technology « The Free-Choice Learning Laboratory at HMSC

Another task within my Master’s research is checked off. I have reviewed and noted the conversations and behaviors from video footage of 25 family groups using our Ideum multi-touch table exhibit. As I went through the footage, it was fascinating to see the similarities and differences in how groups used the exhibit, talked (or not) while using the table, and the elements of the exhibit that appeared most attractive to them. I will be analyzing the engagement and learning strategies data along with the group interview responses that I collected post-use of the exhibit. I am so thankful for the infrastructure that we have installed as part of the Cyber Lab. The video recordings that include audio of the group conversation has been a great way to examine the data beyond field notes from the date of observation. Quite a bit of data to make sense of!

This quarter I have had the opportunity to take the Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Learning course from Dr. Lynn Dierking at Oregon State University. It has aligned perfectly with where I am at in my project. Topics in the course have included how we learn through our interactions and observations of others, how culture influences learning, and how institutions scaling from families, to museums, up through society plays a role in the learning experience. Family learning in museum spaces has been one topic that we have focused on, particularly how different members of a multi-generational group make meaning of exhibits and content that is personal and relevant to their experience. An element that I have taken an interest in is the roles that the family members take, whether it is the adult or child, and who “takes charge” of the interaction with the exhibit. For example, is it primarily the adult showing the child how to use it, or explaining what the information means? In what ways do they make connections to what the child already knows? These questions relate to my observations with the touch table. I have seen evidence of the child taking charge of the interaction and showing the adult, and I’m curious to investigate what strategies the child uses to “show” the adult what to do. I wonder if it is because this generation is often around touch surfaces with their personal electronics, that they feel comfortable taking on that role to “teach” the adult.

I have also appreciated the opportunity to interact with other students in the socio-cultural dimensions class that are located around the country, many who also work in free choice learning venues. Several students have shared teaching and learning strategies that they use to interact and engage with their visitors. The course has inspired me to think more about the transition from theory to practice, by applying what we are studying to improving the learner experience. We can conduct this research, but until it is applied and shared, it seems anticlimactic (at least to me!). I hope from my research of watching the natural behaviors of families using the multi-touch table, I can provide recommendations for ways to improve content to facilitate the behaviors they are already expressing. The technology is a tool that is being used to share science content, so what meaning are the users making of that information? Research has been done on the overall usability of large scale touch surfaces in public spaces, but how does that connect to learning in a space where individuals have choice and control over their experience with the technology? It is not so much as HOW they use it, but what do they gain as a result of the interaction on a personal or social level? The beauty of research – you look to answer some questions and come up with more!

After all the preparation for my research study, it was finally time to sit and observe visitor behavior around exhibits and collect some data. This allowed me to personally see what natural behaviors in an informal science setting look like, while applying the skills and knowledge I have gained about conducting research and interviewing human participants.

Over the course of August I interviewed 25 family groups after they used the Ideum multi-touch table. My goal was to collect data in the Visitor Center over morning and afternoon hours each day of the week to get a wide distribution of visitor attendance. After each sampling session I was busy processing the data, inputting survey responses and typing up the comments from the open-ended piece of the interview, while downloading video footage of the interactions. I enjoyed the result of our team’s effort of putting the camera system in place, as it was convenient to go back to the day of the visitor encounter and know that their conversations and interactions were captured unobtrusively on film. The set-up of the Cyberlab provides an advantage to past methodologies where the researcher physically tracked the visitor or a large video camera was placed right over an exhibit. Through our methods, I believe we are collecting very natural behaviors by the visitor which will help us understand learning in the public science setting more efficiently and effectively.

Family use of museums and science centers have been investigated over the past few decades, but as learning researcher Doris Ash noted in 2003 in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, there are few studies that investigate at depth the dialogic analysis of interactions with the family group. This is important to understanding how meaning and sense-making between learners takes place in the informal science setting. In looking at the research on large touch surface technology, I have not found much on family group use in public settings with science-related content. The field of human-computer interaction has explored this technology with regard to usability features, particularly with gestures and software or program navigation. I hope that my research provides insight combining both family learning and how this technology can support that.

While there are many different layers to the informal science experience (physical, personal, and sociocultural elements), I thought about the individual and collective learning in the family group, as well as how they were positioned in the physical sense around the touch table during the “live” observations. As I look at footage, I will be exploring the interactions and roles that occur within the group while considering the conversations that are taking place. I am also interested in the overall response to the touch table. Part of my interview with the group was to hear how they would describe their attraction to the exhibit and how they described their interaction with this type of technology. I will be doing some content analysis in an effort to see what the common themes are within their responses.

