Pedretti - 2002 - T. Kuhn Meets T. Rex Critical Conversations and New Directions in Science Centres and Science Museums-Annotated

This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]
On: 21 April 2015, At: 05:56

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Studies in Science Education

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsse20
T. Kuhn Meets T. Rex: Critical

Conversations and New
Directions in Science Centres
and Science Museums
a
Erminia Pedretti
a
OISE , University of Toronto , Canada
Published online: 28 Mar 2008.
To cite this article: Erminia Pedretti (2002) T. Kuhn Meets T. Rex: Critical
Conversations and New Directions in Science Centres and Science Museums, Studies in
Science Education, 37:1, 1-41
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560176
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 05:56 21 April 2015
Studies in Science Education, 37 (2002) 1-42 1
T. Kuhn Meets T. Rex: Critical

Conversations and New Directions in

Science Centres and Science Museums
ERMINIA PEDRETTI
OISE, University of Toronto, Canada
INTRODUCTION
In 1996, two excellent reviews about informal science learning were published
in this journal. The Rennie and McClafferty paper (1996) focused on
interactive science centres and their role in learning about and understanding
science, while the Hofstein and Rosenfeld (1996) review examined informal
science learning and how it might be better integrated into formal science
learning. The latter review considers several informal science learning settings
and contexts: school-based field trips; student projects; community-based
science youth programs; museums; zoos; the press; and electronic media. In
this paper, I position myself somewhat differently as I explore shifting
paradigms in the science museum world. I draw extensively from the science
centre and science museum literature, augmenting these findings with research
from the science education community.
According to Farmelo (1997: 186), science centres and science museums
have undergone a kind of 'revolution,' best described by the Kuhnian (1970)
notion of paradigm shifts. After a period of relative consensus about what
2 Erminia Pedretti
matters in informal science settings, the informal science community has

entered a period of dissensus and debate over its role in promoting and
re/presenting science to the public. What used to be the trademarks of science
centres and science museums - 'wonders of science', 'object displays such as T.
Rex,' and 'curiosity cabinets' - are now under scrutiny and critique. In recent
years informal science settings have witnessed increased attention to issues in
science and technology, and consequently have attempted to develop
contemporary science and technology installations with all the social and
political trappings (Cooks, 1999; Farmelo & Carding, 1997; McLaughlin,

1998; Mintz, 1995; Pearce, 1996; Pedretti, 1999). With these changing
directions the following questions emerge: 'what is the nature of this revolution
or shift?' and 'how should science museums and science centres communicate
contemporary (and often controversial) science and technology issues to the
public'?
In summary, the purpose of this review article is to examine the debate
about how science should be re/presented in informal science settings,
specifically the possibility of science centres and science museums addressing
socio-scientific issues. I situate the debate within the current science education
literature on the nature of science (NOS) and science, technology, society and
environment (STSE) perspectives. Drawing on five recent cases of socio-
scientific installations, I introduce several key issues that lie at the heart of the
discussion. Topics include: learning and engagement; motivation and context;
constructivism; multiple intelligences; affective learning; communicating
controversy; developing issues-based, nature of science exhibitions; advocacy;
mandates and missions; alternative forms of re/presenting science; and research
traditions and trends.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF SCIENCE MUSEUMS AND SCIENCE CENTRES
This paper focuses on science museums and science centres as two

predominant media for communicating science to the public. What follows is
a brief history of their development, with a view to examining recent paradigm
shifts in these informal science learning environments.
Science museums traditionally emphasize cultural heritage through
objects of intrinsic value (Arnold, 1996; Caulton, 1998; Danilov, 1982; Rennie
& McClafferty, 1996), echoes of the 'curiosity cabinets' of the Renaissance
period. These early museums of science represented a fascination with
collecting which emerged in the fifteenth century from 'an attempt to manage
the empirical explosion of materials that wider dissemination of ancient texts,
Science Centres and Museums 3
increased travel, voyages of discovery, and more systematic forms of

communication and exchange had produced' (Findlen, 1994: 3). Science
museums were institutions of authoritative, uncontestable, knowledge, places
of 'collecting, seeing and knowing, places where "anybody" might come and
survey the evidence of science' (MacDonald, 1998: 8). Dinosaurs, copious
invertebrate and vertebrate collections, plant taxonomies, and so on - these
were the orders of the day. By the nineteenth century, science museums had
flourished, and with it 'the capacity of exhibitionary representation to render
the world as visible and ordered... part of the instantiation of wider senses of
scientific and political certainty' (MacDonald, 1998: 11). By the twentieth
century museums of science had built 'on their earlier emphasis on public
education to present themselves as experts in the mediation between the
esoteric world of science and that of the public' (MacDonald, 1998: 13).
The nineteenth century also brought a proliferation of science museums
with roots in technical and industrial heritage museums (Durant, 1992; Koster,
1999; Rennie & McClafferty, 1996). Industrial heritage sites sought to present
science in a contextualized way, embedded in a particular community, time and
place. Artifacts were embedded in a 'slice of history' and visitors entered into
that particular world replete with social relations and cultural context. Science
centres by contrast, are more typically concerned with presenting universal
abstract laws, principles, and phenomena that transcend time and place
(MacDonald, 1998). Ordinarily, visitors individually interact with exhibits, by
a combination of manipulating, reading, pushing, pulling, and generally using
their senses. Information is carefully structured through engaging, interactive
displays. Science centres include interactive exhibits that respond to the
visitor's action and invite further response, as well as hands-on exhibits that do
not offer feedback to the visitor (Rennie & McClafferty, 1996). In general,
science centres offer 'a decontextualized scattering of interactive exhibits,
which can be thought of as exploring stations of ideas ' (McManus, 1992: 164)
usually presented in small rooms or galleries, with scant attention paid to
applications of science, social political contexts, or moral and ethical
implications (Lucas, 1994).
By the 1960s, these interactive science centres with their specialized
hands-on galleries became prevalent. The Exploratorium in San Francisco, and
the Ontario Science Centre in 1969, were two of the earliest examples of
science centres dedicated to exploring scientific principles through hands-on
exhibits. In the UK, the first science centre 'The Exploratory' was set up in
Bristol, in 1987. Soon afterwards, the London Science Museum opened its
Launch Pad exhibition with resounding success. Launch Pad remains one its
most popular galleries today. In the UK alone there are over 20 science centres
4 Erminia Pedretti
attracting up to one million visitors per year (Farmelo, 1997), while in the
United States practically every major city has a science centre with a total
annual visitation of 115 million (Koster, 1999). New technologies of display
and new interpretive experiments mark these interactive science centres, and
the mantra 'public understanding of science' aptly describes their central
activity (Bradburne, 1998, Durant, 1992; Farmelo, 1997; MacDonald, 1998;
Miles & Tout, 1992; Wellington, 1998).
Typologies for Classifying Science Centres and Museums
Janousek (2000) provides a useful typology for classifying museums and science
centres. The 'first generation museum' is represented by traditional technical or
heritage museums that are object-oriented; collections and exhibitions are based
on artifacts with no presentation of a broader context. The 'second generation'
refers to the development of science centres that typically have no acquisition
activity, but rather focus on elucidating the natural order of the universe. These
exhibits are interactive, and generally do 'not meet the requirement for the
mediation of broader contexts' (23). Yahya (1996) and Bradburne (1998)
provide similar classification systems, describing the stages of development of
science museums and science centres as successive generations.
Koster (1999) suggests that an emerging set of seven attributes will
largely define the next generation of science centres. These principles include:
1) a mission centering on integrated interpretations of science-technology-
society (STS) issues, focused more on today and tomorrow than on yesterday,
and entertaining multiple points of view; 2) a dedication to providing access
and outreach to visitors and users of all ages, learning styles, and backgrounds;
3) a unifying institutional theme that helps to create context and connections
for visitors; 4) adoption of the full menu of available multimedia to create
engaging experiences; 5) developing topical multidimensional experiences that
will serve to make the science centre regarded as a worthwhile lifelong
resources to many invested stakeholders; 6) establishing numerous
partnerships with other like-minded organizations that make possible
combining resources for greater collective impact; and 7) serving as a neutral
ground for airing of society's most vexing issues related to science and
technology (291-292). Beetlestone, Johnson, Quin, and White (1998) argue
that the science center movement is traced by focusing on current practices,
describing shifts from artifact to education, from didactic to empowering, from
pot pourri to a thematic story line, from museum to Disney. Their paper
concludes with the question: 'How to communicate contemporary science and
scientific issues'?
Science museums which traditionally collect, preserve and interpret, are

revisiting their mission statements and mandates: 'this orientation toward
"things" rather than "societal needs" is why many museums, and the science
pursued in them, have acquired an image as out of touch, musty store-houses
of relics of a dead past...' (Duckworth, 1994: 14). Indeed, discussion in
science museums is evolving to include social responsibility, the raising of
social consciousness, and science, technology, society and environment issues.
Science museums are beginning to see themselves as important players in a
number of external scientific, social, cultural and political contexts. Koster

(1999: 287) describes this as 'a powerful paradigm shift'.
In summary then, a 'new generation' of science museums and science centres
is emerging. They represent a paradigm shift from the 'objects in glass cases' to
an emphasis on involvement, activity and ideas (Beetlestone, Johnson, Quin &
White, 1998; Farmelo, 1997; Mintz, 1995; Pearce 1996; Wellington, 1998)
through interactive or hands on experiences that encourage visitors to explore not
only scientific phenomenon, but also contemporary socio-scientific issues.1
NATURE OF SCIENCE AND SCIENCE CENTRE AND MUSEUM

