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
People love stuff. It speaks to them; it reminds them of special moments or people in their lives. They collect it and they love to tell stories about it and show it off. Museums’ deepest roots are in the stuff of collections. But over the last 200 years, the value and importance of collections to effective science interpretation (including exhibits, education, and outreach) has waxed and waned. It is clear from recent studies that using collections in concert with media and interactivity in exhibits and programs yields an extremely effective visitor experience. The recent work of Reach
When neurologist Annick Desjardins first heard about an experimental therapy that uses the polio virus to attack cancer cells, she admittedly thought it was an off-the-wall idea. In the 12 years since then, however, Desjardins—now associate professor of neurology at the Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, which is hosting the study—has seen remarkable results. The CBS show 60 Minutes even described the treatment, a form of immunotherapy, as potentially a “big leap forward.” In advance of her keynote address at the 2015 ASTC Annual Conference in Montreal, Quebec, Canada
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Joelle Seligson
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
This is an extended discussion of the question that appeared in the Viewpoints department of the September/October 2015 issue of Dimensions magazine. It contains perspectives from across the field on early career advice.
A collective mass of youthful exuberance pulses through our science centers and museums on any given day. As I visit our ASTC-member institutions around the world, I find it extremely rewarding to watch all that energy being transformed into focused, intense contemplation of specific topics or experiences.
I have always been fascinated by the concept of “dwell time” in our science centers and museums. Dwell time usually refers simply to the period of time visitors spend in an exhibition or at a specific exhibit or activity. This time period can be extended in ways that are not entirely
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