Considering the other technology we have, a familiar digital “interactive” is a single user kiosk or desktop computer with games and information. The touch table allows for multiple users and inputs and is not commonly seen in other settings. We have a desktop interactive located near the touch table, and I observed families (in groups of two, three, even up to five) crowding around the computer and “coaching” the user in control of the mouse. As the desktop exhibit affords one kind of experience, the touch table allows for collective physical action at the same time. Five people could use this exhibit at once. Keeping this in mind, how can we (informal science centers with access to the technology) take advantage of this to facilitate learning for the individual and the group?

September and October will be busy months analyzing footage. I am eager to see just what comes out of all of this data!

Whenever and wherever I hike I always take a little time to reflect in the peace and quiet of nature. I hear sounds all around me, both natural and man-made, but I also pay close attention to my inner dialogue. Recently, I was hiking in Crater Lake National Park and had an epiphany: hiking is like education.

First, when you hike you need to know where you are and where you’d like to be, both physically and mentally. You need to know the trail you plan on hiking, how long and difficult it will be, and how much time it will take you to complete. You then need to compare that data to your ability and ask yourself “Is this hike something I can do? Will it challenge me just enough but still be enjoyable?”

Educators, rather formal or informal, need to have a foundation to rely upon. We are taught basic educational practices and learn the theories on which those practices are built. However, it’s important to keep up with changing curriculum, standards, and practices. One way to do so is through professional development. My experience working with teachers who participate in professional development indicates that these are the teachers who know where they are and know they want to push themselves further but don’t quite know where they’ll end up. Involvement in one professional development opportunity alone helps educators see education and pedagogy in new ways. No doubt that professional development and its questioning, challenging, and pushing of practices is difficult for some educators but everyone involved tends to learn something and move forward in some way.

Second, you need to be prepared with the appropriate tools and gear for your hike. No matter how long you plan being on a trail, you should always carry water. Wearing proper clothes and shoes is also important for your comfort and safety. Carrying a compass or a topographical map might be necessary, especially for hiking in the backcountry or un-manned terrain.

Likewise, educators need to utilize the variety of tools available. As technology infiltrates our everyday lives more and more, it must be mentioned here. Museums have been thinking about technology integration for years and have adapted as the technology has changed. We have moved from audio tours on iPods to Hatfield’s CyberLab and touch table exhibit. I’ve seen iPads used on the museum floor, in classrooms, and on school field trips. Every tool has affordances and constraints. A map is useful but having a compass and knowing how to use it will make it easier to orient your map. Educators need to think outside of the box and plan to use a variety of resources available. Technology can be a great resource in education but that doesn’t mean it’s the only, or the best, option for all activities. The tool needs to match the terrain being traversed. Books, paper and pencil, markers or crayons, and the schoolyard are sometimes more appropriate to use.

Third, it is not necessary to listen to your surroundings but I highly recommend doing so. Without a doubt you will hear both natural and man-made sounds (i.e. the birds chirping and the inevitable plane flying overhead) but you’ll also hear your own thoughts and, if you’re like me, begin the reflective process. “Wow! This is challenging. What am I doing here?” One of my favorite sounds to stop and listen for is wind moving through trees or mountains. What I like about this sound is that something is created from nothing. It is simply air being pushed through certain crevices or against specific objects and a sound is created. If you don’t stop, stand still, and listen then you’ll miss it altogether.

While an educator’s inner dialogue and reflection of practices is important, what is even more important is to listen to the students. Start dialogues and encourage multiple voices during learning experiences. Not only should the educator know and respect the learner’s background and what is happening in their day-to-day life, but other learners should also be exposed to that information. Critical pedagogy is a must but that teaching and learning environment needs to be respected and the power of voices, or the sounds of the classroom, needs to be recognized.

Can you think of other comparisons? Or a different analogy altogether?

As a Maker who doesn’t really Make much, it is probably no surprise that as an educator who never really used technology, I would spend five days at the recent International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) annual conference in Atlanta. As a result, I have been spending a fair amount of time thinking about the role of technology in the classroom and learning. I took a class through OSU last year that focused on technology in the classroom (interestingly an on-line class, but that is a topic for another day) and it was my first exposure to the variety of what teachers are doing with technology these days. My classmates represented the whole range of individuals teaching K-20+ and the different projects they shared encompassed an amazing variety of programs and topics. So, being surrounded by 14,000 educators, administrators, and technology specialists was not the complete culture shock it might have been a few years earlier. And, if nothing else, my fellow attendees are very excited about what they are doing. I have rarely been around so many enthusiastic, eager people who truly believe that what they are doing can change education for the better- they just oozed positivity!

