimulate to reflection on science

or to engage in scientific practices as well as aspects of how people are identifying with scientific

enterprises (Bell et al 2009). The objective for current attention towards the role of informal

contributors and environments for science learning, can be closely connected to the considerable body

of evidence that show how science is failing to engage young people (Jenkins & Nelson, 2005; Lyons,

2006; Osborne & Collins, 2001; Sjøberg & Schreiner, 2005). Derived from this, a central discussion

address how engagement with science is based on a cumulative process that crosses contested

institutional contexts of schooling, museum and everyday and-community based learning. A central

challenge in the field is to gain deeper understanding of the boundary crossing and bridging activities

between these social and institutional context and to develop a framework for designing learning

environments that support the heterogeneous aspects of science learning. Here, lies an implicit

argument about the need to change the pedagogical framework for science learning both in schools as

well as in science centers and museums.

Meanwhile, are new concepts of learning and knowledge challenging to implement in the

professional and institutional practices of museums and science centers. Well established issues of

museum education and perspectives on visitors learning, such as notions of free-choice learning and

learning across contexts (Falk 2001, Falk and Dierking 2000), do in several ways relate to changes

inside the field of broader educational thinking emergent in higher science education (Osborne and

  4  

Hennessy 2003). The current highly debated transformation of museums and science centres is argued

to involve an overall change from presenting science in the form of objects, taxonomies and definite

truths, into a focus on how to enhance visitors’ active, open ended development of meaning and

reflective authorship (Quistgaard and Højland 2010, Macdonald 1998, Mintz 1995, Pedretti 2002 and

2004). This shift represents a major dilemma in the museum field, where the focus on object-based

museum learning has long been debated. Mainly in relation the role of the material object in relation

to visitors attention and the variety of forms that their construction of knowledge may take in learning

interaction with material object (Paris 2002). Meanwhile has it been argued that it is time to dethrone

objects from their traditional, privileged place as the center of attention in museum exhibition and

learning design. And instead shift the vision of exhibition design towards the practices that imbue

these objects with meaning in disciplinary communities (Schauble 2002). Objects may lie at the core

of the museum mission but requires that the theoretical claims posed to understand learning with

objects should be related closely to the particular sociocultural setting in question (Wertsch 2002)

The endeavour to build a new framework for learning in museums and science centre

involves to establish a focus on the blending of social and material learning features that comes at

play in museums and science centers learning interactions (e.g. Koch et al. 2011, Benjaminsen &

Sørensen 2011). And on finding new ways to support visitors critical reflection on science (Bandelli

2005) by way of the designed objects such as installations, multimedia presentations and digital and

physical interactives designed for museums and science centers. These new artifacts introduce

challenges that relates to navigation in exhibition space, embodied and physical experiences with

interactives as well as interpretations of representations and simulation that visitors has to understand

based on their interactions. Very often these interactive exhibits are designed to be stand-alone

teaching devices that must convey their message without the benefit of a human mediator (Feher,

1990). Interactive touching and manipulating in museums has been understood to open up ”a range of

experiences that fully engage visitors personally, physically and emotionally” (Adams, Luke and

Moussori 2004: 158), but needs to be explored more closely in relation to the didactic goal and

learning outcome of visitors interaction. Understanding the role of interactives in exhibits for science

learning and reflections on scientific questions is therefore crucial for understanding educational

efforts of science centers on a micro-level Achiam 2012).

Lately several studies have stated the short comings of the pedagogical outcome of science

exhibitions where students interaction with interactives has produced misconceptions (eg. Borun &

Adams 1991, Borun, Massey& Lutter 1993) The inclusion of digital media and learning technologies

in museum learning has put another layer on the articulated need to address exhibit design as well as

the design process as a didactic process leading towards an exhibition. One argument is that design of

interactives needs to be systematised to improve and optimize the fit between intended and observed

learning outcomes (Achiam 2012), and that curation and didactics of science may build helpful

frameworks. One proposal has been to consider the ways practitioners situate and use objects in their

work as illustrating didactic examples that may prompt learners in equal interactions in their learning

  5  

(Bain and Ellenbogen 2002). This has for example inspired to a design based on praxeology of the

didactic involved in scientific reasoning (Achiam 2012) where moments of scientific reasoning build

the ground for designing learners interactions with interactives.

2.1 Background: The Norwegian context of EXPAND There are 8 regional science centres in Norway that receive governmental funding yearly under the

Science centre program. This arrangement started in 2003, when the Ministry of Education asked the

Norwegian Research Council to develop a strategy plan, which was named The Norwegian science

centre programme and which based based on developing regional science centres by way of operating

subsidy scheme. The objective behind this initiative was to raise interest among young people and

citizens towards science, current scientific questions and scientific education by way of the informal

and explorative learning opportunities given in these centres. This initiative has its background in the

overall Norwegian strategy for raising standards in math and science in the Norwegian educational

system (Soria Moria declaration).

The establishment of science centres in Norway has been based on a close collaboration

between industrial partners, regional governments and educational partners in joint efforts to promote

positive attitudes to science and mathematics among individuals in the educational sector and in the

community in general. The Norwegian Science Center programme consists of partly governmental

financing and partly individual support by each member organisation. Until 2012 The Norwegian

Science Center initiative has largely been used to build up the organisation, including new

construction for 6 new centres and to offer a diverse and exiting science centre program.The

programme plays an important role as governmental actor in professionalising science centres in

Norway and contributing to recruitment processes to science. In 2012 Norwegian science centers had

over 800.000 visitors as a result. This development has been driven by great engagement and high

collective spirit. The programme now enters its third programme period, and is facing the challenge of

the fact that 6 of 8 Norwegian science centres are relatively young institutions, all established after

year 2000.

2.2 The Norwegian strategy for raising standards in math and science The Expand-program should be seen as part of the Norwegian strategy for raising standards in math

and science. This strategy places emphasis on an intimate collaboration between mathematics and

science where the education and labour sectors also cooperate to bring about positive results. This

requires that new instruments and new areas of collaboration are developed that spans many levels of

education, from day care centres, primary and lower secondary schools, to teacher education and to

  6  

improve the competence of teachers through continuing education in collaboration with universities

and colleges. The strategy has five overall goals, whereof Expand will connect to the last mentioned:

• To improve teaching of mathematics and science in day care centres and primary and lower

secondary school

• To improve the competence of teachers and teacher training

• To create development of mathematics and science subjects in higher education and research,

including the industry, business and labour sector.

• To reinforce expertise in mathematics and science in the labour sector

• To improve science communication with the general public

The current focus on learning impacts of Norwegian Science Centres relates to the overall strategy

articulated in the last primary goal of science communication. Science centers represent out-of-school

learning arenas that are emergently considered important arenas for creating interest and desire to

study mathematics and science.