EXPERIENCES
Kuhn's revolutionary view of science (1970), his account of the nature of science
and the mechanisms of theory change in science, are extensively commented
upon, particularly in the science education community (see for example special
issue on Thomas Kuhn and Science Education, in Science & Education, 2000).
His work has had a profound influence on the way people think about how
science proceeds: 'from the initial writings of Kuhn and Lakatos, through the
sociology of scientific knowledge, to the cultural turn in science studies today,
images of the nature of science have been multiplying tumultuously in the
academic literature' (Turner & Sullenger, 1999: 5). These images of science are
in part manifest through nature of science (NOS) and science, technology,
society and environment (STSE) movements that have emerged in educational
discourse. A brief review of these two relatively recent trends (NOS and STSE)
in science education is helpful in understanding the kind of 'revolution' or
'paradigm shift' that science centres and museums are currently experiencing.
Nature of Science (NOS) Perspectives
Social, cultural, and political contexts of the institution and practice of science
have received close scrutiny recently, mainly under the auspices of exploring
6 Erminia Pedretti
the nature of science (NOS). (See for example, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell &
Lederman, 1998; Aikenhead, 1997; Alters, 1997; Clough, 1997; Cobern,
1998; Lederman, 1992; McComas, 1998; Ogunniyi, 1997; Palmquist &
Finley, 1997). Generally, NOS blends aspects of various social studies of
science including the history, sociology, and philosophy of science to explore
what science is, how science works, how scientists operate as a social group
and how society itself both directs and reacts to scientific endeavours
(McComas, Clough and Almazroa, 1998). Accordingly, NOS is

fundamental to guiding science educators in accurately portraying science to
students (and the general public). Driver, Leach, Millar and Scott (1996)
argue that nature of science goals are necessary if people are to: make sense
of and manage the science and technological objects and processes they
encounter (utilitarian argument); understand socio-scientific issues and
participate in the decision-making process (democratic view); appreciate
science as an accomplishment of the human intellect and spirit (cultural
view); and embody moral commitments which are of general value (moral
argument). Finally, they argue that the inclusion of NOS in science
instruction supports successful learning of science content. All of these
goals are applicable to science centres and museums committed to bringing
science to the general public.
In spite of general agreement about the importance of NOS
perspectives, there is little consensus as to what constitutes the nature of
science. Lederman (1992) argues that the nature of science is neither
universal nor stable. Characterizations about NOS are often general and
lead to quick disagreements among many science educators as to the specific
definition of NOS. Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998) however, advocate a level of
generality regarding NOS that is accessible and relevant to people's daily
lives. Therefore, they develop a nature of science emphasis that includes: 1)
recognition that scientific knowledge is tentative (subject to change); 2)
empirically based (based on and/or derived from observations of the natural
world); 3) subjective (theory-laden); 4) partly the product of human
inference, imagination and creativity; and 5) socially and culturally
embedded (1998: 418). These aspects of the scientific enterprise allow for
clearer connections between students'/citizens' knowledge of science and
decisions made regarding scientific claims and issues. McComas, Clough
and Almazroa (1998) also provide a consensus view of the nature of science
elements; their fourteen statements represent a distillation of nature of
science objectives taken from eight international science standard
documents.
Science, Technology, Society and Environment (STSE) Perspectives
During the past twenty years or so, science, technology, society and
environment (STSE) has become part of science education discourse
(Aikenhead & Solomon, 1994; Kumar & Chubin, 2000; Solomon, 1993;
Pedretti, 1999; Pedretti & Hodson, 1995; Ramsey, 1993). In general, STSE
education places science in a larger social, cultural and political context, and
includes decision-making and action, often through the exploration of socio-
scientific issues (Pedretti, 1997; Watts, Alsop, Zylbersztajn, & Maria de Silva,
1997). Issues might include: genetically modified foods; cloning; nuclear
power; ozone depletion; dietary advice; advances in medical science;
reproductive technologies; pollution; space exploration and the list goes on.
Solomon (1993: 18) highlights the features of STS(E) education as:
understanding environmental threats, including global ones; understanding
economic and industrial aspects of technology; understanding the fallible
nature of science; understanding the multi-cultural dimensions to science and
technology; and discussion of personal opinion and values, as well as
democratic action. Pedretti (1996) describes six components of STSE
education: sustainable development; decision-making; moral and ethical
reasoning; personal and political perspectives; critical social reconstruction;
and action. An STSE approach seeks to promote the development of a critical,
scientifically and technologically literate citizenry; one that is capable of
understanding science, technology and society, and is empowered to make
informed and responsible decisions and to act upon those decisions.
In general, there is a strong literature base to support the inclusion of
NOS and STSE perspectives in science education. Recognition and general
acceptance that science is a value-laden enterprise, embedded in societal and
cultural influences is gaining a foothold in schools (Bybee, 1991; Aikenhead,
1997; Jegede, 1997; Pedretti, 1997, Smith & Scharmann, 1999) and now, in
non-school settings (Beetlestone et al., 1998; Bradburne, 1998; Koster, 1999;
Macdonald, 1998; McLaughlin, 1999; Pearce, 1996). Yet, unproblematic
accounts and portrayals of science are generally the norm in formal and
informal settings. Visitors at a science centre typically experience
representations of science (similar to those portrayed through school science)
that are monolithic, objective and apolitical, even though often in an
interactive, hands-on environment. Indeed, many argue that science centres
and museums provide politically safe images of science to the public
(MacDonald 1998; Pearce, 1996; Pedretti, 1996).
The reluctance of museums to think critically about how they represent
science and technology has perhaps fueled and sustained traditional adherence
8 Erminia Pedretti
to phenomenon-based exhibitions. However, recent discussions and

innovative installations suggest that science centres are moving in new
directions. According to Beetlestone et al. (1998: 21): 'intellectually, culturally,
creatively, the communication of contemporary science is the next big
challenge to the science center movement'. The following section explores
recent developments and installations in the informal science education world,
in an attempt to consider contemporary science and technology issues.
SCIENCE MUSEUMS AND SCIENCE CENTRES: CRITICAL

CONVERSATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS
New Directions
In the 1998 article 'Dinosaurs and White Elephants: the Science Centre in the
21st Century', Bradburne suggested that science centres must undergo a
dramatic change if they are to remain relevant and thrive. He argues that
science centres uncritically continue to be planned around clusters of hands-on
displays about science and scientific principles (usually in the domain of
physics), based on 'the assumption that physical interaction is a good thing, in
and of itself (120). However, such installations signal three major weaknesses:
1) they misrepresent the nature of scientific activity; 2) they focus almost
exclusively on principles and phenomena rather than processes; and 3) they
show science out of context - science defined 'top-down' by scientists, rather
than as experienced by visitors (Bradburne, 1998). Furthermore, even when a
public institution tries to put science and technology into its social context, the
society, paradoxically, is left out. These arguments bear a striking resemblance
to arguments calling for reform in science education and the inclusion of
nature of science (Aikenhead, 1992; Cobern, 1998, Hodson, 1998; McComas,
1998), and science, technology, society and environment perspectives
(Aikenhead, 1994; Pedretti, 1996; Solomon, 1994).
Wellington (1998) describes two types of exhibits usually found at the
science centre: experiential and pedagogical. The experiential exhibit allows
the visitor to experience (and perhaps interact with) phenomena, e.g., soap
bubbles, whirlwinds, water vortices, air or water phenomena, while the
pedagogical category actually sets out to teach something e.g., position of
organs in the body, digestive system, separation of dyes by chromatography, or
reflection of light. He points out however, that these two categories should not
be considered as mutually exclusive. These categorizations are useful because
they help map out the terrain of science centre exhibitions. However they also
reflect the dominant traditional way of presenting and representing science.

Science centre installations based on a representation of specific scientific
principles, phenomena, theories or concepts, often negate raising 'questions
about the status of that knowledge and the reliability of the methods employed
in reaching it' (Hodson, 1992: 23). A more authentic notion of the
development of scientific knowledge acknowledges the tentativeness and
purposefulness of knowledge creation and negotiation, and views science as a
human and social activity. These latter arguments (i.e., Bradburne, 1998;
Hodson, 1992; MacDonald, 1998) lead to what I would identify as the

emergence of a third category - critical exhibitions. By that I mean exhibitions
that speak to the processes of science, the nature of science, and science and
technology in its sociocultural context. (See Canon-Brookes, 1997;
Macdonald, 1998; Mintz, 1995.)
Recent Critical Exhibitions
Many of these critical exhibitions are issues-based, inviting visitors to

participate actively, consider socio-scientific issues from a variety of
perspectives, and critique the nature and practice of science and technology.
Some recent installations include: A Question of Truth at the Ontario Science
Centre, Science in American Life at the Smithsonian Institution of Washington,
Mine Games at Vancouver's Science World, and Birth and Breeding at the
London Wellcome Institute. Furthermore, these new directions are reflected in
recent articles, discussion groups, and conferences. For example, in November
1996, the London Science Museum mounted a three day conference: Here and
Now, Contemporary Science in Museums and Science Centres to address the
challenges faced by these institutions in presenting contemporary science and
technology issues (see Beetlestone et al., 1998; Cannon-Brookes, 1997;
Farmelo & Carding, 1997). The conference delegates defined contemporary
science as 'the science that appears in the mass-media spotlight and so,
however briefly, touches peoples lives: genetic screening, life on Mars,
radiation and contamination ...' (Beetlestone et al., 1998: 21). Science then, is
framed by culture - its context has social, economic, political and historical
dimensions. Science becomes viewed as an intrinsic part of the social and
cultural mores of a particular time and place. According to Beetlestone et al.
(1998: 21), the 'science center's role is to seek tools to draw the cultural
framework, animate the debate, and promote healthy skepticism over
superstition and irrational thinking'.
A review of the literature suggests that during the past ten years science
centres and museums of science have developed exhibitions that begin to
10 Erminia Pedretti
question scientific authority and reflect upon the process of exhibiting itself
(MacDonald, 1998; Mintz, 1995). Similarly, Bradburne (1998: 19) argues for
an 'attempt to unhook the cart of absolute truth from the horse of enquiry, so
visitors can leave not saying "I know", but rather "I know how to know"'.
These calls reflect a radical departure from the more traditional hands-on or
interactive exhibitions and their preoccupation with immediate sensory
experience, and explication of scientific phenomenon. It is a kind of Kuhnian
revolution, challenging many science museums and science centres to
reconceptualize their role and purpose.

Macdonald (1998: 19) elegantly states that: 'museum displays are also
agencies for defining scientific knowledge for the public, and for harnessing
science and technology to tell culturally authoritative stories about race,
nation, progress and modernity'. The following section describes, through the
use of cases, five installations that exemplify what can be interpreted as a shift
from traditional interactive or hands-on exhibitions to issues-based, nature of
science designs (this is by no means an exhaustive list of installations of this
kind). These case study examples challenge politically safe, sterile and
authoritative images of science and technology usually encountered in science
centres and museums.
Case 1: A Question of Truth
In contrast to the unequivocal statements about the nature of science

represented in the usual phenomenon-based display, the Ontario Science
Centre in Toronto, Canada, created an exhibit that views science as a
human and social activity located in culture and predominant worldviews.
The exhibit A Question of Truth opened in November 1996 - after five
years of planning and designing. The exhibition, with its rather provocative
title, is designed to examine several questions about the nature of science,
how ideas are formed and how cultural and political conditions affect the
actions of individual scientists. The exhibit questions the nature of scientific
truth, and attempts to demonstrate how science is influenced by the
cultural, personal, and political backgrounds of the practitioners; qualities
that include bias, and points of view. The notion of bias in science is
demonstrated by examining various episodes in the history and practice of
science. Scientific beliefs are challenged by demonstrating the validity of
diverse points of view. The exhibit draws upon the fields of anthropology,
sociology, psychology, biology, physics, astronomy, medicine, engineering,
history and philosophy.
The exhibit focuses on three major themes:
1. Frames of Reference explores the distinctly human face of science, and

illustrates that differences in context can lead to many valid perspectives
(e.g., sun-centred vs. earth-centred planetary models, navigational
techniques of the South Sea Islanders and the Inuit of Northern Canada,
western medicine and alternative ways of thinking about health and well-
being).
2. Bias in Science and Society examines a long history of oppression and

marginalization for certain groups of people (e.g., concept of race,
prejudice and bias, examination of the history of eugenics, slavery
sterilization, and intelligence testing).
3. Science and the Community explores the notion that our future depends
on an informed public (the gallery includes interviews with a diverse
group of scientists, contributions created by local school children and
street kids on various topics, and visitor reactions to the exhibit).
A Question of Truth begins to examine discursive relationships. As the

