JennyE « The Free-Choice Learning Laboratory at HMSC

About JennyE

AKA Jelly (as in the marine invertebrate), I am a student in the Marine Resource Management program at Oregon State University. Particularly fascinated by all things aquatic, I enjoy sharing my knowledge with others and inspiring them to take action to conserve natural resources. You can find me tidepooling or exploring the world via boat (any chance I can get)!

Last week (Feb 26 – March 1) the 8^th Annual ScienceOnline Together Conference took place in North Carolina. Thanks to the support of TERRA Research Magazine and OSU’s Environmental Health Sciences Center, a watch party was held on the OSU campus allowing for virtual attendance and participation (no need to wait in a TSA screening line!). The focus of the conference was to explore how the World Wide Web is changing the way science is shared, communicated, and interpreted. There were an incredible number of sessions of interest to science communicators that use a variety of web formats including outreach, blogging, and social media. Participants spanned scientists, students, journalists, and educators. A sampling of the session topics included: Communicating the Process of Science, Healthy Online Promotion, How Psych Research Can Inform Effective Communication, and The Role of Social Media in Science News Reporting. Tips, tricks, insights, stories, best practices – all were shared in efforts of helping others build new skills and effectively communicate their research or science program on the web. As the conference progressed, there was a flurry of activity on Twitter. I believe at one point the conference was trending as people live-tweeted the sessions with #scio14 or #sciox. It was hard to keep up with everything coming in on TweetDeck!

My role with the watch party included support during the session on “Social Media as a Scientific Research Tool”. David Shiffman, graduate student and blogger for Southern Fried Science, led the discussion from Raleigh, and presented ways that social media could be used in research on topics such as disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and public policy. The discussion evolved into questions about ethics, privacy, and accurate interpretations of qualitative content. As someone studying social science and qualitative research methods, I appreciated hearing comments about the increased access to social media data (such as status updates or tweets on a particular topic) and presuming “expertise” in human behavior and perceptions based on brief content analysis. It was suggested that if you are trained in the natural or physical sciences, it is useful to collaborate with a social scientist to reach a more accurate interpretation.

It is great to these conversations are happening and to see a community that is eager to organize and push forward on the evolution of science communication. Watching these sessions made me reflect on the power of language and the theorists we reference in the Free-Choice Learning Lab. Frequently we cite the work of psychologist Vygotsky with regards to cognitive development coupled with social interaction and language as a semiotic tool. If he were alive today, I sure he would be interested in the science of science communication and how we as humans use social engagement and tools like social media as a method of increasing the numbers participating in discussion.

I’m looking forward to seeing how SciOnline Together Conference evolves for the 2015 session in Georgia.

As I continue to explore the field of science communication, I have been thinking about HOW this information is communicated and what tools we use. As new technology becomes available, we have the opportunity to use different methods and promote our message with a wider audience. In my last post on Sharing Science through Social Media, I talked about how the research enterprise is discussing the use of social media. There is a learning curve on how to use these platforms effectively, but they give researchers a way to practice communicating their results with the public. A researcher can share interpretations of their data in a variety of formats including posters, presentations, and peer-reviewed publications, but there are additional ways to represent data visually beyond the bar chart.

One technique of combining complex data with graphics is an “infographic”. This format is not new, for example, weather forecasts are representations of atmospheric models in a simplified visual layout. Recently infographics have gained popularity online as a means of visualizing and sharing data on any number of topics and because it is easy to share them. David McCandless, a journalist and self-described data detective, provides one perspective on the beauty of data visualization in a TED talk. He describes infographics as a language that combines the visually appealing with the addition of concepts. He suggests that through the interpretation of a combination of relative data sets presented visually, perceptions and behaviors could be influenced. Companies such as Visual.ly or Piktochart allow users to explore uploaded infographics, add content, and connect with a community of designers, journalists, and developers. They have created templates for those that want to create infographics, but don’t have the background in programming or graphic design. Something to consider is the quality of the datasets. Piktochart will recommend sources while Visual.ly encourages viewers to think critically about what the infographic means and what bias the source may be presenting. This could spark an entirely new blog post on the significance of information literacy…

