Project description Expand - Research in Norwegian Science centers. 1. Short summary The research program Expand - Research in Norwegian Science centers, was initiated by Statoil in 2011 in collaboration with INSPIRIA Science Center, Section for Learning and Teacher Education, Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norwegian Centre for Science Education and Norwegian Research Council. The project collaboration has as its main objective to address the need for research based development of science centres. Based on two evaluations (Quin 2006, Persson et al 2009) initiated by The Norwegian Research Council, there is an expressed need for research understanding the role of Science centers as learning arenas in Norwegian context, in what ways science centers may supplement science communication and learning, and to understand the unique aspects about science centers as learning arenas between between schools and other learning sites in the Norwegian educational context. Also, these evaluations pointed to the need to understand science centers role for engagement, interest and recruitment to science, and the need for further education and training of science center staff. Expand will include the aspects raised in these evaluation in its research and development program. This with the aim to approach the relation between design and learning in science centres from multiple empirical and theoretical angles. This will include a focus on the various forms of interactions in science centre exhibitions, a focus on developing sustainable research and observation methods to guide future for developments, a focus on the collaborative relationship between school and science centre, as well as a focus on continuing professional development (CPD) for science center staff and teachers by way of a CPD module, a research network and a national conference. Expand will especially focus on the social and cultural aspects of students building linkages to learning subjects across science centres and the school. Expand in this way raises questions around the conceptualisation and implementation of science learning in the age of open education and learning 2.0 (Brown and Adler 2008) in design of interactions and learning in science centre exhibitions and in collaborations between science centers and schools. Expand is a practise-based research and development project that builds on methods of user engagements drawn form action-research and participatory research. By way of multiple methods and approaches does the project seek to address following aspects; 1. Science center as learning arenas: In what ways are science centers important, supplementing learning arenas for learning in schools. What are the unique aspects about science centers as learning arenas?
29
Embed
Project description Expand Research in Norwegian Science ... · quantitative approaches. The Expand research program collaborates closely with INSPERIA science centre as a central
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Project description
Expand - Research in Norwegian Science centers.
1. Short summary
The research program Expand - Research in Norwegian Science centers, was initiated by Statoil in
2011 in collaboration with INSPIRIA Science Center, Section for Learning and Teacher Education,
Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences,
Norwegian Centre for Science Education and Norwegian Research Council. The project collaboration
has as its main objective to address the need for research based development of science centres. Based
on two evaluations (Quin 2006, Persson et al 2009) initiated by The Norwegian Research Council,
there is an expressed need for research understanding the role of Science centers as learning arenas in
Norwegian context, in what ways science centers may supplement science communication and
learning, and to understand the unique aspects about science centers as learning arenas between
between schools and other learning sites in the Norwegian educational context. Also, these
evaluations pointed to the need to understand science centers role for engagement, interest and
recruitment to science, and the need for further education and training of science center staff.
Expand will include the aspects raised in these evaluation in its research and development program.
This with the aim to approach the relation between design and learning in science centres from
multiple empirical and theoretical angles. This will include a focus on the various forms of
interactions in science centre exhibitions, a focus on developing sustainable research and observation
methods to guide future for developments, a focus on the collaborative relationship between school
and science centre, as well as a focus on continuing professional development (CPD) for science
center staff and teachers by way of a CPD module, a research network and a national conference.
Expand will especially focus on the social and cultural aspects of students building linkages to
learning subjects across science centres and the school. Expand in this way raises questions around
the conceptualisation and implementation of science learning in the age of open education and
learning 2.0 (Brown and Adler 2008) in design of interactions and learning in science centre
exhibitions and in collaborations between science centers and schools.
Expand is a practise-based research and development project that builds on methods of user
engagements drawn form action-research and participatory research. By way of multiple methods and
approaches does the project seek to address following aspects;
1. Science center as learning arenas: In what ways are science centers important, supplementing
learning arenas for learning in schools. What are the unique aspects about science centers as
learning arenas?
