Giant screen film and science learning in museums

Museum Management and Curatorship

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 179-195

  Fraser, John ^a,b,c   Heimlich, Joe E ^b,d,e   Jacobsen, John ^f   Yocco, Victor ^b,d   Sickler, Jessica ^b   Kisiel, Jim ^b,g   Nucci, Mary ^h   Jones, Lance Ford ⁱ   Stahl, Jeanie ^f  

^a New Knowledge Organization   (United States)

^b Institute for Learning Innovation   (United States)

^c CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^d Office of Criminal Justice Services   (United States)

^e COSI ^*  (United States)

^f White Oak Institute   (United States)

^g University of California   (United States)

^h RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ Ringling College of Art and Design   (United States)

Author keywords

giant screen film; informal science education; science in the public interest; science learning; science museums; sensory learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861567779     PISSN: 09647775     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09647775.2012.674322     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Angelov, A.N., T. Smieja, and Z.A. Styczunski. 2007. Acceptance of 3D visualizations methods for learning and training in the area of electrical engineering. Paper presented at the international conference on Engineering Education, September 3-7, in, Coimbra Portugal.
2. Apley, A. 2008. Giant screen films and lifelong learning. Paper presented at Connecting Society with Science: The Greater Potential of Giant Screen Experiences Symposium. September 8 in, Jersey City, NJ
3. Apley, A., K. Streitburger, and J. Scala. 2008. Dinosaurs alive: Film summative report. Submitted to Maryland Science Center, Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation.
4. Arsenault, D. 2005. Dark waters: Spotlight on immersion. in Game on North America 2005 international conference proceedings, 50-2. Montreal, Quebec, Canada EROSIS.
5. Association of Science-Technology Centers. 2008. Figure 39. Features included in combination ticket. 2008 ASTC Sourcebook of Statistics and Analysis, 48.
6. Atkins, R. 2008. Grand challenges for the giant screen. Paper presented at Connecting Society with Science: The Greater Potential of Giant Screen Experiences Symposium, September, 8 in, Jersey City, NJ
7. Barnea, N. and Dori, Y. 1999. High-school chemistry students' performance and gender differences in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4): 257-71.
8. Barry, A.M. 2005. Perceptual communication theory. in Visual communication theory and research, Moriarty et al. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Barry, A.M. 2008. Science and visual communication. Paper presented at the Connecting Society with Science: The Greater Potential of Giant Screen Experiences Symposium, September, 8 in Jersey City, NJ.
10. Barry, S. 2009. Fixing my gaze, New York: Perseus Books Group.
11. Biocca, F., Harms, C. and Burgoon, J. 2003. Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5): 456-80.
12. Bishop, J.E. 1980. The development and testing of a participatory planetarium unit emphasizing projective astronomy concepts and utilizing the Karplus learning cycle, student model manipulation, and student drawing with eighth grade students. PhD diss, The University of Akron.
13. Coutant, B.E. and Westheimer, G. 1993. Population distribution of stereoscopic ability. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 13(1): 3-7.
14. de Freitas, S. and Neumann, T. 2009. The use of 'exploratory learning' for supporting immersive learning in virtual environments. Computers and Education, 52(2): 343-52.
15. Detenber, B.H. and Reeves, B. 1996. A bio-informational theory of emotion: Motion and image size effects on viewers. Journal of Communication, 46(3): 66-84.
16. Digital Cinema Initiative. 2007. DCI announces contract with Cinecert for digital cinema compliance testing and validation. DCI approves DCI specification version 1.1 and an addendum for stereoscopic (3D) digital cinema, May 3, http://www.dcimovies.com/press/DCI_Press_Release_3May2007.html.
17. Digital Cinema Initiative. 2008. DCI specifications, version 1.2, March 7, http://www.dcimovies.com/specification/index.html.
18. Fiore, S.M., Harrison, G., Hughes, C. and Rutstrom, E. 2009. Virtual experiments and environmental policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 57(1): 65-86.
19. Flagg, B. 2005. Beyond entertainment: Educational impact of films and companion materials. Big Frame, 22(2): 50-6.
20. Freudenheim, T. 2010. The "real" and its props. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(3): 291-7.
21. Giles, D.C. 2002. Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4(3): 279-304.
22. Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D. and Brenwald, S. 2008. Highlights From TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of US fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009-001 Revised), Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
23. Grabe, M.E., Lombard, M., Reich, R., Bracken, C. and Ditton, T. 1999. The role of screen size in viewer experience of media content. News Photographer, 99(54): 4-11.
24. Heimlich, J.E., Sickler, J., Yocco, V.S. and Storksdieck, M. 2010. Influence of immersion on visitor learning: Maya skies research report, Edgewater, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.