2.3 Evaluations of Norwegian Science Centre Expand builds on two major evaluations of The Norwegian Science Program: The Quin-report (Quin

2006) delivered a status report from the first period financed by the Norwegian Ministry of Education

and Research (UFD), and the second period was evaluated by (Persson, Ødegaard, Nielsen 2009)

financed by Research Council of Norway (RCN).

The Quin-report concludes that the sector needs to connect as a whole – and to develop an

evaluation framework against which the science centre output and impact can be compared. The

report proposes following focus for a broadened scope of science center programs:

• Raise standards, increase cooperation, ensure coherent delivery

• Build formal partnerships, and inter centre relationships

• Develop concepts for exhibitions and educational programmes

• Match science centre deliverables to government objectives

• Support evaluation and stimulate collaboration and innovation

• Focus on identity outcomes

• Identify school children’s role in science as citizens or as future scientists

• Identify inclusive strategy to reach people from all backgrounds

The evaluation from the second period of the science centre program (Persson, Ødegaard, Nielsen

2009) recommends that Norwegian Science Centres be stimulated to build their further development

upon qualitative perspectives and understanding of the impact of educational programs in science

centers, which as a result would provide continuity in the further development of the centers (Persson,

Ødegaard, Nielsen 2009). The report especially focuses on the role of competence development in

  7  

accordance with the profile in each institution – and recommends that such competence building be

combined with exchange of best practices of teaching and experiences of students learning between

institutions. The commission especially recommends the science centres to develop evaluation

methods and criteria for:

• Societal relevance

• Use of available interactives in exhibitions in their pedagogical programmes and activities

• Coherence between the pedagogical programme in science centres and school curriculum

• A holistic framework for inquiry based science that supports visitors learning and interaction

with installations.

These evaluation results build the background of the EXPAND-program and has given central input

to the research design and methodological approach.

  8  

3.0  Expand  –  focus,  relevance  to  existing  research  &  research  

design    

The three overall focus areas will be addressed by several projects involved in the Expand program:

How do science centres work as learning arenas? What role may science centres have for

strengthening mathematics, science and technology? How can arenas for reflection and professional

practice development be established and made sustainable? The projects will apply multiple

methodological approaches drawing on quantitative survey studies, mapping approaches, and

qualitative studies as well as participatory and user involvement methods inspired by action research

and design-based methods by focusing on involving staff and students in co-research processes. The

goal of the EXPAND research program is to achieve a deeper understanding of science centers as

learning arenas, their role for recruitment to science education and development of science literacy as

well as how further education of staff in science centers can best be developed. These issues are

central topics of the applied approach to research and development that Expand – Research in

Norwegian Science Centers represents.

The research design of the EXPAND-program is based on the three main focus areas and will

frame the projects that will apply a multiple qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Also,

the program involves educational projects that will be directed towards educators in science centers

and science center researchers in Norway today:

Fig 1. Illustration of the structure and projects of Expand – Research in Norwegian Science Centres

  9  

The research planned in the Expand-program will follow the three focus area and will inform the

overall perspective applied in the program, understanding science learning as being based on an

ecology of educational sources and resources (Bell et al. 2009, Falk et al. 2012).

3.2  Goals  and  objectives    The Expand-program will be based on major objectives and concerns that ranges from extending

research methodologies to addressing empirical findings related to the framework of educational role

of Norwegian science centers :

• To empirically study the relation between interactive exhibitions, experiments in science

laboratories’ curriculum and learning in the science center with specific focus on the context

for Norwegian science centers

• To apply participatory and practice-based methodologies inspired by action research

approaches into the context of science center research. This is based on including science

centre educators as well as students to study the exhibition as learning arena, and develop

visions of possible interventions.

The research will feed into establishing an arena for professional development that integrate research

on science centre learning with a broader network of professional actors. Expand will run a

Norwegian network of science center researchers and will be active in the Norwegian conference on

science center and museums, to facilitate exchange between researchers and science centre

practitioners, development of teacher educational modules and establishing national research

networks.

The research project will be centred at INSPIRIA science centre, which will serve as a central case for

our collaborative research approach, involving museum practitioners in developing methods for

observation of student learning in the exhibitions, and evaluating how the science centre pedagogy is

implemented in the didactics of educational programmes and exhibits at this specific centre. It is a

central objective for the project that the methods for observation and assessment developed will also

be transferable to other centres. The core project group involves two researchers, a PhD-candidate and

master students at the master degree programme at Teacher Education in Natural Sciences,

Norwegian University of Life Sciences in addition to museum professionals at INSPIRIA that will be

involved as research participants. In addition there is a potential to involve science educators from

science centers in Norway that attends a PhD-educational programme be involved as a major addition

to the core group.

3.3  Methodological  approach  

  10  

There is an emerging interest among museums, science centres to explore participatory and

design-based research approaches to educational development in informal settings, and across

museum and school contexts. These methodological endeavours are related to an interest in further

development of practical based design experiments that has been used in the educational sciences,

inspired by psychological research traditions. The main approach in this methodological tradition is to

conduct formative and test-based research in real settings. More recently, new approaches to using

design experiments have been developed, approaches with less focus on formative interventions and

testing, and where the process of design possible future solutions and visions is framed as a

component of investigating process (Boling 2010). This emerging re-organisation of design

experiment methods in educational research is related to the range of strategies required to address the

social, economic and technical challenges of and changes in education today. This methodological

development supports emerging educational thinking in science centres that addresses methodological

development that may capture the cultural assumptions and belief systems that visitors bring with

them and that constitute their participation and activity in informal learning across contexts of science

centers and schools (Ash & Rahm 2012).

Overall, these collaborative, participatory and design-based research approaches include

educators, experts and researchers across institutions and disciplines, and have multiple outcomes on

empirical, methodological and theoretical levels. Earlier, hermeneutic research designs (Anderson

2012) and action research-based methods (Tal 2012) have been combined with ethnographical

approaches to science centre learning studies. These collaborative research approaches include

professional development as both process and outcome of the research, and teachers engaged may

improve their practice based on reflections on actions as part of research exploring learning and

teaching across contexts (Tal 2012). Developing theoretically and methodologically well grounded

research methods is essential to move beyond the case based studies of informal learning and

formative test based assessment of implementations of educational technologies. In this way

exploring innovations in learning may be grounded on the social and cultural processes, the tentions

and ongoing negotiation processes that frames learning across sites.