Prior to my PhD journey, I was involved with Montessori for over twenty years. As I have previously written about some of the reasons I whole-heartedly agree with the Montessori pedagogy, hands-on, interest driven, collaborative, follow the child and such, I won’t belabor that here. However, my long experience with Montessori shapes my experiences with and attitudes about technology and education. Let’s just say that Montessori has not been quick to embrace technology. Montessori tends to be conservative anyway- it can happen when a movement grows around an individual and once that individual dies, it can be hard to determine how to incorporate new things/ideas in a way that preserves the original intention. What would Maria Montessori do? We can only make our best guesses. Some would argue that because she was a scientist by training, she would be interested in some of the new possibilities technology offers. However, as modern Montessorians strive to preserve what makes this pedagogy effective, new ideas and tools are subject to much scrutiny, if they are considered at all.

One misconception that others can have is around the “hands-on”’ nature of Montessori. One woman I talked to at the conference had a PhD in mathematics and had created some clever ways of modeling mathematical ideas on computers. She was surprised that Montessorians would not necessarily appreciate her programs as she saw them as “concrete” representations of abstract ideas- which is what many Montessori materials are designed to do. And for years there have been computer games (now aps) that allow children to “move” beads and other images around to represent Montessori math materials for work with the four operations (+.-.x./). Yet, most Montessorians would argue that it is important for the child to hold an actual bead bar, with three beads, or nine beads, on it and manipulate it, feel it, count it, notice the difference in weight and space it takes up. Does sliding an image around on a computer screen with your index finger really recreate that experience? And if we forego teaching handwriting and start children out with keyboarding at younger and younger ages, will that somehow affect human intelligence as we know it? The human brain and hand have coevolved in ways we don’t fully understand and there is some evidence that written language parallels other changes in our development as a species. Montessori believed in the importance of “work with the hand” for everything from intellectual to emotional and social growth, at all levels of development- preschool through adolescence. Will technology fundamentally change how we think and learn?

I don’t claim to know the answers, but I am concerned. I think that is why Make appeals to me. Yes, it does have a technology component, but the focus is on individuals being producers, not just consumers of technology. There are plenty of people at ISTE who also believe this, advocating for teaching coding and ap design to all grade levels. But, I am concerned what happens when we let this dominate their day. I heard Dale Doughtery (co-founder of Make and founder of MakerFaire) answer a question from a kindergarten teacher about how to create a MakerSpace in his classroom. Dale said that for this age, finger painting, sewing, playing with blocks and clay is Making. He even said that “Montessori had it right, children need to be working with their hands, with real materials” (and yes, I did do an internal fist pump when I heard this!).

I think there is a need for balance and that there is room for both. I realize we live in a world that is overrun with technology, and this is part of the reality of children and youth today, and I want them to be prepared for the world they inhabit. Yet, I want them to build real towers that they can measure their own height against and that can topple over and they hear the crash. I want them to know the difference, in their bodies, between a unit, a ten, a hundred, and a thousand.

I will end with a quote I saw on FaceBook this week (just to add my own bit of irony, I guess!). “Yes, kids love technology, but they also love Legos, scented markers, handstands, books, and mud puddles. It’s all about balance.” K.G. first grade teacher. It is all about balance- let’s all remember that!

“Rapid prototyping” or “additive manufacturing” are both terms associated with the process of 3D printing (using digital models to fabricate tree-dimensional objects, printed one layer at a time). This piece of technology proved to be the solution for one of the most difficult cyberlab’s challenges: finding perfect mounts and housing for cameras installed on the exhibit floor that can be practical, durable, flexible and aesthetically pleasing.

We struggled with somewhat problematic alternatives for quite sometime, being saved by 3D technology as an effective and cheaper alternative than contracting with big exhibit development companies to create prototypes and models to customize mounts and housings for cameras to be placed throughout the visitor center. After a few attempts to find 3D printing contractors in Oregon that could do the job at a reasonable price and fast pace (believe me! that was quite an interesting task), we found Donald Heer at the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at OSU. Donald has been superb in working with us to make “our dreams” come true in time for a very busy summer, packed with ongoing research projects and scheduled cyberscholars who will be collecting data through the camera system.

Below are photos of the camera mount and housing prototype for the octopus tank. While the final product will be painted and look polished, the photos show how the 3D model works. It is really quite amazing to be able to have a customized product that fills all needs for the assigned exhibit.

3D Mount OctoTank3 3D Mount OctoTank4

3D Mount OctoTank5 3D Mount OctoTank10

Cyberlab was created under the premises of effective technology use to improve research on learning. It could not be any different that most of the solutions for our challenges are found within cutting edge technologies as well, and that we learn along the way. Sometimes it feels surreal we can do all of this, and that within the course of a very short time we can transform ideas into real products that work.

In her last blog post, Jen Wyld encouraged us to find our voices. If I have learned something working at Cyberlab is to find my voice, trust and try new ideas. Knowing the great job you all do within the Free-Choice Learning Program, I encourage you to trust your ideas even if they seem surreal, give them a voice and roll with them, because they are most likely doomed to succeed, especially when you find the right team players.