Educational Guide (Ontario Science Centre, 1997: 4) explains: 'A Question of
Truth encourages an emotional and intellectual journey inward and outward.
It asks the viewer to examine personal attitudes and beliefs as well as to extend
understandings about the nature and practice of science'. A Question of Truth
has created some controversy precisely because it questions the pursuits of
science, and acknowledges in a rather confrontational way, an historical legacy
of moral, ethical, and social repercussions.2
Case 2: Science in American Life
Science in American Life opened in April 1994, at the Smithsonian's National

Museum of American History, in Washington, D.C. This exhibition is
described as having a focus on science, technology and society (Durant, 1996;
Gieryn, 1998; Molella & Stephens, 1996), and creating high visibility for the
history of science and technology. Essentially, the exhibit traces the evolving
relationship among science, technology and society over the past 125 years.
Much controversy surrounded its development phase and continued well into
its opening.
The exhibition, covering 1100 square metres and supported by a 5.3
million dollar grant from the American Chemical Society, is heralded as the
museum's first major display on science and technology. The presentation is
12 Erminia Pedretti
highly interactive: 'one-quarter of the floor space is devoted to laboratory

experiments, mechanical and electronic interactive stations, and other hands-
on activities' (Molella & Stephens, 1996: 98). There are approximately a
dozen of these which are integrated into the exhibit, while the remaining are
found in two science centres.
Historical elements of the exhibit are organized around 22 case studies
that highlight interactions between science and society, rather than an account
of scientific discoveries and descriptions of scientists. Case studies include: the
Scopes Trial; the New York World's Fair of 1939-1940 as a symbol of the
mounting cultural authority of science; the Manhattan Project; a 1950s
suburban house furnished with synthetic materials; the birth control pill; the
Superconducting Super Collider; and the laboratory that perfected the
technique of cloning (Molella & Stephens, 1996). Many of these cases
represent contentious, and compelling issues that are still relevant today. What
is also remarkable about this installation is the attention that is paid to public
response to science and technology as to the work of scientists. The exhibition
is premised on the notion that citizens - scientists and non-scientists alike -
need to understand science and technology so as to participate in society as
informed, responsible citizens.
Central to the exhibition is the evolution of Americans' (USA) attitudes
towards progress, and this theme permeates the case studies. For example,
during the first half of the twentieth century, advances in science and technology
often translated to material wealth and conveniences, and social progress. By the
end of the century a much more complex appraisal of science, technology and
progress was underway, as benefits, consequences, and social responsibility were
weighed and scrutinized. The growing cultural authority of science after the First
World War is slowly replaced by public questioning of scientific authority,
particularly after the 1960s. A more traditional treatment of the exhibition
might have represented transitions as relatively unproblematic progression from
knowledge to power. However, the social history perspective raises difficult
moral and political questions concerning the wider impact of science and
technology upon society (Durant, 1996), thus attracting considerable criticism
from the American scientific community. See Gieryn (1998) for a detailed
analysis of the controversy surrounding Science in American Life.
Case 3: Birth and Breeding
The Exhibition Birth and Breeding: The Politics of Reproduction in Modern

Britain was held at the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine in
London from October 1993 to February 1994. This exhibition attempted to

reflect some of the opposing political and cultural disputes embedded in this
issue. The first gallery encountered has been described as a tantalizing dose of
'living' history (Ehrman, 1993) as the visitor views film clips from Marie
Stopes' melodrama Maisie's Marriage (1923), to the Family Planning
Association's campaigning film from the 1950s. Remaining showcases in the
gallery were used to display six archives relating to prominent individuals and
organizations connected with the topic, and included posters, propaganda
materials, leaflets, letters, books, and photographs. More specifically these

archival collections included materials from: the Eugenics Society - founded in
1907 to promote education in race and heredity; Marie Stopes (1880-1958) -
the pioneer birth control advocate; National Birthday Trust Fund; Grantly
Dick-Read's (1890-1959) travel scrapbook - he famously campaigned for
natural methods of painfree childbirth; Family Planning Association that had
significant impact in the 1950s and 1960s on both sex education and
contraceptive devices; and Abortion Law Reform Association and
accompanying legislation (Arnold, 1996; Arnold, 1998). Each poster, leaflet,
letter, book and photograph served some point of view, some argument, and
for this reason, 'the exhibition was crowded, some would and indeed did say
over-crowded, with assertions and refutations, claims and counter claims and
disputes of all sorts' (Arnold, 1996: 75).
The Exhibition did not attempt to display various perspectives equally,
suggest a resolution to the issue of birth and breeding, or document how
attitudes had changed over time. Rather, its originators intented to convey the
complexity and upheaval surrounding biology, medical sciences and social
sciences, fuelled by public discussion about how the science should be done
and how it should then be used (Arnold, 1996). Details of scientific theories,
facts and investigations were minimal, and instead the range of issues around
motherhood and reproduction constituted the political knot. The exhibition
successfully depicted the art of debate and public persuasion, as vying
organizations campaigned. In short, 'this was an exhibition about scientific
and social propaganda, and the reactions and controversies that surrounded it'
(Arnold, 1998: 187).
Case 4: Mine Games
At Science World (Vancouver, Canada), the notion of science centres acting as

social fora for issues that people are passionate about led to the creation of
Mine Games, a different kind of exhibit, and therefore experience, for visiting
14 Erminia Pedretti
publics. The Mine Games exhibit, which opened in the fall of 1994, is the first
of a series of exhibitions on the themes of 'The Living Planet' designed to
explore relevant topics related to the environment and resource management.
This interactive exhibition is a giant three-dimensional simulation game
that explores the multiple impacts of building a potential mine. Mine Games
is set in the imaginary town of Grizzly, British Columbia. The students
(through video and computer simulations) meet the residents of Grizzly - the
mayor, a First Nations representative, business people, bankers, and citizens -
each with their own perspectives, struggles and opinions regarding the
development of the mine. Students participate in the simulation, and are faced
with the challenge of deciding whether a mine should be built in this small
town, and if so, how can the safest, most economical and most
environmentally acceptable mine possible be designed. Challenges and
problems are presented through a variety of mediums including hands-on
exhibits, computer games, and demonstrations.
The Mine Games exhibit is comprised of four smaller galleries (High
Stakes, Boulder dash, Wild Things and Blast-It) that address a particular facet
related to the mining industry, and a larger forum (Hot Seat) designed for
discussion and debate. High Stakes is essentially a prospecting search that
challenges visitors to drill for the ore, while considering the financial funding
and risks involved. Blast-it explores underground mining, while Wild Things
considers environmental effects and considerations when mining. Boulderdash
attempts to draw connections between mining and some of the everyday
commodities we enjoy and often take for granted in our lives. Each of these
galleries presents a more or less, typical 'hands-on' approach to exhibit design;
that is, reading, pushing, pulling, shaking, manipulating. Each gallery has an
accompanying worksheet for visitors, and concludes with a computer game
based on the information gathered at that particular gallery. Computer game
examples include: drilling for ore, building a bike and racing it through a
virtual course, and leading an environmental expedition into wildlife area that
would be impacted upon by the mine. By far, the computer games and
simulations are the most successful aspect of the galleries (see Pedretti, 1999
for more details).
In the final and most striking feature of this exhibit - Hot Seat - teachers,
students and a mediator engage in discussion and debate the mining issue, with
the hope of reaching some consensus. Hot Seat is built much like a scaled
down version of an amphitheatre. Students are seated in a semi-circle, facing
a mediator who has control over a range of interactive multi-media resources.
Ideally, information gathered from the smaller galleries, and questions
emerging from the visitors' experiences are brought to the forefront. Experts
(for example in the fields of biology, environmental studies and so on) and
concerned community members from Grizzly, can be called upon using pre-
programmed interactive multi-media, to answer questions from the audience.
Visitors are encouraged to debate the issues from many perspectives, as they
attempt to reach a consensus about the potential mine in Grizzly.3
Case 5: Enola Gay
I include the case of Enola Gay (the B-29 Superfortress bomber which
dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima) as an example of an installation that
never came to be. The mounting of the Enola Gay (originally entitled: The
Last Act: The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II) was one of the
most deeply divisive museum controversies of recent years (Gieryn, 1998;
Harwit, 1996; Simmons, 1996; Zohlberg, 1998). This exhibition was
scheduled to open in the mid-1990s at the Smithsonian Institution in
Washington, D.C.
The original museum plan was to exhibit Enola Gay in the context of
the Second World War strategic bombing displays. Representing a pivotal
moment in history, the Enola Gay would revisit 'justification for dropping
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while also considering its legacy from
the immediate victims to "mutually assured destruction"' (Gieryn, 1998:
197). However, the animosity of particular veterans against the museum
increased. Accusations about lack of balance, truth, objectivity, distinctive
ideological tilts, misrepresentations, and privileged perspectives were hurled
against the installation design. Under Congressional pressure, and with the
exhibition script under attack from the media, and various powerful lobby
groups such as the American Legion and American veterans' organizations,
the exhibition was abandoned in January 1995. The Enola Gay is now
simply on exhibition at the Smithsonian, as a plane, essentially, without
context. The display features the aircraft's restored fuselage, labels, and a
videotape of the crew. Cancellation of the original installation raises critical
questions about the negotiation of contents, who decides what is to be shown
about science (or about the Enola Gay), and what happens when selections
are contested (MacDonald, 1998; Noble, 1995, Zohlberg, 1998).
Controversial museum exhibits such as the Enola Gay become 'strategic sites
for exploring bothersome epistemological-cum-political issues' (Gieryn,
1998: 197).
16 Erminia Pedretti
SCIENCE CENTRES AND MUSEUMS: CRITICAL ISSUES
The 'public understanding of science' has become a guiding principle for

science centres and museums around the world. The communicative potential,
and the distinctive understandings of science and technology that can be
conveyed through exhibitions are powerful. However, the role of exhibitions
in public understanding of science (particularly in communicating controversy
about science and technology) requires a grasp of the relationship between
visitor and installation, and therefore consideration of: the nature of learning;
the nature of science; visitor characteristics; visitor expectations;
communications media; and messages. Clearly, the cases described in this
paper provoke strong discussion about epistemology and learning, and
re/presentation of science. Therefore, the first set of issues specifically
addresses literature related to engagement and learning: motivation and
context; constructivism; multiple intelligences; and the affective domain. The
second set of issues focus on re/presentation and controversy in installations of
this kind, and relate specifically to: communicating controversy; developing
issues-based, nature of science exhibitions; advocacy; and mandates and
missions.
Issues of Engagement and Learning
The above described exhibitions, unlike phenomenon-based or interactive