The Expand-program will be based on these emerging collaborative research approaches

based on applying user engagement methods (Rickinson, Sebba and Edwards 2011) to engage science

educators and students in teacher training program in research activities in collaboration with project

researchers. Increasing numbers of large-scale strategic research projects in the educational sciences

have at their centre notions of partnerships, collaborations and engagement of practitioners in research

projects (Rickinson, Sebba and Edwards 2011). Such practitioner involvement in research is well

known in action research approaches in organisations (Lewin 1946). In addition, Expand will involve

students and young people in Youth Participatory Action Research stemming from Freire’s critical

pedagogy and participatory approaches to social science (Freire 1970, Cammarota & Fine 2008).

There have been only few projects in the museum and science centre field that explore participatory

approach and action research methods, and these have focused user engagement in the form of

  11  

visitors’ engagement into designing new exhibitions, involving children and youth in participatory

research related to designing interactions and technologies (Taxén 2004, Dindler & Iversen 2007,

Iversen and Smith 2012).

Related to the focus on interactions in exhibitions and the focus on understanding the relation

between visitors interactions and didactic outcome of installations, will Expand take inspirations of

approaches, techniques and tools from participatory research methods from the diverging fields such

as participatory design and co-design, and address their relevance to learning in sciences centers. This

user engagement and participatory approach is based on the project focus on engaging science

educators, students from masters level teacher education as well as youth in upper secondary classes

in collaborative research in developing concepts and perspectives that help understanding interactive

learning processes in science centre exhibitions. This triangulation of research, education and

practical development and innovation in science centres does represent a new research strategy

compared to other known science centre projects and will be one of the main contributions of Expand

to the STEM field.

3.4  Research  Design  and  research  projects  The research design is overall based on an ecological approach to understanding science learning

(Falk et al.2012, Bell et al.2009). The three focus areas of Expand are chosen as distinct arenas

relevant as research that takes up the needs for further development stated in the evaluations of

Norwegian Science Center (Quin 2006, Persson et al 2009). The participatory action research

methodology will be applied in multiple ways in all three arena Science centers as learning arenas,

Science centers as recruitment arenas, and Development of reflective practices based on different

forms of involvement of science educators and students in science programmes

I.  Focus  area:  Science  centers  as  learning  arenas    This focus area seeks to respond to the following overall problem area in science center research:

How do science centres work as learning arenas?

The focus area includes a special focus on the exhibition as one arena, and

Currently, this focus area includes two sub-projects:

A)  Interactions  in  exhibitions:    The exhibition is the physical interface for learning in science centres, as it is where interactions take

place, both material interaction with objects, interactives and digital technologies, and social

interaction with other individuals. Several studies have concluded that interactive exhibits tend to

attract more visitors and engage them for longer times than static exhibits (e.g. Allen 2007; Brooks &

Vernon 1956, Borun 2003, Korn 1997, Rosenfeld & Terkel 1982, Serrell 2001). At the same time

studies have also documented that exhibit designs that incorporated too many interactive features

could lead to misunderstandings and visitors feeling overwhelmed (Allen & Gutwill 2004). Several

  12  

studies show how exhibitions often fail to support students in reflective thinking, to facilitate

understanding of explanations and theories and even result in retaining misconceptions about

scientific phenomena (Land 2000, Achiam 2012). More specifically, do studies of interactive exhibits

show that in some cases they actually seemed to teach misconceptions (Borun, Masey and Lutter

1993), and in other cases that visitors constructed unexpected knowledge, which was not in

accordance with canonical science (Anderson, Lucas, Gins & Dierking 2000, Achiam 2012). Studying

interactions in museum exhibitions and in relation to particular exhibits is important, in order to

advance exhibition design and design of interactives. In order to improve exhibition design in science

centers there is a need to develop a didactic and systematic framework for analyzing and designing

learning interactions with interactive installations in exhibition spaces. Also, there is a need for a

shared vocabulary or terminology to articulate the relations between the designed features of

interactives, the learners interactions and learning outcomes (e.g. what kinds of design features may

support particular learning outcomes) (Mortensen 2011). Also there is a need to develop a framework

for how design processes can be planned and managed in accordance with didactic goals and needs.

This to develop design principles that help secure coherence between designed interactions and

learning outcomes in the exhibition. For the focus on the role of the exhibition in establishing science

centres as learning arenas for science literacy, it is important to note that; “Exhibits that do not

provide learners with the means to construct the intended scientific understanding lack what for most

museums is a fundamental characteristic” (Achiam 2012: 2).

There is a growing body of research literature on the role of digital technologies in museum

exhibitions, which comes primarily from media studies and interaction design studies (Drotner and

Laursen, 2011; Parry, 2010; Tallon and Walker, 2008). This literature discusses the possibilities and

limitations of these technologies for exhibition design in museums and science centres. While curators

see digital technologies as being part of the contemporary language of the mass media that museums

must speak if they are to be able to communicate with young adults, there is a clear need to address

the meditational means that digital technologies introduce to the exhibition space (Witcomb 2008,

Adams et al 2004). Learning in science centres is increasingly related to the everyday activities of

youth outside institutional settings. Here, focus is put on the engagement that youth have with digital

media due to their social and cultural practices with technology. This gives them new forms of

competencies, abilities to relate to and involve diverging representational practices into their learning,

sensibilities towards properties of media, expertise of strategy and ownership that comes in new

shapes and modes and that is built on cumulative processes of learning across sites and contexts

(Erstad & Sefton-Green 2013).

The focus on processes of learning across context give a conception of learning as capabilities

and capacities to connect knowledge from different contexts and across multiple forms of materiality

(Arnseth & Silseth 2013). This gives young people a digital fluency (Hsi 2003&2007), where

practices of “messing around” (Ito et al. 2010) may be understood as one of several modes of

learning. There is a need to conceptualise learning in exhibitions as deeply related to these emerging

  13  

learning practices (Stuedahl & Smørdal 2011). The relation between existing practices and learning

in the museum exhibition is a field that still is rather unexplored when it comes to understanding the

role of digital technologies – and how these technologies may open up possibilities but also add

limitations. Science centre and museum learning experiences in exhibitions may for example be

deeply related to other museum media such as websites, mobile services and outreach programmes.

What has been studied from interaction design and studies of digital mediation of learning, has been

focused on how digital technologies do introduce new forms of interaction and participation in

museums and science center exhibitions (Heath and vom Lehn, 2004; vom Lehn et al., 2001, Stuedahl

& Smørdal 2011 a og b, Jahreie et al. 2011, Pierroux et al 2011, Laursen 2012). But we still have a

limited understanding of what kind of learning and production of meaning the multiple forms of

interactives in museums may lead to.

The sub-projects involved in this focus area are designed to explore the gap between

exhibition design and the design of learning activities in Norwegian science center exhibitions.