2
2. Engagement: How may science centers increase interest in science? In what ways do science
centers contribute to society? Does the visits to science center increase interest for future
carriere in science?
3. Competence building among staff: How should science centers continue their development in
the future? How can science centers build a sustainable grounding?
These focus points build central topics of that frame 5 subprojects crossing qualitative and
quantitative approaches. The Expand research program collaborates closely with INSPERIA science
centre as a central pilot case for collaborative development, involving INSPERIA educators in
developing observation methods suitable for ethnographic based observation of interactions with
objects and interactives in exhibitions. And also in the development of evaluating didactic aspects of
science centre teaching in educational programmes with this specific centre as a pilot for a more
general development of evaluation systems. It is a central objective for the project that the evaluation
methods developed will also be transferable to other centres.
The project involves two researchers, a PhD as well as master students at Teacher Education in
Natural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences in addition to museum professionals at
INSPERIA and several of the 8 regional science centres in Norway.
3
2. Introduction: Learning research in science centers Many science centres are transforming towards highlighting the complexity of science and complex
issues that confront citizens in modern democracies (Henriksen and Frøyland 2000) and become
places for encounter with controversies of scientific development, such as in the Norwegian BRUDD
projects (Frøyland 2006). In this way, the discussion of the educational role of science centres
becomes part of broader debates on science communication, science literacy and engagement with
scientific issue that is discussed in various fields such as media studies, science and technology
studies, environmental and sustainability discussions, as well as in the field of education and learning.
The various fields and approaches are closely related to the diverging forms and aspects related to
learning and knowledge of science; the science learning in school, the out-of-school learning
programs, issues of diversity, gender and learning, learning form media and digital technologies,
learning in museums and designed environments, the nature of learning and everyday and family-
based learning. These diverging venues and approaches to learning science do also elicit a number of
gaps that might influence people`s engagement and participation with science, in and across contexts
of educational institutions.
The role of informal environments for learning science has especially been underlined by
studies that focus on the various aspects of how people make meaning related to science and the range
of actors involved in their learning (Bell et al. 2009, Falk et al 2012). Mainly, science learning has
been related to issues such as how to develop interest for science, how understanding science
knowledge develop, how to engage in scientific reasoning, how to stimulate to reflection on science
or to engage in scientific practices as well as aspects of how people are identifying with scientific
enterprises (Bell et al 2009). The objective for current attention towards the role of informal
contributors and environments for science learning, can be closely connected to the considerable body
of evidence that show how science is failing to engage young people (Jenkins & Nelson, 2005; Lyons,
2006; Osborne & Collins, 2001; Sjøberg & Schreiner, 2005). Derived from this, a central discussion
address how engagement with science is based on a cumulative process that crosses contested
institutional contexts of schooling, museum and everyday and-community based learning. A central
challenge in the field is to gain deeper understanding of the boundary crossing and bridging activities
between these social and institutional context and to develop a framework for designing learning
environments that support the heterogeneous aspects of science learning. Here, lies an implicit
argument about the need to change the pedagogical framework for science learning both in schools as
well as in science centers and museums.