hands-on displays, are often emotionally charged, and call upon a different
kind of intellectual and emotional response from the visitor. A number of
theoretical and pedagogical perspectives are helpful in understanding the
learning potential of exhibitions that move towards inclusion of nature of
science perspectives and socio-scientific issues.
Motivation and Context
Csiksentmihalyi and Hermanson's (1995) work on 'flow' and intrinsic

motivation provides a useful starting point. Socio-scientific and NOS
exhibitions create unique opportunities for 'flow' experiences because of their
inherent human-interest context, complexity and inter-disciplinary nature.
According to these authors, a 'flow experience' occurs when a visitor is totally
immersed in the experience, and time and place boundaries disappear.
Engagement with the activities has no extrinsic reward, but rather is
intrinsically motivating. These authors develop a schematic representation of
the process of intrinsic motivation in science centres or museum settings. The

development of learning through intrinsic motivation begins with a hook
(which includes stimulating curiosity and interest), then moves to opportunities
for involvement (sensory, intellectual and emotional), followed by conditions
for flow (challenges must be compatible to, and balanced with skills), and
growth of complexity in consciousness. The notion of a 'hook' is particularly
useful in that the socio-scientific issue (i.e., mining, birth and breeding)
becomes the hook through which science centres and museums can engage and
challenge visitors.
In another study, Paris (1998) describes six motivational processes which
influence visitors: constructing personal knowledges choice in terms of what
they experience and how they demonstrate their mastery; challenges that are
matched to skill levels; control of one's environment; collaboration with others
in the environment and consequences that confirm competence and give a
feeling of pride and self-efficacy. Paris' motivational processes, particularly
constructing personal knowledge, choice and consequences, are helpful in the
context of issues-based exhibitions. For example, in the Science in American
Life installation, visitors construct knowledge and position themselves amidst
controversy as they work through a complex re-appraisal of science,
technology and progress. Choices and challenges are presented through
multiple view points and representations. However, the role of consequences
takes on a more critical perspective. Consequences with respect to resolution
of socio-scientific issues emerge, as opposed to immediate consequences that
confirm personal competencies (as would be the case in a phenomena-based
exhibition). Ideally, there is a shift from individual needs to larger societal or
community concerns.
The social, cultural and political aspects of science are critical to the
installations described earlier in the paper. It can be argued that these
installations enhance learning through their increased attention to context -
not only the context in which science operates, but also visitor context.
Installations such as Mine Games, A Question of Truth, and Science in
American Life are deeply embedded in context, and that is precisely what
makes them so powerful and motivating, and for some problematic. These
exhibitions provide a rich social, cultural and physical tapestry for visitors'
meaning making.
Falk and Dierking, in 1992, developed the 'interactive experience model'
as a framework for thinking about learning. Components of the interactive
model include the personal and social contexts that the visitor brings to the
museum, as the well as the physical context (or characteristics) of the museum
environment. Visitors are understood as being actively engaged in the
18 Erminia Pedretti
construction and reconstruction of these interweaving contexts. Recently, Falk

and Dierking (2000) further developed and presented their interactive
experience model as the 'contextual model of learning'. This model emphasizes
that learning is situated within a context. In the absence of contextual cues
from the outside world, each individual's association would be meaningless.
Learning is not an abstract experience that takes place in a sterilized
environment, rather it is 'an organic, integrated experience that takes place in
the real world' (Falk & Dierking, 2000: 10), combining personal, sociocultural
and physical contexts. Intentionally, the model is more descriptive than

predictive, and according to Falk and Dierking, the Contextual Model
successfully accommodates much, if not most, of what is currently known about
learning and motivation. Falk and Dierking (2000) have also added a fourth
dimension - time - to the model. To understand learning, any learning, requires
a longer view (a snapshot in time is woefully inadequate).
Constructivism
One of the underlying characteristics of the case study exhibitions described

earlier is their emphasis on multiple representations and understandings.
Displays are deliberately presented to evoke a variety of responses. Visitors are
encouraged to interpret their experiences and construct personal meaning.
Epistemologically, these museums and science centres are representative of a shift
from a transmissionist to a constructivist view of how people learn. This trend
is particularly evident in Hein's 1998 book entitled: Learning in the museum.
Hein's (1998) work provides a thorough account of educational theorists
(such as Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky ) and how these theories relate to learning in
non-school settings.
'Museum staff increasingly argue that the educational role of the

museum is significant. Yet just what the educational intention of the
museum might be, how the institution consider education, how it
believes that people learn, and what education consists of, are
frequently vaguely defined, if defined at all.' (Hein, 1998: 14)
He then proceeds to describe three kinds of issues required to develop an

educational theory: a theory of knowledge (an epistemology), a theory of
learning, and a theory of teaching or pedagogy. Each of these has direct impact
on learning in non-school settings, and on the nature of exhibitions and
programmes. 4
Hein (1998) in light of more recent theorists, describe what he calls, the
'constructivist museum'. The constructivist exhibition is one which will: 1)
have many entry points, no specific path and no beginning and end; 2) provide
a wide range of active learning modes; 3) present a range of points of view; 4)
enable visitors to connect with objects (and ideas) through a range of activities
and experiences that utilize their life experiences; and 5) provide experiences
and materials that allow students in school programmes to experiment,
conjecture, and draw conclusions. Critical issues-based exhibitions such as the
ones cited in this paper, reflect some of the constructivist principles described
above by: challenging visitors to explore issues of relevance to their lives (e.g.,
mining in British Columbia), presenting a multiplicity of views (views that are
often contentious and at odds with one another), and providing multiple entry
points.
Although a common theory of learning in the science education research
community (see for example, Matthews, 1998), the notion of constructivism in
science museum literature has only recently gained momentum. Jeffery-Clay
(1999) suggests that museums may be the perfect environments in which to use
constructivist theory and observe meaningful learning. He argues that science
museums and science centres offer rich, multi-sensory experiences, interaction
with perceptible and tangible objects, thereby creating an impetus for change
in the personal meaning of experience. However, Osborne (1999: 9) in reply
to Jeffery-Clay, cautions the museum world, reminding readers that
constructivism is an epistemology, not a strategy, and that 'solutions to these
complex problems of museum learning will not emerge through the uncritical
adoption of the cloak of constructivism'. However, what appears to be clear
and uncontested in the informal science education literature is that attention
needs to be directed towards the learner, so that the learner is the centre of all
learning: 'put simply, to teach a learner about science it helps not only to know
something about science but also to know something about the learner'
(Osborne, 1999: 9).
Theories of Multiple Intelligences
Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences (1985, 1997) has often been
cited in the museum world literature, particularly with reference to science
museums and science centres, as a framework for engaging visitors by
appealing to a range of intelligences. His original theory encompasses seven
intelligences: linguistic, logical/mathematical, spatial, musical,
bodily/kinesthetic, intrapersonal and interpersonal, each describing a unique
20 Erminia Pedretti
cognitive style for understanding, interpreting and organizing phenomena.

Such a pluralistic view of learning challenges psychological conceptions of a
single factor determining intelligence, as implied by traditional IQ or other
psychological tests (Hein, 1998; Rennie & McClafferty, 1996). More recently,
Gardner (1997) has extended his work to include 'natural, spiritual or
existential intelligences,' while Goleman's (1995) book speaks to 'emotional
intelligence' as an emerging modality of intelligence. Self-awareness, empathy,
self-control, zeal, persistence, the ability to motivate oneself, compassion and
the arts of listening, resolving conflicts, and cooperation are part of what
Goleman calls 'emotional intelligence'. These latter works are particularly
useful in the context of exhibits that are issues-based or controversial in nature.
Installations like A Question of Truth, Mine Games, and Science in American
Life, often challenge or provoke visitors, calling upon natural, spiritual,
existential and emotional intelligences, as the production, sanctity and
authority of scientific knowledge are questioned.
The Affective Domain
Interest in the affective domain in informal learning environments is growing

(Alsop & Watts, 1997; Meredith, Fortner, & Mullins, 1997), as non-formal
science education facilities become recognized as being uniquely suited to
facilitate affective learning. Discounting emotional or affective responses, is to
exclude consideration of a fundamental part of the learning that takes place in
science in both formal and informal settings. In a recent call for papers (2000)
to contribute to a Special Issue of the International Journal of Science
Education, guest editors Watts and Alsop claim that while recent research has
acknowledged other dimensions to learning, there has been almost exclusive
attention paid to the cognitive with only a few attempts to describe and discuss
the affective. Emotional and affective dimensions of learning are central to
visitors' learning and understanding of science, particularly evident in light of
recent installations that examine contemporary and often controversial science
and technology issues.
The need for a greater awareness of the major components of learning
(particularly in the affective domain) is evident in recent studies. For example,
Meredith et al. (1997) describe a heuristic model of learning (referred to as the
Meredith Model) for non-formal science education environments. The model
includes a sequence of events occurring in the affective responses of learners in
informal educational experiences, and identifies factors that may influence
individual events within this sequence (factors such as experience, knowledge,
intellect, long-term affective dispositions, motivational state and reward value

of the stimulus). As a conceptual framework for guiding practitioners and
researchers to achieve an enhanced understanding of affect, the model is
helpful.
Alsop and Watts (1997) report on four case studies of inhabitants from a
small rural village in England, as they investigate informal learning around the
issue of radiation and radioactivity. Building on Strike and Posner's (1982)
model of conceptual change (that matter to be learned must be judged as
'intelligible', 'fruitful' and 'plausible' by the learner), Alsop and Watts