Included in the focus on object-based learning and its sociocultural context, Expand focuses on how

digital technologies and interactives are part of the media ecology that are involved in visitors science

learning. The interactions will be conceptualised as intertwining the material, the technical with social

and spatial based interactions and meaning making, where non-digital interactives and objects are

aligned with digital in the learning experience of the visitor. One main emphasis will be to explore

how digital is framed in relation to non-digital interactions in the educational and didactic thinking of

science centre learning programmes. The foci of Expand will be to involve science centre educators in

exploring methods for how to observe and evaluate interactions in exhibitions that goes beyond

established methods of front end and formative exhibition evaluations. The collaboration with science

centre educators will focus upon suitable methods for gathering data about students’ and visitors’

learning in science centre exhibitions, and that can be integrated into practices of educational

departments at science centres in a sustainable way.

SUB-­‐Project  ANALYSING   INTERACTION: This sub-project builds on the overall goal of applying

participatory research methods by involving science educators in the endeavour to observe and

analyse exhibitions in their own institutions with a special focus on the relation between educational

goals, design features and potential possibilities of future design processes. Science center educators

will be involved as co-researchers, as part of their participation in a continual professional

development programme developed by Expand as part of the participatory research approach. The

first module of the CPD program will have a special focus on methods and analytical frameworks for

understanding learning interactions in exhibitions. During the module will science center educators

document and collect empirical material of learning activities and interactions in exhibition spaces,

including objects and diverse interactives, technical and non-technical, in their institution. The

empirical material will be analysed in collaboration with science educators.

  14  

B)  Bridging  school  and  museum  collaborations: The Expand research project aims to address the

relation between students science learning in school versus in museums and science centers. The

overall goal is to explore what forms of learning science centers can provide, that learning in the

classroom can not (Frøyland 2010). Expand will also explore methodologies for examining the impact

of school trips on teaching and learning. Three key aspects of school field trips to museums and

science centres have been in focus of international research :

• The overall educational value of the trips • The impact of preparing for and following up on field trips

• The complexity of elements that influence students’ learning during field trips.

Much field trip related research in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s contrasted out-of-school learning

opportunities with in-school instruction (DeWitt & Storksdieck 2008). Lately, however, museum

practitioners and classroom teachers have come to place more value on the positive affective and

social experiences afforded by field trips (Anderson, Kisiel, & Storksdieck, 2006; Storksdieck,

Werner, & Kaul, 2006). In addition “cognitive” learning outcomes of field trips are emergently being

defined to go beyond learning facts and concepts, to include process skills, awareness of lifelong

learning and museums’ collaboration with communities (Storksdieck, Robbins, & Kreisman, 2007,

DeWitt & Storksdieck 2008). Hence, learning on and from a field trip is no longer seen as simply an

extension or improvement of classroom teaching, but as a valuable supplement and addition to

classroom instruction (Hofstein & Rosenfeld, 1996; Orion & Hofstein, 1994; Storksdieck, 2006;

DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008, Frøyland 2010).

  15  

Research indicates that the learning connected to field trips is fundamentally influenced by

the design of the field trip, including the structure of the field trip itself, prior knowledge of the

students, the social context of the visit, teacher agendas and actions on the field trip, and the presence

or absence and quality of preparation and follow-up experiences (DeWitt & Storksdieck 2008).

Research into school field trips to science centres also states the importance of a clear learning

framework for the visit, a clear indication of how the information is to be used following the visit and

an understandable purpose of the learning (Griffin 1998), as well as providing students with some

authority or control over their learning (Griffin 2004).

Studies of museum educators` perspectives on science educational programs have identified

five elements that influence school student learning in museums. Educators’ concerns are related to

what happens in school before and after field visits, the pre and post-visit work, which contextualizes

the trip; and provides “a) alignment with accepted science curriculum standards and benchmarks; b)

extension of all contacts through pre-and post-activity connections; c) integration with other subjects

and disciplines; d) connection of classroom experience to science centre experience; and e) insistence

on student production through problem solving, construction, collaboration, and use of creativity”

(Lebeau et al. 2001:134).

In a Norwegian context the research project “Museum and school” 2006 – 2009 established

collaborative efforts between museum educators, teachers and Oslo and Akershus University College

(Frøyland & Langholm 2009, 2010), with the goal of exploring the didactic possibilities in Norwegian

educational white papers for design of new educational activities for school field trips to science

centres (Frøyland, 2010). The Museum and school project was based on applying several methods and

was followed by a course for participants in the project, and found that the main challenge for science

centre educators was to design meaningful assignments for students. Another challenge was to engage

teachers in planning for pre- and post activities related to visits (Frøyland & Langholm 2009). The

project implemented a collaborative approach, where museum educator and teacher jointly developed

the learning program for the school’s field trip. The results from this approach were that students

became more engaged, teachers participated more in the field trip and the learning program had a

stronger focus on the unique character of museums as learning arenas (Frøyland og Langholm, 2010).

Expand will build on experiences from these research projects, and will involve an iterative

approach informed by the traditions of design based research and design experiments in educational

research by involving science educators, where the premise of the research approach is that

understanding how people learn depends on being able to study processes of learning and teaching in

real life environments and across institutional contexts. This approach, where the research proceeds in

cycles, has been advocated as an alternative to formative research in museums and science centres

(Schauble, Leinhardt and Martin 1997).

SUB-­‐PROJECT:  BRIDGING  THE  GAP  BETWEEN  SCIENCE  CENTERS  AND  SCHOOLS    This PhD-project takes departure in that science centers have their own view and intention on what to

  16  

teach and how to teach the science subject. The transformation in the last decade of museums and

science centers mentioned above, to change from presenting science in the form of objects,

taxonomies and definite truths, is questioned in its uniqueness. Is this new transformation in museums

and science centers unique in the context of the ongoing transformation of science learning in other

arenas like schools, media and science based organizations? In a school setting, open ended

development of meaning and science controversies in modern democracies are topics that have highly

influenced the transformation of the national science curriculum. This challenges the definition of

science centers as unique learning arenas. The phd will be based on ethnographic analysis of learning

activities in one science center and asks: What are the unique aspects about science centers as learning

arenas? How do the programs offered to schools support science learning?