Meanwhile, are new concepts of learning and knowledge challenging to implement in the
professional and institutional practices of museums and science centers. Well established issues of
museum education and perspectives on visitors learning, such as notions of free-choice learning and
learning across contexts (Falk 2001, Falk and Dierking 2000), do in several ways relate to changes
inside the field of broader educational thinking emergent in higher science education (Osborne and
4
Hennessy 2003). The current highly debated transformation of museums and science centres is argued
to involve an overall change from presenting science in the form of objects, taxonomies and definite
truths, into a focus on how to enhance visitors’ active, open ended development of meaning and
reflective authorship (Quistgaard and Højland 2010, Macdonald 1998, Mintz 1995, Pedretti 2002 and
2004). This shift represents a major dilemma in the museum field, where the focus on object-based
museum learning has long been debated. Mainly in relation the role of the material object in relation
to visitors attention and the variety of forms that their construction of knowledge may take in learning
interaction with material object (Paris 2002). Meanwhile has it been argued that it is time to dethrone
objects from their traditional, privileged place as the center of attention in museum exhibition and
learning design. And instead shift the vision of exhibition design towards the practices that imbue
these objects with meaning in disciplinary communities (Schauble 2002). Objects may lie at the core
of the museum mission but requires that the theoretical claims posed to understand learning with
objects should be related closely to the particular sociocultural setting in question (Wertsch 2002)
The endeavour to build a new framework for learning in museums and science centre
involves to establish a focus on the blending of social and material learning features that comes at
play in museums and science centers learning interactions (e.g. Koch et al. 2011, Benjaminsen &
Sørensen 2011). And on finding new ways to support visitors critical reflection on science (Bandelli
2005) by way of the designed objects such as installations, multimedia presentations and digital and
physical interactives designed for museums and science centers. These new artifacts introduce
challenges that relates to navigation in exhibition space, embodied and physical experiences with
interactives as well as interpretations of representations and simulation that visitors has to understand
based on their interactions. Very often these interactive exhibits are designed to be stand-alone
teaching devices that must convey their message without the benefit of a human mediator (Feher,
1990). Interactive touching and manipulating in museums has been understood to open up ”a range of
experiences that fully engage visitors personally, physically and emotionally” (Adams, Luke and
Moussori 2004: 158), but needs to be explored more closely in relation to the didactic goal and
learning outcome of visitors interaction. Understanding the role of interactives in exhibits for science
learning and reflections on scientific questions is therefore crucial for understanding educational
efforts of science centers on a micro-level Achiam 2012).
Lately several studies have stated the short comings of the pedagogical outcome of science
exhibitions where students interaction with interactives has produced misconceptions (eg. Borun &
Adams 1991, Borun, Massey& Lutter 1993) The inclusion of digital media and learning technologies
in museum learning has put another layer on the articulated need to address exhibit design as well as
the design process as a didactic process leading towards an exhibition. One argument is that design of
interactives needs to be systematised to improve and optimize the fit between intended and observed
learning outcomes (Achiam 2012), and that curation and didactics of science may build helpful
frameworks. One proposal has been to consider the ways practitioners situate and use objects in their
work as illustrating didactic examples that may prompt learners in equal interactions in their learning
5
(Bain and Ellenbogen 2002). This has for example inspired to a design based on praxeology of the
didactic involved in scientific reasoning (Achiam 2012) where moments of scientific reasoning build
the ground for designing learners interactions with interactives.
2.1 Background: The Norwegian context of EXPAND There are 8 regional science centres in Norway that receive governmental funding yearly under the
Science centre program. This arrangement started in 2003, when the Ministry of Education asked the
Norwegian Research Council to develop a strategy plan, which was named The Norwegian science
centre programme and which based based on developing regional science centres by way of operating
subsidy scheme. The objective behind this initiative was to raise interest among young people and
citizens towards science, current scientific questions and scientific education by way of the informal
and explorative learning opportunities given in these centres. This initiative has its background in the
overall Norwegian strategy for raising standards in math and science in the Norwegian educational
system (Soria Moria declaration).
The establishment of science centres in Norway has been based on a close collaboration
between industrial partners, regional governments and educational partners in joint efforts to promote
positive attitudes to science and mathematics among individuals in the educational sector and in the
community in general. The Norwegian Science Center programme consists of partly governmental
financing and partly individual support by each member organisation. Until 2012 The Norwegian
Science Center initiative has largely been used to build up the organisation, including new
construction for 6 new centres and to offer a diverse and exiting science centre program.The
programme plays an important role as governmental actor in professionalising science centres in
Norway and contributing to recruitment processes to science. In 2012 Norwegian science centers had
over 800.000 visitors as a result. This development has been driven by great engagement and high
collective spirit. The programme now enters its third programme period, and is facing the challenge of
the fact that 6 of 8 Norwegian science centres are relatively young institutions, all established after
year 2000.