incorporate issues of 'affect', 'conation' and 'self-esteem', as critical to
personalized learning. The affective domain describes the learners'
engagement with a topic and is best described by 'how "germane" or
personally relevant it is; how "salient" how prominent, or arresting it is within
the learning environment; and also how "palatable", how agreeable, how
savory the material is' (Alsop & Watts, 1997: 639). The conative dimension
is concerned with questions such as: How can I use that knowledge? Does it
empower me to act? Put another way, the conative entails three dimensions:
'the level to which learners are able to "trust" their understandings; the quality
of "control" they have over the use of knowledge and the degree of its
applicability, and how "actionable" is the knowledge' (640). The final
component considers the learners' self-esteem, and includes issues of
confidence, autonomy and image (the perception learners have of themselves
in relation to science). In summary, their model of learning moves from a
cognitive emphasis model, to one that incorporates social and affective
domains. In the authors' view, the unremitting bias toward the cognitive
neglects other dimensions of learning. Thus school and non-school
environments need to consider science as part of life-long learning, which
means paying particular attention to the presentation of science to the general
public. In the museum world, traditional displays or exhibitions might very
well make science colourful, fun, and even entertaining. However, Alsop and
Watts work begs the question of how informal science installations might
address conative dimensions. An issues-based approach or paying attention to
NOS perspectives in informal settings, is proving to be one way of
accomplishing these goals.
However, the 'emotional' element of these exhibitions is also subject to
scrutiny and contention. For example, in designing the confinement box (in A
Question of Truth) that worked as a metaphor for the coffin-sized sleeping
quarters used in the forced transport of people from Africa to the Americas
during the slave trade, McLaughlin (1998: 41) explains that 'both within the
institution and among our public, people were calling on us to stop the move
22 Erminia Pedretti
to such a radical, "real," emotional experience'. The fact that the confinement
box with its audio about the story of the slaves being transported was the most
talked about (and visited) exhibit element suggests that visitors may begin to
reflect not only on the possibilities of science, but also the repercussions of
scientific experimentation (e.g., eugenics, slavery, intelligence testing,
sterilization).5 Stories about decisions of design and visitor response (i.e.,
Gieryn, 1988 writing about the Enola Gay), speak to the importance of the
emotional element in visitor experiences at a science centre.
Issues of Communicating Controversy
Representations of science and technology have historically been imbued

with a sense of optimism (i.e., museums, science centres, mass media), and
although that optimism still exists, it is tempered by a recognition of the perils
and pitfalls of scientific knowledge (Durant, 1996). Science museums and
science centres are becoming increasingly aware of the role that they play in
portraying and conveying science and technology - in all their complexity and
controversy - to the public. The following section examines issues related to
communicating controversy to the public.
Developing issues-based, nature of science exhibitions
The five case studies presented earlier in this paper are only a few of many
innovative and thought provoking exhibitions that have been developed in an
effort to address contemporary science and technology issues (see for example,
What about Aids at the Franklin Institute Science Museum; the Science Box
Series at the Science Museum in London, to name two more). If the public
agenda for science and technology is shifting towards a more critical appraisal
of these institutions and practices, then what are the implications for science
centres and science museums? Many agree (Appleby, 1999; Arnold, 1998;
Cannon-Brookes, 1997; Cartmill & Day, 1997; Cooks, 1999; Durant, 1996;
McLaughlin, 1999; MacDonald, 1996; MacDonald, 1998; MacDonald &
Silverstone, 1992; Noble, 1995) that museums and science centres can no
longer avoid hosting controversial exhibitions or installations. Arguably, these
exhibitions are difficult to bring to fruition. For example, the team responsible
for A Question of Truth worked (and struggled) for five years to gain and
secure approval, conduct research for the content of the exhibit, and design
and build it. What does a review of recent literature reveal by way of assisting
these public forums in developing issues-based or nature of science exhibits?
Although there are no foolproof methodologies a few suggestions and

recommendations emerge in the literature.
Solomon (1994) and Michael (1992) clearly suggest that in order to
investigate the ability of the public to express considered opinions, participate
in decisions and/or actions, it is necessary to find a topic or issue that touches
people closely. Therefore, situations need to be set up in which: '1) people feel
able to discuss together 2) a worthwhile controversial issue is presented, and
3) there is access to knowledge of various kinds relating to the issue' (Solomon,
1994: 104). Many of the example installations cited draw on these principles
and have allowed for public discussion, controversy and access to multiple
perspectives in science and technology.
Durant (1996: 159-160) offers four general principles for addressing this
'revolution' in non-school settings. Science centres and museums should: find
ways of maintaining an appropriate balance between past and present in their
galleries and public programmes; find as many different ways as possible of
involving visitors in science and technology; think carefully about the 'tone of
voice' in which they communicate with their visitors (i.e., thinking about
credible alternatives to the scholarly, school masterly, authoritarian voice such
as the questioner, the evaluator, the critic, etc.); and be braver in their choice
of exhibition topics and interpretive techniques. Cooks (1999: 18) offers
another set of guidelines for those interested in developing and touring
potentially controversial exhibitions: believe in what you're doing; prepare
your museum; reach out to your community; host a preview and invite your
potential enemies; and learn from the stories of people who have already
hosted the exhibit.
Mintz (1995) specifically examines science museums and issues
education, and considers how these public institutions might communicate
controversy. The publication is based on the discussions of an invitational
conference set up to explore the role of issues education in science museum
sites.6 The report claims that issues exhibitions serve valuable functions by:
providing much needed information; involving visitors in the decision-making
process; fostering critical thinking skills and interaction among visitors;
underscoring the real world relevance of science and technology; and
empowering visitors to explore their own feelings on a complex topic.
However, challenges involved in developing science and technology related
issues exhibitions are identified, such as the following: 1) issues are not
phenomena-based, and they can be difficult to communicate with hands-on
interactive exhibits; 2) science museum exhibitions are almost always 'random-
access' media; 3) few science museums can consistently provide an intensive
staff presence in an exhibition; 4) subject matter is intrinsically difficult; 5)
24 Erminia Pedretti
issues are rarely simple; and 6) illuminating complex issues in an exhibition

often requires a significant amount of text - written, in cartoons, on computer,
or in videos. However, the report concludes with a strong endorsement for
issues-based exhibitions in science centres and museums.
Tales to Tell and the Issue of Advocacy

Once a science centre or museum has agreed to issues-based installations, the

thorny question of multiple viewpoints and advocacy rears its head. Should
science centres or museums advocate particular positions? Should they remain
unbiased, carefully presenting multiple viewpoints? Which viewpoints?
Whose viewpoints? Can a 'balanced' exhibition really exist? What is the
relationship between the development of an exhibition and uncritical
endorsements espoused by funders? Some issues are easier for science centres
and museums to endorse, for example, energy efficiency, habitat protection,
appropriate and sustainable technology, strategies and behavioral changes to
slow the spread of disease such as AIDS, substance abuse, smoking, nutrition
and exercise. However, for issues such as cloning, genetic reproduction,
nuclear warfare, nuclear power, and genetically modified foods, there seem to
be many more tales to tell - a multitude of perspectives - all riddled with
complex moral and ethical repercussions.
In the five case studies presented here, issues relating to advocacy, balance,
and controversy played themselves out - amongst science centre staff, other
stakeholders, and at times with the public. For example, Mine Games was
heavily subsidized by a mining industry, causing concern amongst staff and the
public. The exhibition was accused by some to be pro-mining rather than
neutral in its presentation. Similarly, the Enola Gay exhibition met with great
opposition from the American Legion and the American Veteran organization
precisely because of distinctive ideological tilts. What is clear from these
examples is that the telling of science and technology narratives to the public
requires balance, and multiple viewpoints. However, at the same time balance
is not easy to achieve, and indeed some would argue that balance is impossible.7
Mandates and Missions - What do Visitors Want and Expect?
Any discussion about issues education in science centres or museums begs the
question: how will visitors react? There is considerable controversy regarding
visitor attitudes and opinions about issues-based programming and exhibitions
(Cannon-Brookes, 1999; Mintz, 1995). Do visitors (the casual visitor or the

school group) expect 'the truth' at a science centre or museum? Are they
uncomfortable with representations of multiple viewpoints, open-ended
exploration, value perspectives, or unresolved questions? How do they
interpret controversy among scientists themselves? For example, at the Mine
Games exhibition, the Hot Seat gallery was successful with students and
teachers. However, casual visitors were reluctant to engage in public
discussion about a potentially contentious and controversial topic, and
therefore the gallery was modified (see Pedretti, 1998). In another study,
Borun (cited in Mintz, 1995) collected visitor data from a biotechnology
exhibition at the Franklin Institute. Her findings suggests that the public
expects issues to be taken up in a setting like a science centre, however they
also expect information to be provided, and a conclusion to be reached. Many
visitors felt 'uncomfortable' and 'uneasy', and said: 'If we can't believe
scientists, who can we believe?' (Borun, cited in Mintz, 1995: 5). In a study
conducted by Pedretti, McLaughlin, MacDonald and Gitari(in press), fifty
people were interviewed at length regarding their experience at A Question of
Truth. Generally, the researchers found the public to be accepting, applauding
the science centre's efforts to demystify and deconstruct the practice of science,
and provide a social cultural context. These findings were also supported by
an analysis of 3444 exit comment cards. Eighty four percent wrote
overwhelmingly positive comments, although a number of interviewees and
comment cards suggested that the exhibition did not belong in a science centre,
and was in fact 'anti-science' (Pedretti, Livingstone, & Soren, in press).
Similar anti-science sentiments can be found surrounding the controversy
over the Science in American Life exhibition. Commentators and reviewers in
such publications as Science and The Washington Post expressed conflicting
views of the exhibition. Some found it anti-science as it presented a negative
view of the impact of science on American life, while others felt that it was a
fair presentation of the relationships between science and society. The Enola
Gay exhibition was halted and never came to be as originally intended. In the
Birth and Breeding exhibition over 600 visitors voluntarily filled out an
exhibition evaluation form. According to these data (Arnold, 1998: 188),
three themes emerged: '1) issues, ideas and voices had been left out of the
exhibition; 2) certain individuals or organizations were given too much space
or too sympathetic a hearing; and 3) had the exhibition lived up to its title
claim of actually dealing with the politics of reproduction?'
In summary, there seems to be a paradox. On one hand, science centres
and museums promote affective goals expressed in slogans such as 'feel the fun'
or 'where science is fun,' and that is what the public expects. Although issues
26 Erminia Pedretti
can inspire an emotional response, they are not necessarily 'fun'. They can be
difficult and painful, raising sensitive and profound questions about science
and its relationship to science. Yet, at the same time, the public agenda is
shifting towards a reappraisal and critique of science, thus forcing science
centres and museums to shift and re-evaluate their role in public education and
the re/presentation of science.
ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF RE/PRESENTING SCIENCE: MORE SHIFTS