II.  Focus  area:  The  impact  of  science  centers  for  science  engagement  In a recent review of the UK informal science learning community funded by the Wellcome Trust

express that despite the notable evidence of extensive learning taking place outside formal education

there is still a need for evidence that informal science has a lasting impact on peoples engagement

with science (Wellcome Trust 2012). The review states that the informal science learning field “lacks

robust measures of child or adult interest, has little understanding of how it can contribute to

sustaining or developing an enduring interest in science” (Falk et al 2012). Further, the report states

the need to develop measures that build on sets of questions that involves the sociocultural aspects

involved in the impact of science center. Rather than asking what individuals have learned, the report

recommend to ask questions related to how given experience did contribute to stimulating or

sustaining learner interest and engagement. As a conclusion the review states that more research is

needed on long-term impact and the identifying factors that influence people to move into scientific

careers (Falk et al.2012)

Studies of impact of museum and science centre learning are challenging, as there are a variety of

definitions of learning outcomes, there is a need for methodological development and measuring

categories. It seems that to build compelling evidence for learning from museums has proved

challenging; “This is not because the evidence did not exist, but rather because museum learning

researchers, museum professionals, and the public alike historically asked the wrong questions and

searched for evidence of learning using flawed methodologies.” (Falk & Dierking 2000).

The science center impact study initiated by ASTC and ECSITE has developed an overall

model based on articulated needs for a consistent framework for measuring the broader impact of

science centers. This is based on a focus on four types of impact; economic impact, political impact,

societal impact and learning impact (Persson 2000). The learning impact includes following aspects:

  17  

• Changed attitudes to science

• Social nature of the experience

• Career-related decisions

• Increased professional expertise in science center and schools

• Personal enjoyment

Some of the same aspects can be found in the research literature; Longterm learning impact as a result

of visits to science centers has been approached by studying how visitors memorize visits to science

exhibitions (Spoch 2000, Anderson 2003, Falk et al. 2007, Rennie 2007) and in relation to visitors

increase of knowledge related to a visit (Falk et al 2004). Learning impact has also been studied based

on change of attitudes and change of behavior (Adelman, Falk & James 2000 Jarvis & Pell 2005) and

in relation to its effect on the image of science (Rennie & Williams 2000).

Less studies has been carried out into the long-term learning impact of science center, due to the

practical methodological challenges of maintaining contact with samples of visitors over years, but

also due to difficulties in proving causation (ECSITE 2008). The studies that have been conducted

propose conflicting conclusions. For example, a Norwegian survey of career choices among

firstsemester students in science at universities and university college show that 20% of the students

report visits to science centers as a main inspiration for their career (Schreiner et al, 2010). Visits to

science centers were also reported as more important for their career choices than careers advice in

schools or public relation campaigns (Schreiner et al. 2010). On the other hand studies have shown

that youth visiting science centers find exhibitions exiting, but do not think that they had great

learning outcomes of them (Quistgaard 2006). Also, that youths miss exhibitions that open to multiple

answers, that take their opinion as visitors serious and that open for collective and dialogical

discussions with their peers (Fors 2006).

According to Braund and Reiss (2006) do youth rate learning in science centers as highly engaging,

and they range Science centers as nr. 5 related to their experience of outcome of the learning. 94% of

482 Canadian university students say that visits to science centers or museums have increased their

interest for science and technology (The Strategic Counsel 2008). In other words, there is some

evidence that science centers may have some influence on youths’ career choices. But we need to

study these relations closer to determine what the nature of these experiences need to be to maximize

the influence that they may have on career aspirations.

  18  

Based on this body of research will this focus area of Expand seek to meet with the requirement of the

Norwegian strategy for raising standards in math an science as well as the recommendation of

evaluation of Norwegian science centers to study how science centers improve science

communication with the general public, and how science centers help school children and citizens to

identify as engaged in science and see potential in being a future scientist.

SUB-­‐PROJECTS: To include these aspects of long-term impact of science centers will Expand address

the overall research question: What impact do science centres have for the strategy for strengthening

mathematics, science and technology? The focus area will consist of two sub-projects, one

quantitative international study and one qualitative and participatory project which includes youth in

an attempt to articulate central issues of longitudinal aspects of learning and engagement with science.

 a)  International  Science  Center  Impact  Study    Expand will participate in an international quantitative study, the International Science Centre Impact

Study 2012 - 2013, lead by John Falk, Lynn Dierking and Mark Needham. This study takes an

epidemiological approach to of the issue of learning in science centres. It is a quantitative study,

involving variables chosen in relation to the complex and cumulative nature of science learning.

Public experiences at science centres improve knowledge and understanding of science, and increase

interest in and engagement with science. This quantitative study is based on self reporting methods of

learning, and has the goal to capture visitors articulations of the full extent, breadth, and depth of

visitor knowledge and understanding of science as a result of experiences in science centers as part of

an ecology of science learning in a broader perspective (Falk and Storksdieck 2005, 2010).

Traditional school-type pre-and post-test research models have delivered notoriously inaccurate

measures of learning in free-choice settings (e.g., Falk & Dierking, 2000). Consequently, the

International Science Centre Impact Study arguably attempts to provide a more appropriate model to

understand the “contributions” that informal experiences make to learning (e.g., Falk & Needham,

2011). The proposed international investigation will begin to analyse the impact of science centres by

determining the relative contributions that specific independent variables related to actual science

centre experiences have on a range of desirable long-term dependent variables and characteristics of

the public such as science understanding, attitudes, and behaviours (International Impact Research

Proposal).

b)  Participatory  youth  action  research  on  science  engagement     Expand will implement a methodological alternative approach to studies of youth`s

engagement in science. This, by applying youth participatory action research methods (Cammarota &

Fine 2008). The goal is to achieve a better understanding of the complexity of the development of

aspirations by adopting and drawing on the perspective of young people. The approach will apply a

practice based approach involving multiple design based research methods that are adapted to the

specific group of youth researchers involved. Youth Participatory Research of Science Engagement is

  19  

a participatory youth action research project established as in collaboration with Inspiria Science

center and Greåker high school. The project will involve science centre educators and students of

upper secondary science program to explore science literacy and relevance to youth social and

cultural practices of today. The participating students will explore 6 aspects of science centre

learning; the exhibition, the content of curricula, the communication between science centres and

youth, content of science centre events, and the form and content of science centre architecture and

exhibition design. This sub-project will use youth participatory research as a method to gain insights

into the motivations, interests and elements of science center experiences that best facilitate

engagement with science from a youth perspective. As an outcome of this subproject we expect

empirical material that could be compared with the empirical material from science educators

observation and analysis of exhibitions to be able to answer questions related to the social and the

material aspects of learning and engagement with science in science centers.

III. Focus area: Development of reflective practices This track will have as its objective to address the research question: How can arenas for reflection and professional practice development be established and how can they be made sustainable? This focus area has development of reflective practices and sharing of research results, outcomes and

experiences as its central concern. Thereby establish several arenas where knowledge can be

exchanged between researchers and educational departments in the eight Norwegian science centres

that are connected to the Expand project. The development of Reflective Practice Arenas are an

important initiative as part of the participatory research methodology chosen for Expand, and serve as

a means to involve a broader community of science centre educators in discussions of research

activities and outcomes of the EXPAND-program.