2.2 The Norwegian strategy for raising standards in math and science The Expand-program should be seen as part of the Norwegian strategy for raising standards in math
and science. This strategy places emphasis on an intimate collaboration between mathematics and
science where the education and labour sectors also cooperate to bring about positive results. This
requires that new instruments and new areas of collaboration are developed that spans many levels of
education, from day care centres, primary and lower secondary schools, to teacher education and to
6
improve the competence of teachers through continuing education in collaboration with universities
and colleges. The strategy has five overall goals, whereof Expand will connect to the last mentioned:
• To improve teaching of mathematics and science in day care centres and primary and lower
secondary school
• To improve the competence of teachers and teacher training
• To create development of mathematics and science subjects in higher education and research,
including the industry, business and labour sector.
• To reinforce expertise in mathematics and science in the labour sector
• To improve science communication with the general public
The current focus on learning impacts of Norwegian Science Centres relates to the overall strategy
articulated in the last primary goal of science communication. Science centers represent out-of-school
learning arenas that are emergently considered important arenas for creating interest and desire to
study mathematics and science.
2.3 Evaluations of Norwegian Science Centre Expand builds on two major evaluations of The Norwegian Science Program: The Quin-report (Quin
2006) delivered a status report from the first period financed by the Norwegian Ministry of Education
and Research (UFD), and the second period was evaluated by (Persson, Ødegaard, Nielsen 2009)
financed by Research Council of Norway (RCN).
The Quin-report concludes that the sector needs to connect as a whole – and to develop an
evaluation framework against which the science centre output and impact can be compared. The
report proposes following focus for a broadened scope of science center programs:
Research indicates that the learning connected to field trips is fundamentally influenced by
the design of the field trip, including the structure of the field trip itself, prior knowledge of the
students, the social context of the visit, teacher agendas and actions on the field trip, and the presence
or absence and quality of preparation and follow-up experiences (DeWitt & Storksdieck 2008).
Research into school field trips to science centres also states the importance of a clear learning
framework for the visit, a clear indication of how the information is to be used following the visit and
an understandable purpose of the learning (Griffin 1998), as well as providing students with some
authority or control over their learning (Griffin 2004).
Studies of museum educators` perspectives on science educational programs have identified
five elements that influence school student learning in museums. Educators’ concerns are related to
what happens in school before and after field visits, the pre and post-visit work, which contextualizes
the trip; and provides “a) alignment with accepted science curriculum standards and benchmarks; b)
extension of all contacts through pre-and post-activity connections; c) integration with other subjects
and disciplines; d) connection of classroom experience to science centre experience; and e) insistence
on student production through problem solving, construction, collaboration, and use of creativity”
(Lebeau et al. 2001:134).
In a Norwegian context the research project “Museum and school” 2006 – 2009 established
collaborative efforts between museum educators, teachers and Oslo and Akershus University College
(Frøyland & Langholm 2009, 2010), with the goal of exploring the didactic possibilities in Norwegian
educational white papers for design of new educational activities for school field trips to science
centres (Frøyland, 2010). The Museum and school project was based on applying several methods and
was followed by a course for participants in the project, and found that the main challenge for science
centre educators was to design meaningful assignments for students. Another challenge was to engage
teachers in planning for pre- and post activities related to visits (Frøyland & Langholm 2009). The
project implemented a collaborative approach, where museum educator and teacher jointly developed
the learning program for the school’s field trip. The results from this approach were that students
became more engaged, teachers participated more in the field trip and the learning program had a
stronger focus on the unique character of museums as learning arenas (Frøyland og Langholm, 2010).
Expand will build on experiences from these research projects, and will involve an iterative
approach informed by the traditions of design based research and design experiments in educational
research by involving science educators, where the premise of the research approach is that
understanding how people learn depends on being able to study processes of learning and teaching in
real life environments and across institutional contexts. This approach, where the research proceeds in
cycles, has been advocated as an alternative to formative research in museums and science centres
(Schauble, Leinhardt and Martin 1997).
