Poster #77 - Informal Learning in a Museum Setting: A Case Study with Language Science

• In Event: 2-055 - Poster Session 06
  In Poster Session: PS 06 Section - Education, Schooling

Integrative Statement

Informal science learning experiences (ISE) – including activities and demonstrations in science museums – are an important source of science learning throughout the lifespan (Miller, 2004) and an important way of fostering interest in science among children (Fenichal & Schweingruber, 2010). The National Research Council (Bell et al., 2009) identified several strands of learning for ISE that are linked to desirable learning outcomes, such as Sparking Interest & Excitement (Strand 1), Understanding Scientific Content (Strand 2), and Reflecting on Science (Strand 4). The current study tested how well one specific science activity succeeded in achieving these outcomes in a naturalistic setting.
The specific natural setting was a language science research lab embedded within a science museum. Lab personnel regularly engage the public with brief hands-on demonstrations focused on classic language-related content. The specific activity used was on the Stroop effect in the context of reading (see Figure 1). The activity itself is in the form of a game (encouraging interest and excitement), and it teaches museum visitors about the automaticity of reading (science content); moreover it allows for forms of hypothesis testing as visitors are encouraged to think about ways to make the game easier/harder (reflecting on the scientific process).
Twelve family groups participated consisting of 20 adults (mean age = 40 years; 11 female) and 19 children (mean age 9.9 years; 11 female). Participants were videotaped as they engaged in the Stroop demonstration and through a follow-up interview. In addition, participants filled in adapted versions of the Science Fascination Scale (Chung et al., 2016) that included both the standard questions about science and additional questions about language interest. Sessions were transcribed and coded for whether participants showed evidence of the desired learning outcomes: Interest & Excitement (e.g. The game is really cool; Adult, age 49), Understanding of Science Content (Reading is like breathing: you do it without thinking about it; Child, age 11), and Reflection on Science (Science is where people try to figure out things; Child, age 11).
Preliminary analyses of the results suggest that participants showed equivalent (and intermediate) levels of fascination with both science and language; neither kind of fascination appears to predict the content of the discussions. The discussions themselves showed that the activity was very successful at Sparking Interest for both children and their parents; all participants also showed reasonable levels of Understanding of Science Content, although parents understood more than their children; Reflecting on Science was a rare outcome among all participants. (See Figure 2). Ongoing analyses are examining group dynamics in the conversations and potential links between difficulties with the game itself and the different elements of learning.
Overall, this study sheds light on how learning happens in an informal context and will help us better understand how different kinds of interactions promote desirable learning outcomes in informal spaces, and how to better develop activities that target those outcomes.

Authors

• Nathan Baker, Ohio State University
  Presenting Author

• Nikole D. Patson, Ohio State University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Laura Wagner, Ohio State University
  Non-Presenting Author