The CPD-program is understood as part of the process of building this reflective practices arena.

Participants in the CPD-program will meet with other science educators and in collaboration use

existing research to build analytical frameworks that are practically manageable for observations and

evaluations in their institutional practices. To support science centre educators capacity to engage in

the project as co-researchers all are Science Centers invited to involve at least 2 of their employees in

the CPD-program. The modules in the modules in the CPD-program will each last over the time span

of a year. Three modules are planned during the first period of the Expand program. The smaller

groups of participants in the CPD program will also attend the events that Expand arranges for

building a larger community among science educators.

The Reflective Practice Arenas contains both educational efforts of professional development with a

close relation to science center research, community-building efforts that focuses upon knowledge

exchange between researchers engaging in science center research in Norway. And also to arrange

event where research outcomes can be discussed and debated in the broader community of

practitioners in science center education. This effort to build an arena that links research and practice

  20  

has the goal to build Reflective Practice Arena that involves several communities into discussions,

knowledge exchange and reflection upon outcome of the research activities in the sub-projects, as

well as on empirical findings.

This focus area therefore has a broad approach, and contains research activities as an integrated part

of integrated competence building, such as for example in the CPD-module. Also, practical

investments towards building a broader community. As part of the community-building aspect will

this focus area involve several practical actions listed below, where science educators are involved in

performing quantitative survey, a bi-annual conference established in 2012 and a national network of

researcher on science center learning.

Research-­‐project:    a)  Improving  research  by  science  educators  participation. On a research level this focus area

will study how action research approaches can be applied to involve science center educators in

developing a consistent methodologies. The development of the CPD-modules is understood as part

of research design related to this methodological interest, and is defined as a subproject below. The

research related to participatory research performed in collaboration with science educators in the

CPD-module will explore how participatory methodologies can be used in the context of science

learning research. The CPD-program is part of a strategy for engaging science practitioners in

research, and an arena for capacity-building of ideas and understanding of implications (Rickinson,

Sebba & Edwards 2012) for both researchers and practitioners. The research sub-project is closely

intertwined with research outcomes from the Youth participation project described above. As both

groups; science center practitioners and youths are defined as practitioners and experts in the

everyday life of science learning and engagement. In this way, this subproject will study how we

methodologically can develop a research-based approach to lifelong learning, and to explore how

science centers can build a link between general youth development and education (see e.g. Koke &

Dierking 2007, Zipsane 2007).

The CPD-modules will be based on 4 workshops over the time span of one year. The module

will end with the participants writing an essay based on the work with methods they have learned

from the workshops. The workshops will involve real-life, practical exercises where participants will

have the experience of conducting observational methods and techniques in the exhibition where the

workshop will be arranged, together with course participants and to thereafter get practical experience

with design based experiments related to their own science centers exhibits. During the workshops

will science educators will be involved in experimental and practical sessions to get experience with

diverging methods of documentation and observation of interactions in the exhibition. Different

observational methods and methods for studying visitors interactions and learning with exhibits and

installations will collaboratively be investigated in relation to evaluation needs and local conditions at

the science centre in question. Between the workshops will the course-participants explore the

methods in their own center and report empirical material and experiences with the methods back to

  21  

the course groups. This empirical material will be defined as research material for Expand. The CPD-

modules will give 15 ECTS credits and. Participants in the CPD-modules are automatically

participates in the research activities of EXPAND.

The CPD will at the same time have the goal of exploring possible models for collaboration and inter

centre relationships as part of the Reflective Practice Arena focus, and will stimulate opportunities for

joint regional workshops that address local needs. Where possible, the workshops would also involve

teachers on a local level.

Sub-­‐project:  Developing  systems  for  shared  evaluation  frameworks  across  regional  science  centers  Earlier evaluation of Norwegian science center learning has identified the need for a shared

methodological framework to evaluate science center exhibitions as well as their activities with

schools We envision that this development will build on results from the International Impact study

and will lead to a framework for self-evaluation that may be shared by the 8 national science centers.

Sub-project: A network for science center researchers.

The network was established spring 2013, and plan to arrange yearly meetings. The meetings will

contain research presentations by participants, presentation of work with students in the field,

presentation and joint analysis of empirical material from Expand. The network will be important

support for research on science centre education in Norway, and will also be an important arena for

collaboration, joint project development and development of research proposals and discussions of

research results and findings in the research field of science center education.

Sub-project: A National conference on science center and museums

The Norwegian conference on learning in science centers and museums was established in 2012 with

in collaboration with Vil Vite, University of Bergen, The Research Council of Norway and

Norwegian Centre for Science Education, and was held in Bergen 2012-09.06 – 07. This conference

will continue to be held bi-annually, rotating among locations and involving practitioners and

researchers on a national level.

References: Achiam, M. 2012. A Content-oriented Model for Science Exhibit Engineering. International Journal

of Science Education, Routledge, pp. 1-19

Adams,M., Luke, J., Moussori, T. 2004: Interactivity: Moving Beyond Terminology. Curator: The

Museum Journal 47: 2, pp. 155-170

  22  

Adelman LM, Falk JH & James S (2000) Impact of the national aquarium in Baltimore on visitors’

conservation attitudes, behaviour and knowledge; Curator 43/1, pp. 33-61

Anderson, D., Kisiel, J., and Storksdieck, M. (2006). Understanding teachers’ perspectives on field

trips: Discovering common ground in three countries. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49, pp.365–

386

Anderson, D. , Lucas, K.B. , Ginns, I .S . , and Dierking, L.D. (2000). Development of

knowledge a b o u t e l e c t r i c i t y a n d m a g n e t i s m d u r i n g a v i s i t t o a s c i e n c e

m u s e u m a n d r e l a t e d p o s t - v i s i t activities. Science Education:84, pp.658–679

Anderson D (2003) Visitors’ long-term memories of World Expositions; Curator 46/4, pp.401-420

Anderson, D. 2012. A Reflective Hermeneutic Approach to Research Methods Investigating Visitor

Learning. Ash, D., Rahm, J., and Melber, L. (Eds.) Putting theory into Practice. Tools for Research in

Informal Settings. New Directions in Mathematics and Science Education vol 25. SensePublishers

Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei, pp.15-27

Ash, D.B and Rahm, J. 2012. Introduction: Tools for Research in Informal Setting. Ash, D., Rahm, J.,

and Melber, L. (Eds.) Putting theory into Practice. Tools for Research in Informal Settings. New

Directions in Mathematics and Science Education vol 25. SensePublishers Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei,

pp.1-15

Arnseth, H.,A., & Silseth, K. 2013. Tracing Learning and Identity Across Sites: Tensions,

Connections and Transformations in and Between Everyday and Institutional Practices. In O.Erstad &

J. Sefton-Green (Eds.) Identity, Community and Learning Lives in the Digital Age. Cambridge

University Press, New York, pp. 23 – 38.