AND CHALLENGES
In addition to recent interactive installations that explore and often

communicate socio-scientific controversy, science centres and museums are
increasingly turning to alternative forms of re/presenting science and
technology to the public. These alternative forms constitute part of the shift in
informal science settings, and include: drama and role play; interactive
computers and simulations; and the use of the web.
Drama and Role Flay
One way of ensuring that 'subtle points of interpretation do not languish in

unnoticed arrangements of objects or unread text panels is to present ideas
through the mouths of real people - lecturers, guides and actors' (Arnold,
1996: 69). The use of drama - the human touch - compensates for the more
impersonal nature of most exhibits. Drama allows for subtle and multiple
interpretations of science in society and can effectively demonstrate the
progress and persecution of science (Arnold, 1996; Beetlestone et al., 1998;
Farmelo, 1992; Farmelo & Carding, 1997, Ucko, 1995). Drama serves to
evoke emotion, passion, speculation about how science is used in society, and
opens up possibilities for engaging in moral and ethical discussion. In short,
drama can effectively stir the emotions of visitors thus creating memorable
experiences (Bywaters & Richardson, 1993; Hughes, 1993; Kavanagh, 1992).
The Alexander Fleming Laboratory Museum tells the narrative of the
man and scientist, and the discovery and development of penicillin. Through
a realistic reconstruction of Fleming's laboratory, and a group of volunteer
guides who lead visitors in Fleming's footsteps, the story is brought to life. By
telling the rudiments of a story and by sharing their own personal experiences
of Fleming and the impact of penicillin, the visitor's imagination is set free.
Another example is the exhibition Heroes Just Like You at the City Life
Museum in Baltimore, USA. In the context of a 1990s research laboratory, the
stage is set for dramatic performances. Local actors portray these scientists -
and not just the famous, unreachable idols - but the many people/scientist
involved who often go unheard and unnoticed. These actors, utilizing the
audience's own slang, attitudes and street wise humour, depict for example, the
woman experimenter, or the technician who is ambivalent about his
employment hopes and prospects. These characters - frustrations, and
achievements that the young, mostly black, audiences can directly relate to -
are the heroes (see Pearce, 1996). Through drama, the museum hoped to
engage young, teenage audiences and encourage them to think about science as
a possible place of employment, as something that they too could achieve.
Other examples include: face-to-face encounters with scientists during Vespers
at the Science Museum in Barcelona, Science Theatre as piloted by the
PanTecnicon Project in Cardiff (Beetlestone, 1998), The Long Cold Summer,
a key component of Greenhouse Earth an exhibition on global climate
developed by the Association of Science-Technology Centers and The Franklin
Institute, and the Museum of Science in Boston and its issues-oriented science
theatre productions which address potentially explosive topics such as fetal
tissue research. Notably, the use of drama and role play utilize NOS and/or
STSE perspectives, for these perspectives provide powerful science and society
connections.
A variation on the use of drama is the use of narratives or stories to
engage diverse audiences. The Arizona Science Center, supported by the
National Science Foundation has been investigating the role of narrative as a
medium. Four science-oriented stories about solar energy were written by
Native American, African American, Hispanic, and feminist writers in
collaboration with scientists and science writers. These stories will be
integrated into the solar energy exhibits at the center (Schauble, Leinhardt, &
Martin, 1998).
Interactive Computers and Simulations
Interactive computers and computer simulations are another effective tool for
bringing science to life (Arnold, 1996; Bradburne, 1998; Janousek, 2000).
Many science centres and science museums make use of interactive computer
programmes and simulations, as in the Mine Games exhibition described
above. According to Bradburne (1998), installations such as Mine Games
have shown that computer games can be an effective way to create what
Csiksentmihalyi calls the 'flow experience'. In the Science for Life exhibition
at the Wellcome Trust, visitors explore the nature of scientific research (an
important part of the NOS emphasis) mainly through a computer game
28 Erminia Pedretti
(Arnold, 1996; Ballinger, 1993). Visitors are invited to conduct their own
scientific inquiry and locate the cause of a mysterious green spot diseases. The
game is simple and yet powerful as it integrates serendipitous events that often
influence the inquiry, and illustrates the perseverance, hard work and
sometimes luck needed to conduct research. Although the emphasis appears
to be on games and game play, visitors do make the connection between the
game activity and the related science, technology or society issue (Bradburne,
1998).
Discovering the Web
It has been argued that museums and science centres must change if they are to
meet the challenges of the next century. Part of the challenge means embracing
new technologies that enhance communication by making it more effective and
accessible to a wider visitor population. The obvious use of a technology is the
Internet and the World Wide Web. Nearly half of the science centres in North
America have established sites on the World Wide Web (and are collaborating
with schools to provide resources and activities through the web), while
elsewhere in the world Scandinavia forges ahead, followed closely by Australia,
then France, with India lagging behind (Beetlestone et. al., 1998).
Most institutions have now developed their own web site, (Beetlestone et
al., 1998; Diaz & Egido, 1999; Rennie & McClafferty, 1996), although
functions range from using these sites as simple promotional tools, to vehicles
for ambitious communication programmes, to educational tools, to the
development of 'virtual museums'. Examples of some home pages include:
Science Museum in London (www.nmsi.ac.uk/); the Exploratorium
(http://www.exploratorium.edu/); Ontario Science Centre (http://www.
osc.on.ca), Singapore Science Centre (http://www.ncb.gov.sg.vsc/ssc/ssc.htm/);
Heureka Finnish Science Centre (www.heureka.fi/) and countless other
Northern American and European science centres and museums. Fewer of
these web sites also serve as educational tools, aimed at providing teachers
with a tool for their daily classes, and assisting them in planning visits to
science museums and science centres. A particularly striking example is the
recently formed National Museum of Science and Industry (www.nmsi.ac.uk/)
which is an amalgamation of the National Railway Museum in York, the
National Museum of Photography, Film and Television in Bradford and the
Science Museum in London. This site is developing a special link through a
project called Students' and Teachers' Educational Materials (STEM). The
project aims to use the Internet as a means of communication between pupils
and teachers, as a way to prepare visits to the science museums, and to provide
a forum for exchange between various educational centres and the museum
(see www.nmsi.ac.uk/stem2/oyster.pl?stem/stemintro).
The potential to create linked group learning activities via the Internet
is tremendous. Institutions like the Discovery Creek Children's Museum of
Washington, D.C. and the Laboratorio dell'Imaginario Scientifico, ArsLab
in Linz, demonstrate the remarkable possibilities for exploring STSE and
NOS perspectives across communities of learners. Discovery Creek
Children's Museum of Washington, D.C. (http://www.discoverycreek.org) is

an example of science museum that has used the web as part of its
educational programming, to help children across schools learn about
stewardship and the environment. Fawkner (1997) describes how (through
partnerships) they negotiated access for the museum and ten local schools in
the area, developed web-based programming to supplement their gallery, and
provided teacher training on using the various programmes and computer
technology. Journey North (http://www.learner.org/kl2) enabled students
through North America to track wildlife migration and spring's journey
across the continent. Students could monitor the migration of the monarch
butterfly, the humpback whale, and the Canadian goose and predict the
arrival of spring through animal sightings in their hometown. They could
then report and exchange information among classrooms via the Internet.
Another programme 'Tracking Tulips' was developed to allow students to
track the emergence of spring by observing tulip growth. When students
arrived at the museum - for hands-on outdoor and indoor environmental
science activities - they were generally better prepared to learn and had a
strong foundation of knowledge (Fawkner, 1997). The Ars Electronic Centre
in Linz has a newly opened exhibit - the virtual garden. But there is also a
real garden in Linz with real earth and plants. This real garden is tended and
watered by a community of virtual gardeners via the Internet. This kind of
exhibition invites interesting possibilities: the development of exhibitions in
local environments, but shaped by global communities of learners. These
latter examples seem to suggest that even through the web, exploration of
issues-based science, NOS and STSE perspectives across communities is
possible.
In summary, informal learning environments must maximize strengths of
various media - 'real things for the immediacy and specificity, public space for
its conviviality, computers for their ability to engage the player, the internet for
its access to global resources of both information and interaction' (Bradburne,
1998: 132).
30 Erminia Pedretti
RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES - TRADITIONS AND

TRENDS
Many earlier museology studies adhere to a traditional quantitative research

paradigm rooted in psychology and behaviourism. These studies often present
demographic or quantitative data for conducting audience and evaluation
research, employing such methods as tracking and timing sheets, structured
observations, questionnaires and surveys. Frequently, 'sample sizes tend to be
small, and methodology and statistical analyses often leave much to be desired'
(Miles & Tout, 1992: 27). Studies are often characterized by information
regarding the most frequent type of visitor, the most regular visitor, age groups,
and holding power of exhibitions (Fernandez & Benlloch, 2000). 8
However, more recent studies reflect a changing view, incorporating
attributes from different paradigms and traditions (e.g., Davallon,
Gottesdiener & Poli, 2000; Falk & Dierking, 1995; Fernandez & Benlloch,
2000; Hein, 1998; Soren 1999, in press; Soren, Lord, Nicks & Spencer, 1995).
Soren, Lord, Nicks and Spencer (1995) write about the use of a 'multimethod
approach' that provides procedures for collecting descriptive and interpretive
data, using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Through the use of
three case studies: a visitor audit at the Tate Gallery in London, and front end
evaluations for the Canadian Science Fiction exhibition, and the Ontario
Science Centre, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of multi-method
strategies for determining visitor expectations and meaning-making related to
a museum visit. Soren (in press) provides an excellent review of qualitative and
quantitative methods for audience research based on studies cited in recent
international publications. Front-end and formative visitor studies, summative
visitor studies and longer-term impact visitor studies are detailed. Booth
(1998) provides a thorough and detailed analysis based on visitor information
needs at the Science Museum in London. The study incorporates a multiple
method approach to construct a comprehensive picture of the visitor, visitor
needs, and visitor learning, within the science museum and through remote
access.
A coherent field of research on informal learning in museums has not yet
developed (Schauble, Leinhardt & Martin, 1998). However, shifting
institutional identities, less emphasis on the evaluative functions of research,
and the establishment of fruitful collaborations among different institutions,
contribute to a changing research agenda in informal science learning
environments. For example: the International Museum and Library Services
(IMLC) in the United States, is a forum for researchers and practitioners who
are interested in learning and meaningful personal change in informal contexts
- spanning art, history, and science. Participants represent a variety of

contexts: universities; art museums; history museums; children's museums;
science centres and museums; zoos; historical reconstructions; arboretums; and
botanical gardens. Other organizations dedicated to informal learning and the
museum experience include: American Association of Museums (AAM);
Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC); European Collaborative
for Science, Industry, and Technology Exhibitions (ECSITE - a professional
organization of science centres, now consisting of almost 200 members from
35 countries, see www.ecsite.net); the Museum Education Roundtable (MER);

the European Museum Forum; and the International Committee of Museums
of Science and Technology (CIMUSET).
Museum professionals and academic researchers (educational,
sociological and cultural) are now working together to construct a cumulative
knowledge base (Fernandez & Benlloch, 2000; Hein, 1998; Schauble et. al.,
1998). Museum research that was once dominated by the field of psychology,
has now shifted to increased interest in academic research, including sociology,
anthropology and education. For example, in November of 1997, Science
Education journal published a special issue dedicated entirely to informal
science education. Since then, a special section in each issue provides a much
needed dialogue amongst science educators, researchers and informal
educators, a dialogue that is in its infancy (Dierking & Martin, 1997). The
National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), and the
American Educational Research Association (AERA), are two examples of
educational research communities that support special interest groups focusing
on informal learning environments and science education. Indeed, Friedman's
(1995) call to create an academic home for informal science education, seems
to be taking root.
The growing collection of science education and informal learning
environment articles is testimony to an emerging interdisciplinary dialogue.
Research articles come from such journals as: Canadian Journal of Science,
Mathematics and Technology Education; Daedalus; Elementary School
Journal; International Journal of Science Education; Journal of Museum
Education; Journal of Research in Science Teaching; Journal of Science Teacher
Education; Museum International; Museum Management and Curatorship
and Science Education. Specific research includes studies related to: exhibit
design (Boisvert & Slez, 1994, 1995; Falk, 1997; Schauble & Bartlett, 1997),
the nature of learning in non-school settings (Alsop & Watts, 1997; Brown,
Oliver, & Bazlev, 1997; Durant, 1992; Falk, Moussouri & Coulson, 1998;
Fisher, 1997; Johnston & Rennie, 1995; Korpan, Bisanz, Bisanz, Boehme, &
Lynch, 1997; McNamara & Serell, 1993; Meredith et al., 1997; Paquin &
32 Erminia Pedretti
Allard, 1998; Paris, 1998; Ramey-Gassert & Walberg, 1994; Ramey-Gassert,

