Facilitating family group inquiry at science museum exhibits

Science Education

Volumn 94, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 710-742

  Gutwill, Joshua P ^a   Allen, Sue ^a,b  

^a Exploratorium   (United States)

^b NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954739010     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20387     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Adamson, B. (2008). The relationship between exhibition environments and visitors' behaviors. Paper presented at the Visitor Studies Association, Houston, TX.
2. Adey, P. & Shayer, M. (1993). An exploration of long-term far-transfer effects following an extended intervention programme in the high-school science curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 11(1), 1-29.
3. Allen, S. (1997). Using scientific inquiry activities in exhibit explanations. Science Education (Informal Science Education.Special Issue), 81(6), 715-734.
4. Allen, S. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 259-303). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Allen, S. (2004a). Designs for learning: Studying science museums exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education, 88 (Suppl. 1), S17-S33.
6. Allen, S. (2004b). Finding significance. San Francisco: Exploratorium.
7. Allen, S. (2004c). To partition or not to partition: A study of the impact of walls on visitor behavior at an exhibit cluster. Paper presented at the Visitor Studies Association, Albuquerque, NM.
8. Allen, S., & Gutwill, J. P. (2009). Creating a program to deepen family inquiry at interactive science exhibits. Curator, 52(3), 289-306.
9. Ansbacher, T. (1999). Experience, inquiry and making meaning. Exhibitionist, 18(2), 22-26.
10. Ash, D. (1999). The process skills of inquiry. In L. Rankin, D. Ash, & B. Kluger-Bell (Eds.), Inquiry: Thoughts, views and strategies for the K-5 classroom. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
11. Bakeman, R. & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12. Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
13. Borun, M. J., Dritsas, J. I., Johnson, N. E., Peter, K. F., Fadigan, K., Jangaard, A., et al. (1998). Family learning in museums: The PISEC perspective. Washington, DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers.
14. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2003). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
15. Brown, A. (1975). The development of memory: Knowing, knowing about knowing, and knowing how to know. In H.W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 103-152). New York: Academic Press.
16. Champagne, A. B., Kouba, V. L., & Hurley, M. (2000). Assessing inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. v. Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 447-470). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
17. Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
18. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.
19. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Crowley, K. & Galco, J. (2001). Everyday activity and the development of scientific thinking. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Crowley, K. & Jacobs, M. (2002). Building islands of expertise in everyday family activity. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museums: Why does one want to learn? In J. H. Falk & L. D. Dierking (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 67-77). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
23. Davis, J. (1993). Museum games. Teaching Thinking and Problem Solving, 15(2), 1-6.
24. Diamond, J. (1986). The behavior of family groups in science museums. Curator, 29(2), 139-154.
25. Doering, Z. (1999). Strangers, guests, or clients? Visitor experiences in museums. Curator, 42(2), 74-87.
26. Ellenbogen, K. (2002). Museums in family life: An ethnographic case study. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Falk, J. H. (2009). Identity and the museum visitor experience. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
28. Falk, J. H. & Dierking, L. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. New York: Alta Mira Press.
29. Falk, J. H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The effect of visitors' agendas on museum learning. Curator, 41(2), 106-120.
30. Flavell, J. H. (1973). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2004). The measurement of interrater agreement. In Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd ed., pp. 598-626). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
32. Fletcher, B. (1985). Group and individual learning of junior high school children on a micro-computer-based task. Educational Review, 37, 252-261.
33. Gleason, M. E. & Schauble, L. (2000). Parents' assistance of their children's scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 343-378.
34. Gutwill, J. P. (2005). Observing APE. In T. Humphrey & J. Gutwill (Eds.), Fostering active prolonged engagement: The art of creating APE exhibits. San Francisco: Left Coast Press.
35. Gutwill, J. P. (2008). Challenging a common assumption of hands-on exhibits: How counter-intuitive phenomena can undermine open-endedness. Journal of Museum Education, 33(2), 187-198.
36. Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the museum. New York: Routledge.
37. Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 440-454.
38. Hilke, D. D. (1985). The family as a learning system: An observational study of families in museums. In B. H. Butler & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Museum visits and activities for family life enrichment (pp. 101-129). New York: Hayward Press.
39. Hollander, E. & Harvey, R. J. (2002). Generalizability theory analysis of item-level O NET database ratings. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada.
40. Housen, A. C. (2001). Aesthetic thought, critical thinking and transfer. Arts and Learning Research Journal, 18(1), 99-131.
41. Housen, A. C. & Yenawine, P. (2001). Basic VTS at a glance. New York: Visual Understanding in Education.
42. Humphrey, T. & Gutwill, J. P. (Eds.). (2005). Fostering active prolonged engagement: The art of creating APE exhibits. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
43. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 75(5), 1245-1260.
44. Labudde, P., Reif, F. & Quinn, L. (1988). Facilitation of scientific concept learning by interpretation procedures and diagnosis. International Journal of Education, 10(1), 81-98.
45. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
46. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
47. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
49. National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
50. Oppenheimer, F. (1968). A rationale for a science museum. Curator, 11(3), 206-209.
51. Oppenheimer, F. (1972). The Exploratorium: A playful museum combines perception and art in science education. American Journal of Physics, 40(July), 978-984.
52. Palincsar, A. & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
53. Perry, D. (1993). Designing exhibits that motivate. In M. B. Patty McNamara, S. Grinell, & B. Serrell (Ed.), What research says about learning in science museums (pp. 25-29). Washington, DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers.
54. Piaget, J. (1978). Success and understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55. Piscitelli, B., & Weier, K. (2002). Learning with, through, and about art: The role of social interactions. In S. G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums (pp. 121-151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
56. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
57. Randol, S. (2005). The nature of inquiry in science centers: Describing and assessing inquiry at exhibits. Unpub-lished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
58. Samarapungavan, A., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Patrick, H. (2008). Learning science through inquiry in kindergarten. Science Education, 92(5), 868-908.
59. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court Publishing.
60. Semper, R. J. (1990). Science museums as environments for learning. Physics Today, 43(11), 50-56.
61. Shine, S., & Acosta, T. Y. (1999). The effect of the physical and social environment on parent-child interactions: A qualitative analysis of pretend play in a children's museum. In S. Reifel (Ed.), Play contexts revisited (pp. 123-142). New York: Greenwood.
62. Songer, N. (2004). Persistence of inquiry: Evidence of complex reasoning among inner city middle school students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
63. St. John, M., Carroll, B., Helms, J., & Smith, A. (2008). The PIE Institute project: Final evaluation report. San Francisco: Inverness Research Associates.
64. Tien, L. T., Rickey, D., & Stacey, A. (1999). The MORE thinking frame: Guiding students' thinking in the laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 18(5), 318-324.
65. Tisdal, C. & Perry, D. (2003). Going APE at the Exploratorium: Interim summative evaluation report. Chicago: Selinda Research Associates.
66. Tobin, K., Tippins, D., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on using laboratory instructions in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45-93). New York: National Science Teachers Association.
67. von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. In M. Matthews (Ed.), History, philosophy and science teaching. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Teacher's College Press.
68. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
69. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
70. White, B. (1993). Thinker Tools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1-100.
71. White, B. & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
72. White, B.&Frederiksen, J. (2000).Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. Minstrell & E. H. v. Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 331-370). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
73. White, R. T. (1988). Learning science. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
74. Wood, D. (2001). Scaffolding, contingent tutoring and computer-supported learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 280-292.