Bain, R., & Ellenbogen, K.M. (2002). Placing objects within disciplinary perspectives: Examples

from history and science. In S.G. Paris (Ed.) Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 153–169.

Bandelli, A. 2005. Fostering deliberative democracy: Europe’s DeCiDe Project. ASTC

Dimensions (September_October): 10_1.

Benjaminsen, N. & Sørensen, E. 2011. Circulation of Authorisations in the Classroom: A Socio-

Material Process. Science as Culture 20:4, pp.

  23  

Black, G. 2012: Transforming Museums in the Twenty-first Century. Milton Park: Routledge.

Boling, E. 2010. The Need for Design Cases: Disseminating Design Knowledge. International

Journal of Designs for Learning 1:1. pp.1-9. Retrieved from

http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/article/view/919/978

Borun, M., Massey, C., & Lutter, T. (1993). Naive knowledge and the design of science museum

exhibits.Curator , 36:3, pp. 201–219

Bradburne, J.M. 2001. Going public: Science museums, debate and democracy. The Review of

Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 23: 4, pp. 349_79.

Braund, M. og Reiss, M. 2006. Towards a More Authentic Science Curriculum: The

contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education 28 (12), pp.

1373–1388.

Brown, J.S & Adler, R.P. 2008. Minds on fire. Open Education, The long Tail and Learning 2.0.

EDUCAUSE Review 2008 pp. 17 – 32

Cammarota, J. and Fine, M. (Eds) 2008. Revolutionizing Education: Youth Participatory Action

Research in Motion. New York: Routledge Publishers.

DeWitt, J. and Storksdieck, M. 2008: A Short Review of School Field Trips: Key Findings from the

Past and Implications for the Future, Visitor Studies, 11:2, pp.181-197

Dindler, C. & Iversen, O. S. 2007. Fictional Inquiry - Design Collaboration in a Shared Narrative

Space, Journal of CoDesign, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 3:4, pp. 213-234.

Dyhste, O., Bernhard, N., Esbjørn, L 2012. Dialogbasert undervisning: Kunstmuseet som læringsrom.

Drotner K and Laursen D (eds) 2011. Digital technologies and museum experiences [Special issue].

MedieKultur. Journal of Media and Communication Research 27(50). Available at:

http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/mediekultur/issue/view/509 (accessed 19 June 2012).

  24  

ECSITE Annual Conference 2008, Evaluation Report. Acchieved at: http://www.ecsite-

conference.net/content/user/File/Feedback%20report%20of%20AC2008.pdf

Erstad, O., Sefton-Green, J. (Eds.) 2013. Identity, Community and Learning Lives in the Digital Age.

Cambridge University Press, New York

Falk, J. H. (Ed.) 2001. Free-choice science education: how we learn science outside of school (New

York, Teacher’s College Press and Columbia University).

Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. D. 2000. Learning from museums: visitor experiences and the making of

meaning (Walnut Creek, CA, Alta Mira Press).

Falk, J. F., and Needham, M. D. Measuring the impact of a science center on its community. Noyce

Foundation. 2008-2010.

Falk, J.H., and Storksdieck, M. 2005. Using The Contextual Model Of Learning To understand visitor

learning from a science center exhibition. Science Education, 89, pp. 744‐778.

Falk, J., and Storksdieck, M. 2010. Science learning in a leisure setting. Journal of research in

science teaching 47:2, pp194-212

Fors, V. 2006. The Missing Link in Learning in Science Centres. Doktoravhandling. Luleå:

Luleå Universitet

Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.

Fors, V. 2006: The Missing Link in Learning in Science Centres. Doktoravhandling ved Luleå

Universitet

Frøyland, M. 2006. Museene – kilde til refleksjon og diskusjon. P2-akademiet XXXVI, 93 – 104

Frøyland, M. 2010. Mange erfaringer I mange rom. Variert undervisning i klasserom, museum og

naturen. Abstrakt forlag, 201 sider

Frøyland, M. and Langholm, G. 2009. Skole og museum bør samarbeide bedre. Nordisk Museologi, 2:

pp.92-109

  25  

Frøyland, M. and Langholm, G. 2010. Forslag til vellykket samarbeid mellom skole og museum.

Nordisk Museologi: 2, pp.75 - 90.

Griffin, J. 1998. School-Museum Integrated Learning Experiences in Science: A Learning Journey.

Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Sydney: University of Technology.

Griffin, J. 2004. "Research on Students and Museums: Looking More Closely at the Students in

School Groups." Science Education 88(Suppl. 1), pp.59-70.

Heath, C. and vom Lehn, D. 2004. Configuring reception. Theory, Culture & Society 21:6, pp. 43–65.

Henriksen, E.K. og Frøyland, M. (2000): The contribution of museums to scientific literacy: views

from audience and museum professionals. Public Understanding of Science, 9, pp.393-415

Hsi, S. 2003. "The Electronic Guidebook: A Study of User Experiences Mediated by Nomadic Web

Content in a Museum Setting." Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning 19, pp. 308-319

Hsi, S. 2007. Conceptualizing Learning from the Everyday Activities of Digital Kids

International Journal of Science Education Vol. 29, No. 12, 8 October 2007, pp. 1509–1529

Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning.

Studies in Science Education:28, pp. 87–112

Iversen, Ole Sejer and Smith, Rachel Charlotte 2012. Connecting to Everyday Practices: Experiences

from the Digital Natives Exhibition. In Giaccardi, E. (ed): Heritage and Social Media. Routledge /

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publ, 126-145

Jahreie, C., Arnseth, H.C., Krange, I., Smørdal, O., & Kluge, A. 2011. Designing for play-based

learning of concepts in science – Technological tools for bridging school and science museum

contexts. Children, Youth and Environments. ISSN 1546-2250. 21(2)

Jarvis T & Pell A (2005) Factors influencing elementary school children’s attitudes towards science

before, during and after a visit to the UK National Space Centre; Journal of Research in Science

Teaching 42, pp.53-83

Kahr-Højland, A. (2010): Læring er da ingen leg? En undersøgelseaf unges oplevelser i og

erfaringer med en mobilfaciliteretfortælling i en naturfaglig kontekst. Doktoravhandling.

København: Syddansk Universitet.

