Abstract

The Learning Science in Informal Environments report holds great potential for creating change among those who work in the field of science education. But to what extent can it inform other sectors of the informal education world? This article explores how the LSIE report might influence research and practice in art museums. By comparing the report to a recent study in art education, the authors point out areas of overlap and divergence relative to content and skills, identity, and communities of practice. We suggest several implications for how art museums and science museums might learn from one another. A call to action is made for further research and discussion about common learning goals and outcomes for the art museum experience.

Get the full article.

Abstract

Researchers and practitioners concerned with STEM learning (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) occurring outside the institutional boundaries of schools recognize the need for assessment approaches that accommodate the characteristics of informal learning. These approaches, to be viable, must align with the activities, goals, roles, and outcomes we find in informal settings. A plausible starting point is in making use of naturalistic assessments—people’s own on-going, developing awareness of who can do what under which circumstances. People regularly and informally assess one another to shape and support learning activities, goals, and outcomes. This article seeks to make a case for developing a new research program for assessing learning outcomes by capitalizing on people’s everyday attunements, which are already in place, and by getting more value out of the cultural apparatus that exists for recognizing one another’s capabilities.

Get the full article.

• Vera Michalchik (vera.michalchik@sri.com) is a Senior Social Scientist at SRI International in Menlo Park, California.
• Lawrence Gallagher (lawrence.gallagher@sri.com) is a Research Social Scientist at SRI International in Menlo Park, California.

Abstract

This article outlines a different view of the changing nature of adult learning in the Internet era. The old model of learning—the warehouse—is being replaced by a “just-in-time” system of information acquisition. The NRC report focuses too heavily on finding missions for existing institutions and pays too little attention to the pervasive changes in information acquisition and adult learning in all areas. An analysis of existing data demonstrates the relative impact of formal and informal learning and points to opportunities for enhanced adult science learning in the future. In a just-in-time world, museums and similar informal learning institutions will need to be less dependent on their physical setting and more focused on learning as the end product. It will also be necessary to find a viable revenue model to support this emerging mission.

Note: The bound copy of this issue of Curator: The Museum Journal contains an error. Figure 3 is incorrect; the correct figure is below:

Figure 3: Museum Visits by Adults, 1982-2007.

Get the full article.

Abstract

The National Research Council report Learning Science in Informal Environments provides a much-needed synthesis of what research says about informal learning. LSIE makes key observations about science learning and emphasizes the challenges faced in trying to understand and document those complex processes. Yet assumptions about how—and under what conditions—people learn science are not necessarily universal constructs. Such assumptions are driven by the theoretical perspectives of the researchers, as well as the culture of the learners themselves. The limited scope of the volume prohibits it from fully addressing such cultural and historical contexts, and the subsequent implications for methodological approaches. Nevertheless, the report is an important starting point for informing educators, researchers, and policy-makers who work with or within informal science institutions.

Get the full article.

Abstract

In this article, the editors of the recent National Research Council report Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits discuss the report’s implications for museum professionals. The report is a synthesis of some 2,000 studies and evaluations of learning in non-school settings such as museums. Here we focus on three specific topics discussed in the full report, which we see as particularly important for museum professionals. These are: a framework for developing and studying science learning experiences; cultural diversity as an integral resource for learning; and assessment of learning. Many museums include “learning” among their goals and many researchers concern themselves with how museums and other settings can be organized to support learning. Yet this wealth of research is rarely brought into focus and offered as guidance to the museum community.

Get the full article.

• Andrew Shouse (awshouse@uw.edu) is associate director of the Institute for Science and Mathematics Education and visiting assistant professor of Educational Psychology, University of Washington. 
• Bruce V. Lewenstein (b.lewenstein@cornell.edu) is professor of science communication, Cornell University.
• Michael Feder (mfeder@nas.edu) is a senior program officer with the Board on Science Education, National Research Council.
• Philip Bell (pbell@uw.edu) is director of the Institute for Science and Mathematics Education and associate professor of the Learning Sciences, University of Washington, 1100 NE 45th Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA, 98105.

Abstract

The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the National Research Council report Learning Science in Informal Environments to synthesize the growing body of diverse research underlying informal science learning. Intended outcomes were to establish a base for future research, to provide evidence-based guidance for those developing and delivering informal learning experiences, to broaden the definition of “learning” beyond that typically used in formal education, to encourage knowledge sharing across the heterogeneous informal science education field, and to provide a measure of external validation for the value of learning in informal settings. NSF investment in this study is part of a larger ongoing effort by the Informal Science Education program to advance knowledge and practice and build capacity in the field.

Get the full article.

In this paper, I suggest that museums have not explored their potential opportunities enough when dealing with their communities under stressful conditions. Each reader, however, should decide when what I am talking about is no longer appropriate for museums in general or your museum in particular. While some museums have moved more in the direction of serving their communities, I am struck by how little philosophical change has actually taken place in most museums after a year into this universal economic downturn. I argue that incorporating a broader palette of social services may make institutions more useful, but at some point these institutions might cease to be traditional museums. My question would be: ‘‘Should you care?’’ I do not suggest that all museums become full-service community centers, though somemight explore that option. Perhaps the question might become: How do we expand our services so that we make museums’ important physical assets of safe civic space and objects useful for tangible three-dimensional learning into more relevant programs that reach all levels of community, and are rated by many more as essential to their needs and their aspirations for their children?

Get the full article.

• Elaine Heumann Gurian (egurian@ix.netcom.com) is a senior museum consultant and a member of the Museum Group.

Recently, the Smithsonian Institution addressed the challenge of coordinating the articulation of intended learning outcomes for educational programs. Pino Monaco, and Theano Moussouri, got together to discuss the Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs), and a similar framework proposed by the National Science Foundation in the U.S., as concrete guidelines to provide tangible and assessable shapes to learning outcomes.

Issues discussed and still open for elaboration rotated around the concept of intentionality – why is the informal education community still discussing whether we should or should not have intended outcomes in mind when we facilitate a learning experience?

Furthermore, after presenting examples of how outcome-based evaluations could be integrated within our current practices, the authors recognized the need for further pondering, especially concerning the issue of “measuring learning outcomes.”

• Isn’t a measurement in contrast with a free-choice learning experience?
• How do we measure fun and enjoyment?
• Instead of measuring, could we gather and describe?

Feel free to join the conversation in the Forum by adding your comments below.