If you are interested in learning more about 3D printing or even try to print some projects of your own, enter the library 3D printer website and have fun testing your ideas! http://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/3dprinting

This past week I had a chance to attend NOAA’s Science on a Sphere workshop in St. Paul, Minnesota. The workshop was held at the Science Museum of Minnesota (SMM) which is located along the shores of the Mississippi River. It was great to see a new science museum and learn about data visualizations presented via 3-D spherical displays. The network of institutions meets annually to discuss use of (now) 100 installations of the sphere around the world and learn from each other. The setup for this display includes up to four projectors placed around a six-foot sphere at 90-degree angles. Images wrap around the sphere based on the alignment of the projectors and represent data on various Earth system processes, such as atmospheric storms, sea surface temperature, seafloor mapping, as well as processes occurring on other planets in the solar system. An app on the iPad helps to “drive” the exhibit, so facilitators can select a playlist of what they want to run on the sphere. I had never seen this display before so it is amazing to see all that has been created for public viewing. There are some videos online of it in action!

The theme of the workshop was “Welcome to the Anthropocene,” or the informal term used to designate the period on our planet where human activity can have a global impact on system functions. Approximately 95 participants were in attendance discussing methods of presenting datasets to different audiences, maximizing use of available content, and showcasing custom content used at their respective sites. NOAA staff also described new features that could be incorporated to the exhibit. The three-day experience was full of working groups, plenary sessions, and inspiring keynote speakers. FCL lab alum Katie Stofer was in attendance and presented some of her research and recommendations on the use of color related to data visualizations on the sphere. Celeste (Science Education PhD student) and I represented the Cyberlab, sharing information about current work in the lab and the potential for Cyber Scholars to collaborate and access the tools we are installing in an effort to study informal science learning. We showed the video produced for Oregon Sea Grant that explained the technology we are using and how that will connect to visitor research. I fielded several questions throughout the rest of the workshop with regards to the projects we are working on. Many participants expressed fascination with the setup and proposed use for research and some of them may pursue the opportunity to be a Cyber Scholar.

In addition to discussions about the sphere, there was a focus on communicating climate change to various audiences and what to keep in mind with regards to cognitive reception and emotion. We discussed the power of cultural models, framing, and connecting with values instead of a “doomsday” message that can so quickly turn people off. One strategy I found interesting was that instead of using the concept promoting individual action, was instead to discuss collective community action starting with people directly connected to you. What can family, friends, and neighbors do to promote change and choices that can have a more measureable impact? There was also the discussion on use of common symbols and metaphors to explain the abstract concepts of climate change. Julie Sweetland of the FrameWorks Institute showed research on use of a metaphor that described climate as a system, similar to the human circulation system. The ocean acted like the heart within the system, pumping or transferring heat around the world. Just like a human cannot live without a healthy heart, the Earth cannot live without a healthy ocean as it has an influence on the rest of the system. Julie showed footage of focus groups that had participants explaining the metaphor to other group members…meaning-making in action!

We did have some time to explore the museum on our own, which I was very excited about. SMM has several incredible exhibits, some permanent, and others that are on display for a limited period of time. The temporary exhibition is Ultimate Dinosaurs, and there were many reconstructions of the beasts on display. There is an interactive Cell Lab, where visitors don lab coats and goggles and can look at their own cheek cells under the microscope and explore the properties of blood. There was also space to tinker with electronics, build and create objects that would fly in a wind tunnel, and a “Collectors’ Corner” where naturalists can earn points to trade for artifacts like agates and small fossils. It seemed as if the museum was always busy with families and school groups. An outdoor exhibit known as the Big Back Yard was a combination of watershed education and a mini-golf putting course. Obstacles included river deltas, mountain ranges, and other natural elements to symbolize the many aspects of the watershed. Signage and information surrounded the holes describing the value of rain gardens and how impervious surfaces affect water runoff. I felt like a kid again as I moved about the museum — it was a lot of fun.

As I was traveling back to Oregon, I reflected on the concepts I keep encountering in the world of informal learning research. So often the topic of communication, cultural tools such as language, interpretation, and meaning-making come up again and again. There are challenges in conveying complex data on a sphere and trying to understand how it might be interpreted by the viewer. What impact does it have on a personal level as well as a social level? So many research questions can extend out of this. As researchers we are also trying to make meaning and interpret the data we collect, then we communicate or share that with others. Ah, the meta level…

In mid-July I will be representing the Cyberlab again at the National Marine Educators annual meeting. Hooray for field trips!

The Free-Choice Learning Laboratory at HMSC

Informal science education research

Tag Archives: technology

Wading through a pool of data

Adventures in Data Collection

Hiking is like education

A Material Girl in a Touch-screen World

Rapid Prototype + Digital Models = Cyberlab 3D Heaven

Cyberlab field trip to Minnesota

Contact Info