1997), family behaviour and visits (Borun, Chambers, Dristas & Johnston,
1997; Brown, 1995; Crowley 2000; Dierking & Falk 1995; Sandifer, 1997),
visitors' understanding of scientific phenomenon (Allen, 1997; Anderson,
Lucas, Ginns, & Dierking, 2000; Feher & Rice, 1988; Stevens & Hall, 1997),
gender and the science museum experience (Greenfield, 1995; Kremer &
Mullins, 1992; Ramey-Gassert, 1996) and school visits encompassing
elementary, secondary, pre-service and inservice classes (Ault & Herrick, 1991;
Gilbert & Priest, 1998; Griffin & Symington, 1997; Lucas, 2000; Smith,
McLaughlin, & Tunnicliffe, 1998). The variety of educational and museology
publications clearly speak to the coming together of different communities, as
well as to the use of multi-method approaches for conducting inquiry.
Other fruitful collaborations include the growing number of partnerships
between science centres, museums and industry (Dori & Tal, 2000) and science
centres and schools (Bruckerhoff & Bruckerhoff, 1996; Fawkner, 1997;
McCreedy et. al., 1996; Pedretti & Forbes, 2000; Ramey-Gassert et al., 1994).
In the Ramey-Gassert, Walberg and Walberg 1994 review article, the authors
argue the need for science museums to become unique partners with schools and
colleges to enhance science literacy. Their research indicates that more
collaborative research efforts are needed in the area of science education in non-
formal settings, which would provide science learning opportunities for students
and teachers, as well as provide further opportunities for educational researchers.
Future Research Agendas
'Museums do not, by and large, aim exclusively or even primarily for

improvement on measure of subject matter knowledge but instead tend to
emphasize wider goals better captured by terms like enculturation, development,
attitude, and socialization' (Schauble et al., 1998: 3). These wider goals are
reflective of Hodson's (1998) framework that describes the wider goals of
scientific literacy as: learning science (knowledge acquisition), doing science
(hands-on engagement) and learning about science (NOS and STSE perspectives).
In order to research these wider goals, and provide a framework for a
cumulative research agenda in informal learning contexts, Schauble, Leinhardt
and Martin (1998) provide a useful socio-cultural framework and three
accompanying integrating themes: 1) learning and learning environments; 2)
interpretation, meaning and explanation; and 3) identity, motivation and
interest. These three themes are embedded in a socio-cultural theory, which
emphasizes that meaning emerges in the interplay between individual acting in
social contexts and the mediators - including tools, talk, activity structures,
signs and symbol systems - that are employed. Allen (1998) in response,
elegantly describes how socio-cultural theory impacts on the science museum
world and research by: 1) emphasizing the 'process of learning, not simply
outcomes'; 2) focusing on a research agenda that recognizes learning as
'meaning-making,' rather than in terms of behaviour; 3) recognizing museums
as 'places of dialogues,' including implicit dialogues where our exhibits and
objects speak for us; 4) encouraging researchers and practitioners to engage in
real collaboration, 'pursuing an agenda together'; and 5) recognizing the power
of narrative to explore the impact of stories on visitors' interest and

motivation. Such frameworks offer researchers effective lenses through which
to explore the complexities of informal learning environments.
Socio-cultural frameworks are particularly helpful when considering
exhibitions that speak to contemporary science and technology issues. Such
installations often evoke strong emotional responses in visitors, public interest
groups, and exhibition designers and curators (as evident in the five case study
examples provided) as attitudinal, emotional, ethical, and cultural perspectives
implicitly and explicitly play themselves out. It is not enough simply to conduct
surveys or collect quick demographic information about visitors. Research
concerning contentious and complex socio-scientific issues calls for extensive
and probing data collection procedures. Research efforts should consider socio-
cultural theory, as well as draw from other paradigms and perspectives such as
ethnography, critical theory, case studies, feminism, racialized discourses and
ethnic epistemologies, life histories, narrative and testimonio (see Denzin &:
Lincoln, 2000). As Schauble et al., (1998: 6) suggest: 'researchers also recognize
that people tell themselves stories about their experiences and that these stories
knit the meaning and significance of events they encounter'. Recent references
(Falk & Dierking, 1995; Soren, 1999) to long-term impact studies also suggest
an innovative way to explore visitors' meaning making around science,
technology and controversy. Long-term impact studies attempt to contact
science centres and science museums visitors long after they have returned from
these cites. Communication might be through the Internet, telephone
interviews, surveys etc. The development of frameworks and methodologies
from other fields may very well prove to be useful to the informal learning and
museology communities, particularly in the midst of shifting paradigms.
CONCLUSION
Science centres and museums are increasingly positioning themselves as

socially valuable resources for conveying information to the public about
34 Erminia Pedretti
science and technology and its social implications. Promoting public debate
about science (as opposed to learning more scientific facts) entails
understanding the nature, workings and achievements of science, as well as
critiquing the institution and practice of science. This evolution in the informal
science community includes shifts from: traditional 'object displays' to
contemporary 'socio-scientific displays'; conventional beliefs to constructivist
beliefs; and behaviouristic frameworks to social cultural frameworks.
Although much more difficult to bring to fruition, public institutions are
creating exhibitions that situate science and technology in a complex

sociocultural web, moving beyond representations of science as a collection of
uncontestable facts. Finally, science centres and museums, and science
education communities are working together and moving into each others'
worlds, in the interests of science, research, and the general public.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author would like to thank Phaedra Livingstone, a doctoral candidate at

OISE/UT, for her research assistance, and Dr. Barbara Soren for her insightful
comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
NOTES
1 For a more robust and thorough account of historical patterns and development of science
museums and science centres see MacDonald's (1998) seminal book The politics of display:
museums, science and culture, and Pearce's (1996) Exploring science in museums.
2. For a review of A Question of Truth see Fawkner, 1998.
3. For a review of Mine Games see Bradburne, 1997.
4. See Hooper-Greenhill (1999) for a more thorough examination of the educational role of
museums.
5. See Pedretti et al (in press) for an exploration into visitors' perspectives on the nature of
science and visitor response to A Question of Truth.
6. The conference was held in Washington, D.C. in January 1994, sponsored by the National
Science Foundation (NSF), and organized by the Issues Laboratory Collaborative, United
States.
7. For further discussion concerning advocacy and the telling of science and technology
narratives to the public, see Gieryn (1998), MacDonald (1998) Mintz (1995), and Pearce
(1996).
8 For a thorough review of early visitor studies (1900-1950) see Hein (1988).
REFERENCES
ABD-EL-KHALICK, F., BELL, R.L., & LEDERMAN, J.G. (1998) The nature of science and
instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436.
AIKENHEAD, G.S. (1997) Student views on the influence of culture on science. International
Journal of Science Education, 19(4), 419-428.
AIKENHEAD, G., & SOLOMON, J.(1994) STS education: International perspectives in reform.
New York: Teachers College Press.
ALLEN, S. (1997) Using scientific inquiry activities in exhibit explanations. Science Education,
81(6), 715-734.
ALLEN, S. (1998) Sociocultural theory in museums: Insights and suggestions. journal of Museum
Education, 22(28c3), 8-9.
ALSOP, S. & WATTS, M. (1997) Sources from a Somerset village: A model for informal learning
about radiation and radioactivity. Science Education, 81(6), 633-650.
ALTERS, B. (1997) Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39-
56.
ANDERSON, D., LUCAS, K.B., GINNS, I.S. & DIERKING, L.D. (2000) Development of
knowledge about electricity and magnetism during a visit to a science museum and related
post-visit activities. Science Education, 84(5), 658-679.
APPLEBY, J. (1999) The diffusion of knowledge and controversy. Journal of Museum Education,
23(3), 7-9.
ARNOLD, K. (1996) Presenting science as product or as process: Museums and the making of
science. In S. Pearce (Ed.) Exploring science in museums. London: Althone Press, pp. 57-
78.
ARNOLD, K. (1998) Birth and breeding: politics on display at the Wellcome Institute for the
History of Medicine. In S. MacDonald (Ed.) The politics of display, museums, science,
culture. New York: Routledge, pp. 183-196.
AULT, C.R.JR. & HERRICK, J. (1991) Integrating teacher education about science learning with
evaluation studies of science museum exhibits. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2(4),
101-105.
BEETLESTONE, J.G., JOHNSON, C.H., QUIN, M. & WHITE, H. (1998) The science center
movement: Contexts, practice, next challenges. Public Understanding of Science, 7(1), 5-26.
BOOTHE, B. (1998) Understanding the information needs of visitors to museums. Museum
Management and Curatorship, 17(2), 139-157.
BOISVERT, D.L. & SLEZ, B.J. (1994) The relationship between visitor characteristics and
learning-associated behaviors in a science museum discovery space. Science Education,
78(2), 132-148.
BOISVERT, D. & SLEZ, B. (1995) The relationship between exhibit characteristics and learning-
associated behaviours in a science museum discovery space. Science Education, 79(5), 503-
518.
BORUN, M., CHAMBERS, M.B., DRISTAS, J. & JOHNSON, J.I. (1997) Enhancing family
learning through exhibits. Curator, 40(4), 279-95.
BRADBURNE, J. (1997) Mine Games. La Revue des Arts et Metiers.10, Spring.
BRADBURNE, J.M. (1998) Dinosaurs and white elephants: The science centre in the 21st century.
Museum Management and Curatorship, 17(2), 119-137.
BROWN, C.A. (1995) Making the most of family visits: Some observations of parents with
children in a museum science centre. Museum Management and Curatorship, 14(1), 65-71.
BROWN, C.A., OLIVER, A. & BAZLEV, M. (1997) Helpers, children and hands-on exhibits: A
study of the interactions between school helpers and children in a museum science gallery.
Museum Management and Curatorship, 16(1), 80-87.
36 Erminia Pedretti
BRUCKERHOFF, C. & BRUCKERHOFF, T. (1996) The Connecticut Museum Collaborative for

Science Education: 1995-1996 Annual Report. Chaplin, CT: Curriculum Research and
Evaluation.
BYBEE, R. (1991) Science-technology-society in science curriculum: The policy-practice gap.
Theory into Practice, 30(4), 294-302.
BYWATERS, J. & RICHARDSON, P. (1993) Breathing life into exhibits. Museums Journal,
93(October), 30.
CANNON-BROOKES, P. (1997) The presentation of contemporary science and technology in
museums and science centres. Museum Management and Curatorship, 16(2), 201-203.
CARTMILL, R.S. & DAY, L.L. (1997) Prevention of substance abuse: Can museums make a
difference? Curator, 40(3), 197-210.