Living in a fast-paced world, we are flooded with incoming data on a daily basis. We have to find ways to consciously and subconsciously sort through what is relevant or interesting to us. This gets me thinking about the attractiveness of visual design and how we can each pick out different patterns from quantitative and qualitative data to tell different stories. Connecting this to free choice learning, if datasets were available for visitors to manipulate on a touch screen or through a different format at the Visitor Center, how would they be interpreted? What stories, infographics, or statements would people create from data provided by oceanographic expeditions or citizen science? How might they share their creations with others and does this generate discussion? Could this promote learning? As time progresses, we will only increase in the amount of data that we generate. What we do with all this data and how we share it will continue to evolve as the tools and technologies change too.

Happy New Year! With regards to Susan’s post on the final day of 2013, I appreciated the chance to reflect on my experiences and accomplishments of the past 12 months. I have already learned so much from my peers, my courses, and through work in the Cyberlab. I am looking forward to 2014 as it will be full of hard work and additional opportunities to build personal and professional skills while I conduct research in the field of free choice learning.

One area I am excited to continue studying are strategies and methods of communicating scientific information to the public. At the Visitors Center we are always striving to improve our exhibit design, and our personal methods of interpretation while interacting with visitors. We critique what we say and how we say it whether it is on exhibit signage or in conversation. Effective communication, particularly the translation of technical information to a diverse audience, is a skill that takes practice. The challenge is communicating the information in a way that is inclusive and avoids confusing jargon. Other members of our lab have discussed the value and elements of science communication through the blog and I am seeing more of these conversations occurring within the scientific community online.

As scientists and researchers, we are attempting to answer questions and understand natural phenomena. Why would we want to keep that information to ourselves? Are scientists motivated to share their work beyond formal conferences and peer-reviewed journals? With regards to the previous question, there is evidence that indeed scientists want to share their work with a wider network. For example, more and more researchers are writing blogs and using social media channels to showcase their findings. I recently joined Twitter and following #scicomm has been a valuable resource for me as I learn about this topic. The discussion covers many areas — whether scientists should be trained in graduate school on effective communication strategies, to which channels are most effective (Twitter vs. Facebook), to making connections and advancing research. I am interested to follow how the the relationship between social media and science progresses. As future generations enter the field of research, how will the value or use of peer-reviewed journals and social media platforms evolve?

In future posts I will discuss social media and science, and other examples of how scientific content is shared in unique ways online. Of particularly interest to me are infographics, which represent complex data and information using graphic design techniques.

This quarter I took the COSIA (Communicating Ocean Science to Informal Audiences) course taught by Shawn. He had a role in designing this class with staff from the Lawrence Hall of Science at University of California Berkeley and several other COSIA partners around the country. This course is excellent for grad students in the science and formal education fields to learn about ocean science concepts, gain instructional and facilitation strategies for informal settings, and apply their skills towards effective activity design. I have experience facilitating marine science activities at outdoor schools and at aquariums, but this class gave more insight on HOW people learn in these settings. Reading and discussing learning theory with classmates was beneficial to improving my abilities as a facilitator while focusing on how to support a learner-driven experience.

Our challenge was to design an activity that was “minds-on” and hands-on. Susan and I thought about topics that were abstract and that we could attempt to model them for better visualization. Our plan was to provide views of the concept from different perspectives and allow for the discussion of what people already knew. We started with plankton, a significant component of the marine ecosystem, and decided on an exploration of photosynthesis, the oxygen cycle, and connections to phytoplankton. Our overall activity consisted of four stations: learners could think about the proportion of water to land in terms of surface area, comparisons between the ocean and land with regards to net photosynthesis, a visual mapping of terms related to the oxygen cycle, and a station with a plankton sample to look at under the microscope. We took our activity to the Visitor Center at Hatfield Marine Science Center which allowed us to test and prototype “in the wild.” This was an incredibly helpful exercise as we found out what was confusing or needed to be refined prior to others attempting to replicate it. The public gave us helpful feedback that allowed us to improve our work and participants were excited to help.

