This is an extended discussion of the question that appeared in the Viewpoints department of the May/June 2015 issue of Dimensions magazine. It presents perspectives from science center and museum professionals about the role of 3D printing in their institutions.
There are many lenses through which we can measure the value of a museum experience.
There is the satisfaction factor: Did visitors have a good time? Were they engaged? Do they want to return?
There are learning outcomes: Did visitors learn something new? How much did they learn? How did their experience compare to other types of learning experiences?
And there is also meaning-making: Did respondents have a meaningful experience? A memorable one? A connective experience that made them want more?
While all three of these lenses (and many others) are important, meaning-making is
On the first day of the Science and Society course at the Cooperstown Graduate Program in Cooperstown, New York, I present the students with an incandescent lightbulb, with clear glass so one can easily see the filament inside. I ask the students how it works and they are able to tell me that the electricity comes in there, runs through the filament here, heats up, and produces light. Then I take out my iPhone and slide it across the table and ask, “How does this work?” Blank stares abound.
In the 1980s in the United States, the traditional science center business and mission models worked well. Science centers were the most prominent source for informal science learning with financial support from governments and donors and a quasi-monopoly on IMAX films, science store merchandise, and interactive exhibits. A science center’s exhibit department would devise interesting exhibits, and the marketing department simply advertised that content to whatever audience might be interested. From today’s perspective, those were relatively simple times.
Things began to change in the 1990s