25. Horton, D. and Wohl, R. 1956. Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19: 215-29.
26. Hyder, J. 2008. Is IMAX the next new Coke? LF Examiner. http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm
27. IMAX. 2010. History and milestones, http://www.imax.com/corporate/profile/historyMilestones/.
28. Ivan, T. 2010. 12% of Brits can't see 3D properly-Research. Edge, http://www.next-gen.biz/news/12-of-brits-can't-see-3d-properly--research.
29. Keating, T., Barnett, M., Barab, S. and Hay, K. 2002. The virtual solar system project: Developing conceptual understanding of astronomical concepts through building three-dimensional computational codes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(3): 261-75.
30. Knight Williams Inc. 2008. Sea monsters: A prehistoric adventure summative evaluation report. Washington, DC: National Geographic (Knights-Williams Research Communications), http://informalscience.org/evaluation/show/160.
31. Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
32. Korakakis, G., Pavlatou, E., Palyvos, J. and Spyrellis, N. 2009. 3D visualization types in multimedia applications for science learning: A case study for 8th grade students in Greece. Computers and Education, 52(2): 390-401.
33. Koster, E. 2005. The power of the giant screen phenomenon. The Big Frame Winter 2005
34. Laatsch, S. 2008. Another dimension in the planetarium; "Imaloa explores the 3D stereo universe". Planetarian, 37(2): 8-13.
35. Lantz, E. 2007. A survey of large-scale immersive displays. in Proceedings in the 2007 workshop on Emerging displays technologies: Images and beyond: The future of displays and interaction, 252, 1-7. New York: ACM.
36. Lombard, M. 2008. Using telepresence to communicate science in giant screen cinema. Paper presented at the Connecting Society with Science: The Greater Potential of Giant Screen Experiences Symposium, September, 8 in, Jersey City, NJ
37. Lombard, M. and T.B. Ditton 1997. At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3, no. 2, http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue2/lombard.html.
38. Lombard, M. and T.B. Ditton. 2007. Measuring presence: The temple presence inventory (TPI), http://astro.temple.edu/~lombard/research/p2_ab.html.
39. Lombard, M., Ditton, T.B., Grabe, M.E. and Reich, R.D. 1997. The role of screen size in viewer responses to television fare. Communication Reports, 10(1): 95-106.
40. Lombard, M. and Jones, M.T. 2007. Identifying the (tele)presence literature. PsychNology Journal, 5(2): 197-206.
41. Lombard, M., Reich, R.D., Grabe, M.E., Bracken, C.C. and Ditton, T.B. 2000. Presence and television: The role of screen size. Human Communication Research, 26(1): 75-98.
42. Mallon, G.L. and Bruce, M.H. 1982. Student achievement and attitudes in astronomy: An experimental comparison of two planetarium programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19: 53-61.
43. Miller, M. 2005. Teaching and learning in affective domain. in Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, M. Orey. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technologies. http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/.
44. Murphy, T.P. 2004. Visualizing and learning about the environment with 3D maps. Paper presented at the 33rd annual conference of the National American Association of Environmental Education, November, 6-10 in, Biloxi, MS
45. National Science Foundation. 2009. Award search, http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch.
46. NPD Group. 2010. Cost, content, and convenience important factors for consumers considering 3D TV, according to NPD, http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_100225.html
47. Nunez, D. 2004. Working memory and presence: Reconsidering the role of attention in presence. 7th International Workshop on Presence (PRESENCE 2004), October 13-15, in, Valencia, Spain. 44-7.
48. Plummer, J.D. 2009. Early elementary students' development of astronomy concepts in the planetarium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2): 192-209.
49. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC. 2010. Playstation network terms of service, http://us.playstation.com/support/termsofuse/index.htm?EMC-PSUWelcome&ATTR=PSU_PSNTOSUAEM_W001_PPP_AL2_001_TOS_T#PSNToSUA.
50. Sumners, C., Reiff, P. and Weber, W. 2008. Learning in an immersive digital theater. Advances in Space Research, 42(11): 1848-54.
51. Ucko, D.A. 2010. The learning science in informal environments study in context. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(2): 129-36.
52. Ucko, D.A. and Ellenbogen, K. 2008. "Impact of technology on informal science learning". In The impact of the laboratory and technology on learning and teaching science K-16, Edited by: Sunal, D.W., Wright, E.L. and Sundberg, C. 239-66. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
53. Yalowitz, S. 2010. Visualization as a tool in informal science education at Lake Tahoe (UC Davis, TERC). Technical report. Edgewater, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.
54. Yeung, Y. 2004. A learner-centered approach for training science teachers through virtual reality and 3D visualization technologies: Practical experience for sharing. Paper presented at the 4th annual international forum on Education Reform, September, 6-10 in, Bangkok Thailand.