SUB-‐PROJECT: BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN SCIENCE CENTERS AND SCHOOLS This PhD-project takes departure in that science centers have their own view and intention on what to
16
teach and how to teach the science subject. The transformation in the last decade of museums and
science centers mentioned above, to change from presenting science in the form of objects,
taxonomies and definite truths, is questioned in its uniqueness. Is this new transformation in museums
and science centers unique in the context of the ongoing transformation of science learning in other
arenas like schools, media and science based organizations? In a school setting, open ended
development of meaning and science controversies in modern democracies are topics that have highly
influenced the transformation of the national science curriculum. This challenges the definition of
science centers as unique learning arenas. The phd will be based on ethnographic analysis of learning
activities in one science center and asks: What are the unique aspects about science centers as learning
arenas? How do the programs offered to schools support science learning?
II. Focus area: The impact of science centers for science engagement In a recent review of the UK informal science learning community funded by the Wellcome Trust
express that despite the notable evidence of extensive learning taking place outside formal education
there is still a need for evidence that informal science has a lasting impact on peoples engagement
with science (Wellcome Trust 2012). The review states that the informal science learning field “lacks
robust measures of child or adult interest, has little understanding of how it can contribute to
sustaining or developing an enduring interest in science” (Falk et al 2012). Further, the report states
the need to develop measures that build on sets of questions that involves the sociocultural aspects
involved in the impact of science center. Rather than asking what individuals have learned, the report
recommend to ask questions related to how given experience did contribute to stimulating or
sustaining learner interest and engagement. As a conclusion the review states that more research is
needed on long-term impact and the identifying factors that influence people to move into scientific
careers (Falk et al.2012)
Studies of impact of museum and science centre learning are challenging, as there are a variety of
definitions of learning outcomes, there is a need for methodological development and measuring
categories. It seems that to build compelling evidence for learning from museums has proved
challenging; “This is not because the evidence did not exist, but rather because museum learning
researchers, museum professionals, and the public alike historically asked the wrong questions and
searched for evidence of learning using flawed methodologies.” (Falk & Dierking 2000).
The science center impact study initiated by ASTC and ECSITE has developed an overall
model based on articulated needs for a consistent framework for measuring the broader impact of
science centers. This is based on a focus on four types of impact; economic impact, political impact,
societal impact and learning impact (Persson 2000). The learning impact includes following aspects:
17
• Changed attitudes to science
• Social nature of the experience
• Career-related decisions
• Increased professional expertise in science center and schools
• Personal enjoyment
Some of the same aspects can be found in the research literature; Longterm learning impact as a result
of visits to science centers has been approached by studying how visitors memorize visits to science
exhibitions (Spoch 2000, Anderson 2003, Falk et al. 2007, Rennie 2007) and in relation to visitors
increase of knowledge related to a visit (Falk et al 2004). Learning impact has also been studied based
on change of attitudes and change of behavior (Adelman, Falk & James 2000 Jarvis & Pell 2005) and
in relation to its effect on the image of science (Rennie & Williams 2000).
Less studies has been carried out into the long-term learning impact of science center, due to the
practical methodological challenges of maintaining contact with samples of visitors over years, but
also due to difficulties in proving causation (ECSITE 2008). The studies that have been conducted
propose conflicting conclusions. For example, a Norwegian survey of career choices among
firstsemester students in science at universities and university college show that 20% of the students
report visits to science centers as a main inspiration for their career (Schreiner et al, 2010). Visits to
science centers were also reported as more important for their career choices than careers advice in
schools or public relation campaigns (Schreiner et al. 2010). On the other hand studies have shown
that youth visiting science centers find exhibitions exiting, but do not think that they had great
learning outcomes of them (Quistgaard 2006). Also, that youths miss exhibitions that open to multiple
answers, that take their opinion as visitors serious and that open for collective and dialogical
discussions with their peers (Fors 2006).