The COSIA course culminated with Family Ocean Science Night. It was fun to have a variety of ages engage in all of the activities designed by students in the class. Many of the participants were drawn to the tools like the microscope. There is always an element of mystery as to what you will see when you look through the eyepieces. I was especially inspired by a conversation I heard between two boys, in which one was took the role of facilitator for the activity. He did not want to “tell” the other how to get to the answer, but was ready help if there were any questions. Hooray for our future generation of science lovers and science communicators!

On behalf of the COSIA class we are grateful to the many families that came out to participate in our Ocean Science Night! Thank you for letting us practice our skills and for your constructive feedback!

The touch table and touch wall have been in the visitor center about a month and it has been fascinating to watch the reaction to this technology. Countless visitors have interacted with the Open Exhibits software displaying different science content and seem to have an interest in what this tool does. Touch surfaces have become more common with regards to smartphones and tablets, but to see one the size of a coffee table is unique. I started considering the ages of the users and their behavior directed towards this object. For children and young adults, the touch technology is likely more familiar. They were immediately drawn to it and appeared to have an idea about what types of gestures would allow image manipulation.

This week NPR had a feature on kids growing up with mobile technology, some considering them a “touch screen generation”. One story included information about the amount of time children use touch surfaces such as smartphones and tablets. The concept of “passive” screen time versus “active” screen time and the influence on baby and toddler development piqued my interest. Passive screen time is compared to scrolling through photos, whereas active screen time is social and requiring more focused engagement. Georgene Troseth, a developmental psychologist at Vanderbilt University, claims that a program like Skype allows for active social interaction, even if through a screen, and can help babies learn. What could active screen time mean for learning about concepts such as science in a museum or aquarium setting?

The touch table and touch wall do allow for individual exploration and social engagement. People walk up and investigate on their own, and then call their friends or family over. Some users would initially discuss the technology and then the content of the software. From limited observations, I noticed that some were commenting on “how cool” the touch table was and then reading the science content out loud to those around them. Some users verbalized connections between the content and other personal experiences they have had. The social element seems to happen naturally. The challenge is creating dynamic and interactive software that can be a tool to supplement learning even if the stay time at the exhibit is brief.

Members of the Cyberlab were busy this week. We set up the multi touch table and touch wall in the Visitors Center and hosted Kate Haley Goldman as a guest researcher. In preparation for her visit, there were modifications to camera and table placement, tinkering with microphones, and testing the data collection pieces by looking at the video playback. It was a great opportunity to evaluate our lab setup for other incoming researchers and their data collection needs, and to try things live with the technology of Ideum!

Kate traveled from Washington D.C. to collect data on the interactive content by Open Exhibits displayed on our table. As the Principal of Audience Viewpoints, Kate conducts research on audiences and learning in museums and informal learning centers. She is investigating the use of multi touch technology in these settings, and we are thankful for her insight as we implement this exhibit format at Hatfield Marine Science Center.

Watching the video playback of visitor interactions with Kate was fascinating. We discussed flow patterns around the room based on table placement. We looked at the amount of stay time at the table depending on program content. As the day progressed, more questions came up. How long were visitors staying at the other exhibits, which have live animals, versus the table placed nearby? While they were moving about the room, would visitors return to the table multiple times? What were the demographics of the users? Were they bringing their social group with them? What were the users talking about? Was it the technology itself or the content on the table? Was the technology intuitive to use?

I felt the thrill of the research process this weekend. It was a wonderful opportunity to “observe the observer” and witness Kate in action. I enjoyed seeing visitor use of the table and thinking about the interactions between humans and technology. How effective is it to present science concepts in this format and are users learning something? I will reflect on this experience as I design my research project around science learning and the use of multi touch technology in an informal learning environment such as Hatfield Marine Science Center.

The Free-Choice Learning Laboratory at HMSC

Informal science education research

Author Archives: JennyE

About JennyE

Science + Communication on the Web = An Evolving Discussion

Power by Design: Translating Complex Data into a Visual Story

Sharing science through social media

Reflections on COSIA and Family Science Night

Learning through “active” screen time

Agile research in action!

Contact Info