  26  

Koch, G., Sørensen, E. & Levidow, L. 2011. Childish Science: Editorial Introduction. Science as

Culture, 20:4, pp. 421-431

Koke, J. & Dierking, L.D. 2007. Museum and Libraries Engaging Americas Youth: Final Report of a

Study of IMLS Youth Programs, 1998 – 2003. From:

http://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/YouthRe. Visited Aug 20, 2011.

Land, S. (2000). Cognit ive requirements for learning with open -ended learning

environments . Educational Technology Research and Development:48, pp. 6 1 – 7 8

Laursen, D. 2012. Co-participation among school children around a computerbased exhibit. Social

Studies of Science published online 15 October 2012. DOI: 10.1177/0306312712455114

Lebeau, R. B., Gyamfi, P., Wizevich, K., & Koster, E. 2001: Supporting and documenting free-choice

in informal science learning environments. In J. Falk (Ed.): Free-choice science education: How we

learn outside of school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lewin, K. 1946. Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2:4, pp.34-46.

Macdonald, S. (ed) 1998. The Politics of display. Museums, Science, Culture. Routledge, London

Macdonald, S. 2002. Behind the scenes at the Science Museum.Berg, Oxford

Mintz, A. 1995. Communicating controversy. Science museums and issues educators. Washington,

D.C.: Association of Science-Technology Centers.

Mortensen, Marianne Achiam 2011. Analysis of the Educational Potential of a Science Museum

Learning Environment: Visitor`experience with and understanding of an immersion exhibit.

International Journal of Science Education, 33:4, pp 517-545

Nordahl, S. 2010. Kunnskapsstatus. Biografi over norske vitensenterstudier 2003 – 2010. Report

Norges Forskningsråd

Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a

natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, pp. 1097–1119.

Osborne, J., Hennessy, S. 2003. Literature Review in Science Education and the Role of ICT:

Promise, Problems and Future Directions. FutureLab Series, Report 6.

  27  

Parry, R. (ed.) 2010. Museums in a Digital Age. Leicester Readers in Museum Studies. Abingdon and

New York: Routledge

Persson, P.E; Ødegaard, M. & Nilsen, S.S. (2009): Evaluering av vitensenterprogrammet.

Ekspertgruppens rapport. http://www.vitensenter.no/files/091001-Evaluering.pdf (accessed 11/9

2010)

Pedretti , E. 2002. Kuhn Meets T. Rex: Critical conversations and New Directions in Science Centres

and Science Museums. Studies in Science Education 37:1, pp. 1-42

Pedretti, E. 2004. Perspectives on learning through critical issues-based science centre exhibits.

Science Education 88:1, pp. 34_47

Pierroux, P., Krange, I. and Sem, I. 2011. Bridging Contexts and Interpretations: Mobile Blogging on

Art Museum Field Trips, Mediekultur, 50, pp. 25-44.

Quin, M. 2006. Norwegian Regional Science Centres’ scheme – assessment report. Accessed

04.01.2013; http://www.vitensenter.no/files/Norwegian%20Science%20Centers%20Quin-report.pdf

Quistgaard, N. 2006: Oplevelse og udbyttet af skolebesøkg på teknik- og naturvitenskapscenter.

MONA N1, pp.23-40

Quistgaard, N. og Ingemann, B. 2010. Hvad er spørgsmålet? – om at skabe et

læringsrum i udstillingen. Nordisk museologi:1, pp.50–63

Quistgaard, Nanna & Anne Kahr-Højland 2010. New and innovative exhibition

concepts at science centres using communication technologies. Museum Management and

Curatorship, 25:4, pp. 423-436

Rennie, L. J. 2007. “Values in science portrayed in out-of-school contexts.” In The re-emergence of

values in science education, ed. D. Corrigan, D. Gunstone, and J. Dillon, 197-212. Rotterdam: Sense

Publishers.

Rickinson, M., Sebba, J., Edwards, A. 2011. Improving Research through User Engament. Routledge,

London

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), pp. 3-8.

  28  

Schauble, L. 2002. Cloaking objects in epistemological practices. In S.G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on

object-centered learning in museums, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 235–241.

Schreiner, C; Henriksen, E.K.; Sjaastad, J.; Jensen, F. og Løken, M. 2010. Vilje-convalg: Valg og

bortvalg av realfag i høyere utdanning. Kimen 2.

Soria Moria declaration, retrieved from http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/smk/documents/Reports-

and-action-plans/rapporter/2005/The-Soria-Moria-Declaration-on-Internati.html?id=438515

Spock M. 2000. When I grow up I’d like to work in a place like this; Curator 43/1 pp.19- 32

Storksdieck, M. 2006. Field trips in environmental education. Berlin, Germany: Berliner

Wissenschafts-Verlag.

Storksdieck, M., Robbins, D., Kreisman, S. 2007. Results from the Quality Field Trip Study: As-

sessing the LEAD program in Cleveland, Ohio. Cleveland, OH: University Circle Inc.

Storksdieck, M., Werner, M., & Kaul. V. 2006. Results from the Quality Field Trip Study: Assessing

the LEAD program in Cleveland, Ohio. Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.

Stuedahl, D. & Smørdal, O. 2011 a. Young Visitors’ ‘Messing Around’ in Museums. Exploring social

media to engage teens in participation. BARN 3-4; Digitale medier i barn og unges hverdag,

Norwegian Centre for Child Research, pp 169- 191

Stuedahl, D. and Smørdal, O. 2011 b. Designing for Young Visitors’ Co-composition of Doubts in

Cultural Historical Exhibitions. Computers & Composition:28, pp. 215-223.

Tal, T. 2012. Action Rsearch as a Means to Learn to Teach in Out-of-school settings. Ash, D., Rahm,

J., and Melber, L. (Eds.) Putting theory into Practice. Tools for Research in Informal Settings. New

Directions in Mathematics and Science Education vol 25. SensePublishers Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei,

pp. 79 – 95.

Tallon L and Walker K. 2008. Digital Technologies and the Museum Experience: Handheld Guides

and other Media. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Taxén, G. 2005. Participatory Design in Museums - Visitor-oriented Perspectives on Exhibition

Design. Ph.D. thesis in human-computer interaction. TRITA-NA-0516, School of Computer Science

and Communication, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, May 2005

  29  

The Strategic Counsel. 2008. The online survey with university students across Canada.

CA Canada.

vom Lehn, D., Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J. 2001. Exhibiting Interaction: Conduct and Collaboration in

Museums and Galleries. Symbolic Interactions 24:2, pp. 189-216

Witcomb, A. 2008. Interactivity: Thinking beyond. In: Macdonald S (ed.) A Companion to Museum

Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp.353–361.

Zipsane, H. 2007. Cultural learning as key word in transition from social client to learner. In The

times they are a-changing – researching transitions in lifelong learning – Conference Proceedings.

CRLL – University of Stirling 2007