According to Braund and Reiss (2006) do youth rate learning in science centers as highly engaging,
and they range Science centers as nr. 5 related to their experience of outcome of the learning. 94% of
482 Canadian university students say that visits to science centers or museums have increased their
interest for science and technology (The Strategic Counsel 2008). In other words, there is some
evidence that science centers may have some influence on youths’ career choices. But we need to
study these relations closer to determine what the nature of these experiences need to be to maximize
the influence that they may have on career aspirations.
18
Based on this body of research will this focus area of Expand seek to meet with the requirement of the
Norwegian strategy for raising standards in math an science as well as the recommendation of
evaluation of Norwegian science centers to study how science centers improve science
communication with the general public, and how science centers help school children and citizens to
identify as engaged in science and see potential in being a future scientist.
SUB-‐PROJECTS: To include these aspects of long-term impact of science centers will Expand address
the overall research question: What impact do science centres have for the strategy for strengthening
mathematics, science and technology? The focus area will consist of two sub-projects, one
quantitative international study and one qualitative and participatory project which includes youth in
an attempt to articulate central issues of longitudinal aspects of learning and engagement with science.
a) International Science Center Impact Study Expand will participate in an international quantitative study, the International Science Centre Impact
Study 2012 - 2013, lead by John Falk, Lynn Dierking and Mark Needham. This study takes an
epidemiological approach to of the issue of learning in science centres. It is a quantitative study,
involving variables chosen in relation to the complex and cumulative nature of science learning.
Public experiences at science centres improve knowledge and understanding of science, and increase
interest in and engagement with science. This quantitative study is based on self reporting methods of
learning, and has the goal to capture visitors articulations of the full extent, breadth, and depth of
visitor knowledge and understanding of science as a result of experiences in science centers as part of
an ecology of science learning in a broader perspective (Falk and Storksdieck 2005, 2010).
Traditional school-type pre-and post-test research models have delivered notoriously inaccurate
measures of learning in free-choice settings (e.g., Falk & Dierking, 2000). Consequently, the
International Science Centre Impact Study arguably attempts to provide a more appropriate model to
understand the “contributions” that informal experiences make to learning (e.g., Falk & Needham,
2011). The proposed international investigation will begin to analyse the impact of science centres by
determining the relative contributions that specific independent variables related to actual science
centre experiences have on a range of desirable long-term dependent variables and characteristics of
the public such as science understanding, attitudes, and behaviours (International Impact Research
Proposal).
b) Participatory youth action research on science engagement Expand will implement a methodological alternative approach to studies of youth`s
engagement in science. This, by applying youth participatory action research methods (Cammarota &
Fine 2008). The goal is to achieve a better understanding of the complexity of the development of
aspirations by adopting and drawing on the perspective of young people. The approach will apply a
practice based approach involving multiple design based research methods that are adapted to the
specific group of youth researchers involved. Youth Participatory Research of Science Engagement is
19
a participatory youth action research project established as in collaboration with Inspiria Science
center and Greåker high school. The project will involve science centre educators and students of
upper secondary science program to explore science literacy and relevance to youth social and
cultural practices of today. The participating students will explore 6 aspects of science centre
learning; the exhibition, the content of curricula, the communication between science centres and
youth, content of science centre events, and the form and content of science centre architecture and
exhibition design. This sub-project will use youth participatory research as a method to gain insights
into the motivations, interests and elements of science center experiences that best facilitate
engagement with science from a youth perspective. As an outcome of this subproject we expect
empirical material that could be compared with the empirical material from science educators
observation and analysis of exhibitions to be able to answer questions related to the social and the
material aspects of learning and engagement with science in science centers.
III. Focus area: Development of reflective practices This track will have as its objective to address the research question: How can arenas for reflection and professional practice development be established and how can they be made sustainable? This focus area has development of reflective practices and sharing of research results, outcomes and
experiences as its central concern. Thereby establish several arenas where knowledge can be
exchanged between researchers and educational departments in the eight Norwegian science centres
that are connected to the Expand project. The development of Reflective Practice Arenas are an
important initiative as part of the participatory research methodology chosen for Expand, and serve as
a means to involve a broader community of science centre educators in discussions of research
activities and outcomes of the EXPAND-program.
The CPD-program is understood as part of the process of building this reflective practices arena.
Participants in the CPD-program will meet with other science educators and in collaboration use
existing research to build analytical frameworks that are practically manageable for observations and
evaluations in their institutional practices. To support science centre educators capacity to engage in
the project as co-researchers all are Science Centers invited to involve at least 2 of their employees in
the CPD-program. The modules in the modules in the CPD-program will each last over the time span
of a year. Three modules are planned during the first period of the Expand program. The smaller
groups of participants in the CPD program will also attend the events that Expand arranges for
building a larger community among science educators.
The Reflective Practice Arenas contains both educational efforts of professional development with a
close relation to science center research, community-building efforts that focuses upon knowledge
exchange between researchers engaging in science center research in Norway. And also to arrange
event where research outcomes can be discussed and debated in the broader community of
practitioners in science center education. This effort to build an arena that links research and practice
20
has the goal to build Reflective Practice Arena that involves several communities into discussions,
knowledge exchange and reflection upon outcome of the research activities in the sub-projects, as
well as on empirical findings.
This focus area therefore has a broad approach, and contains research activities as an integrated part
of integrated competence building, such as for example in the CPD-module. Also, practical
investments towards building a broader community. As part of the community-building aspect will
this focus area involve several practical actions listed below, where science educators are involved in
performing quantitative survey, a bi-annual conference established in 2012 and a national network of
researcher on science center learning.
Research-‐project: a) Improving research by science educators participation. On a research level this focus area
will study how action research approaches can be applied to involve science center educators in
developing a consistent methodologies. The development of the CPD-modules is understood as part
of research design related to this methodological interest, and is defined as a subproject below. The
research related to participatory research performed in collaboration with science educators in the
CPD-module will explore how participatory methodologies can be used in the context of science
learning research. The CPD-program is part of a strategy for engaging science practitioners in
research, and an arena for capacity-building of ideas and understanding of implications (Rickinson,
Sebba & Edwards 2012) for both researchers and practitioners. The research sub-project is closely
intertwined with research outcomes from the Youth participation project described above. As both
groups; science center practitioners and youths are defined as practitioners and experts in the
everyday life of science learning and engagement. In this way, this subproject will study how we
methodologically can develop a research-based approach to lifelong learning, and to explore how
science centers can build a link between general youth development and education (see e.g. Koke &
Dierking 2007, Zipsane 2007).
The CPD-modules will be based on 4 workshops over the time span of one year. The module
will end with the participants writing an essay based on the work with methods they have learned
from the workshops. The workshops will involve real-life, practical exercises where participants will
have the experience of conducting observational methods and techniques in the exhibition where the
workshop will be arranged, together with course participants and to thereafter get practical experience
with design based experiments related to their own science centers exhibits. During the workshops
will science educators will be involved in experimental and practical sessions to get experience with
diverging methods of documentation and observation of interactions in the exhibition. Different
observational methods and methods for studying visitors interactions and learning with exhibits and
installations will collaboratively be investigated in relation to evaluation needs and local conditions at
the science centre in question. Between the workshops will the course-participants explore the
methods in their own center and report empirical material and experiences with the methods back to
21
the course groups. This empirical material will be defined as research material for Expand. The CPD-
modules will give 15 ECTS credits and. Participants in the CPD-modules are automatically
participates in the research activities of EXPAND.
The CPD will at the same time have the goal of exploring possible models for collaboration and inter
centre relationships as part of the Reflective Practice Arena focus, and will stimulate opportunities for
joint regional workshops that address local needs. Where possible, the workshops would also involve
teachers on a local level.
Sub-‐project: Developing systems for shared evaluation frameworks across regional science centers Earlier evaluation of Norwegian science center learning has identified the need for a shared
methodological framework to evaluate science center exhibitions as well as their activities with
schools We envision that this development will build on results from the International Impact study
and will lead to a framework for self-evaluation that may be shared by the 8 national science centers.
Sub-project: A network for science center researchers.
The network was established spring 2013, and plan to arrange yearly meetings. The meetings will
contain research presentations by participants, presentation of work with students in the field,
presentation and joint analysis of empirical material from Expand. The network will be important
support for research on science centre education in Norway, and will also be an important arena for
collaboration, joint project development and development of research proposals and discussions of
research results and findings in the research field of science center education.
Sub-project: A National conference on science center and museums
The Norwegian conference on learning in science centers and museums was established in 2012 with
in collaboration with Vil Vite, University of Bergen, The Research Council of Norway and
Norwegian Centre for Science Education, and was held in Bergen 2012-09.06 – 07. This conference
will continue to be held bi-annually, rotating among locations and involving practitioners and
researchers on a national level.
References: Achiam, M. 2012. A Content-oriented Model for Science Exhibit Engineering. International Journal
of Science Education, Routledge, pp. 1-19
Adams,M., Luke, J., Moussori, T. 2004: Interactivity: Moving Beyond Terminology. Curator: The
Museum Journal 47: 2, pp. 155-170
22
Adelman LM, Falk JH & James S (2000) Impact of the national aquarium in Baltimore on visitors’
conservation attitudes, behaviour and knowledge; Curator 43/1, pp. 33-61
Anderson, D., Kisiel, J., and Storksdieck, M. (2006). Understanding teachers’ perspectives on field
trips: Discovering common ground in three countries. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49, pp.365–
386
Anderson, D. , Lucas, K.B. , Ginns, I .S . , and Dierking, L.D. (2000). Development of
knowledge a b o u t e l e c t r i c i t y a n d m a g n e t i s m d u r i n g a v i s i t t o a s c i e n c e
m u s e u m a n d r e l a t e d p o s t - v i s i t activities. Science Education:84, pp.658–679
Anderson D (2003) Visitors’ long-term memories of World Expositions; Curator 46/4, pp.401-420
Anderson, D. 2012. A Reflective Hermeneutic Approach to Research Methods Investigating Visitor
Learning. Ash, D., Rahm, J., and Melber, L. (Eds.) Putting theory into Practice. Tools for Research in
Informal Settings. New Directions in Mathematics and Science Education vol 25. SensePublishers
Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei, pp.15-27
Ash, D.B and Rahm, J. 2012. Introduction: Tools for Research in Informal Setting. Ash, D., Rahm, J.,
and Melber, L. (Eds.) Putting theory into Practice. Tools for Research in Informal Settings. New
Directions in Mathematics and Science Education vol 25. SensePublishers Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei,
pp.1-15
Arnseth, H.,A., & Silseth, K. 2013. Tracing Learning and Identity Across Sites: Tensions,
Connections and Transformations in and Between Everyday and Institutional Practices. In O.Erstad &
J. Sefton-Green (Eds.) Identity, Community and Learning Lives in the Digital Age. Cambridge
University Press, New York, pp. 23 – 38.
Bain, R., & Ellenbogen, K.M. (2002). Placing objects within disciplinary perspectives: Examples
from history and science. In S.G. Paris (Ed.) Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 153–169.
Bandelli, A. 2005. Fostering deliberative democracy: Europe’s DeCiDe Project. ASTC
Dimensions (September_October): 10_1.
Benjaminsen, N. & Sørensen, E. 2011. Circulation of Authorisations in the Classroom: A Socio-
Material Process. Science as Culture 20:4, pp.
23
Black, G. 2012: Transforming Museums in the Twenty-first Century. Milton Park: Routledge.
Boling, E. 2010. The Need for Design Cases: Disseminating Design Knowledge. International
Journal of Designs for Learning 1:1. pp.1-9. Retrieved from