CAULTON, T. (1998) Hands-on exhibitions: Managing interactive museums and science centres.
New York: Routledge.
CLOUGH, M. (1997) Strategies and activities for initiating and maintaining pressure on students'
naive views concerning the nature of science. Interchange, 28(2&3), 1191-204.
COBERN, W.W. (1998) Socio-cultural perspectives on science education: An international
dialogue. London: Kluwer Academic.
COOKS, R. (1999) Is there a way to make controversial exhibits that work? Journal of Museum
Education, 23(3), 18-20.
CROWLEY, K. (2000) Building islands of expertise in everyday family activity: Musings on family
learning in and out of museums. Museum Learning Collaborative Report #MLC-05.
Available at http://mlc/lrdc.pitt.edu/mlc
CSIKSENTMIHALYI, M. & HERMANSON, K. (1995) Intrinsic motivation in museums: Why
does one want to learn? In J.H. Falk & L.D. Dierking (Eds.) Public institutions for personal
learning: Establishing a research agenda. Washington, D.C.: American Association of
Museums, pp.67-78.
DANILOV, V.J. (1982) Science and technology centres. Cambridge, MT: MIT Press.
DAVALLON, J., GOTTESDIENER, H. & POLI, M.S. (2000) The 'expert visitor' concept.
Museum International, 52(4), 60-64.
DENZIN, N.K., & LINCOLN, Y.S. (2000) Handbook of qualitative research 2nd edition.
London: Sage.
DIAZ, L.A.B. & EGIDO, A. (1999) Science museums on the internet. Museum International,
51(4), 35-41.
DIERKING, L.D. & FALK, J.H. (1995) Family behaviour and learning in informal science
settings: A review of the research. Science Education, 78(1), 57-72.
DIERKING, L.D. & MARTIN, L.M.W. (1997) Guest editorial: Introduction. Science Education,
81(6), 629-631.
DORI, Y.J. & TAL, R.T. (2000) Formal and informal collaborative projects: Engaging in industry
with environmental awareness. Science Education, 84(1), 95-113.
DUCKWORTH, W D . (1994) Museum-based science for a new century. In Research within the
museum: Aspirations and realities. Proceedings of an international symposium held at the
National Museum of Natural Science, Taichung, Taiwan, 13-14 December 1993. Taichung:
National Museum of Natural Science, pp. 13-19.
DURANT, J. (1992) Introduction. In J. Durant (Ed.) Museums and the public understanding of
science. London: Science Museum & Committee on the Public understanding of Science,
pp.7-11.
DURANT, J. (1996) Science museums, or just museums of science? In S. Pearce (Ed.) Exploring
science in museums. New York: Routledge, pp. 148-164.
DRIVER, R., LEACH, J., MILLAR, R., & SCOTT, P. (1996) Young peoples' images of science.
Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
EHRMAN, E. (1993) Review of birth and breeding. Social History Curators Group News
(Winter), 9-10.
FALK, J.H. & DIERKING, L.D. (1992) The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback
Books.
FALK, J.H. & DIERKING, L.D. (Eds.) (1995) Public institutions for personal learning:
Establishing a research agenda. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
FALK, J.H. (1997) Testing a museum exhibition design assumption: Effect of explicit labeling of
exhibit clusters on visitor concept development. Science Education, 81(6), 679-688.
FALK, J.H., MOUSSOURI, T. & COULSON, D. (1998) The effect of visitor's agendas on
museum learning. Curator, 40(2), 106-20.
FALK, J.H., & DIERKING, L.D. (2000) Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the
making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
FARMELO, G. (1997) From big bang to damp squib. In R. Levinson & J. Thomas (Eds.) Science
today: Problem or crisis? London: Routledge, pp.175-191.
FARMELO, G. (1992) Drama on the galleries. In J. Durant (Ed.) Museums and the public
understanding of science. London: Science Museum, pp.45-49
FARMELO, G. & CARDING, J. (Eds.) (1997) Here and now: Contemporary science and
technology in museums and science centres. London: Science Museum.
FAULKNOR, A. (1998) A question of truth. MUSE, xvi(2), 16-17.
FAWKNER, L.B. (1997) One museum discovers the web. Journal of Museum Education, 22(1),
12-14.
FEHER, E., & RICE, K. (1988) Shadows and anti-images: Children's conceptions of light and
vision. Science Education, 72(5), 637-649.
FERNANDEZ, G. & BENLLOCH, M. (2000) Interactive exhibits: How visitors respond.
Museum International, 52(4), 53-59.
FINDLEN, P. (1994) Possessing nature: Museums, collecting, and scientific culture in early
modern Italy. Los Angeles: University Press.
FISHER, M.S. (1997) The effect of humor on learning in a planetarium. Science Education, 81(6),
703-713.
FRIEDMAN, A.J. (1995) Creating an academic home for informal science education In J. Falk &;
L. Dierking (Eds.) Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda.
Washington DC: American Association of Museums, pp. 135-140.
GARDNER, H. (1985) Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
GARDNER, H. (1997) Are there additional intelligences? The case for naturalist, spiritual and
existential intelligences. In J. Kane (Ed.) Education, information and transformation.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
GIERYN, T.F. (1998) Balancing acts: Science, Enola Gay and history wars at the Smithsonian. In
S. Macdonald (Ed.) The politics of display: Museums, science, culture. New York:
Routledge, pp.197-228.
GILBERT, J.K. & PRIEST, M. (1997) Models and discourse: A primary school science class visit
to a museum. Science Education, 81(6), 749-762.
GOLEMAN, D. (1995) Emotional intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ. New York:
Bantam Books.
GREENFIELD, T.A. (1995) Sex difference in science museum exhibit attraction. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 32(9), 925-938.
GRIFFIN, J. & SYMINGTON, D. (1997) Moving from task-oriented to learning-oriented
strategies on school excursions to museums. Science Education, 81(6), 763-779.
HARWIT, M. (1996) An exhibit denied: Lobbying the history of 'Enola Gay'. New York:
Copernicus.
38 Erminia Pedretti
HEIN, G.E. (1998) Learning in the museum. New York: Routledge.

HODSON, D. (1998) Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
HODSON, D. (1992) In search of a meaningful relationship: An exploration of some issues
relating to integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science
Education, 14(5), 541-562.
HOFSTEIN, R., & ROSENFELD, S. (1996) Bridging the gap between formal and informal
science learning. Studies in Science Education, 28, 87-112.
HOOPER-GREENHILL, E. (Ed.) (1999) The Educational Role of the Museum. 2nd edition. New
York: Routledge.
HUGHES, C. (Ed.) (1993) Perspectives on museum theatre. Washington, DC: American

Association of Museums.
JANOUSEK, I. (2000) The 'context museum': Integrating science and culture. Museum
International, 52(4), 21-24.
JEFFERY-CLAY, K.R. (1999) Constructivism in museums: How museums create meaningful
learning environments. Journal of Museum Education, 23(1), 3-7.
JEGEDE, O.J. (1997) School science and the development of scientific culture: A review of
contemporary science education in Africa. International Journal of Science Education,
19(1), 1-20.
JOHNSTON, D.J. & RENNIE, L.J. (1995) Education: Perceptions of visitors' learning at an
interactive science and technology centre in Australia. Museum Management and
Curatorship, 14(3), 317-325.
KAVANAGH, G. (1992) Dreams and nightmare: Science museum provisions in Britain. In J.
Durant (Ed.) Museums and the public understanding of science. London: Science Museum,
pp.81-88.
KORPAN, C.A., BISANZ, G.L., BISANZ, J., BOEHME, C. & LYNCH, M.A. (1997) What did
you learn outside of school today? Using structured interviews to document home and
community activities related to science and technology. Science Education, 81(6), 651-62.
KOSTER, E.H. (1999) In search of relevance: Science centers as innovators in the evolution of
museums. Daedalus, 28(3), 277-296.
KREMER, K.B. & MULLINS, G.W (1992) Children's gender behavior at science museum
exhibits. Curator, 35 (1), 39-48.
KUHN, T. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
KUMAR, D. & CHUBIN, D. (2000) Science, technology, and society: A sourcebook for research
and practice. New York: Kluwer.
LEDERMAN, N.G. (1992) Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review
of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
LUCAS, A. (1994) STS beyond school: Public perceptions and sources of knowledge. In J.
Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.) STS education: International perspectives in reform. New
York: Teachers' College Press, pp.111-119.
LUCAS, K.B. (2000) One teacher's agenda for a class visit to an interactive science center. Science
Education, 84(4), 524-544.
MACDONALD, R.M. (1996) Museums and controversy: What can we handle? Curator, 39(3),
167-169.
MACDONALD, S. (Ed.) (1998) The politics of display: Museums, science, culture. New York:
Routledge.
MACDONALD, S., & SILVERSTONE, R. (1992) Science on display: The representation of
scientific controversy in museum exhibitions. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 69-87.
MCCOMAS, W E (1998) The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

MCCOMAS, W.F., CLOUGH, M., & ALMAZROA, H. (1998) The role and character of the
nature of science. In W.F. McComas (Ed.) The nature of science in science education,
rationales and strategies. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.3-40.
MATTHEWS, M. (1998) Constructivism and science education: A philosophical examination.
London: Kluwer.
MCCREEDY, D., BORUN, M., MOSATCHE, H.S. & WAGNER, K.F. (1996) A collaboration for
education. Science and Children, 8, 38-41.
MCLAUGHLIN, H. (1998) The pursuit of memory: Museums and the denial of the fulfilling
sensory experience. Journal of Museum Education, 23(3), 10-12.
MCMANUS, P. (1992) Topics in museums and science education. Studies in Science Education,
20, 157-182.
MCNAMARA, P., & SERELL, B. (1993) What research says about learning science museums:
vol.2. Washington, DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers.
MEREDITH, J., FORTNER, R.W. & MULLINS, G.W. (1997) Model of affective learning for
nonformal science education facilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(8), 805-
818.
MICHAEL, M. (1992) Lay discourses of science: Science-in-general, science-in-particular and self.
Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(3), 313-333.
MILES, R. & TOUT, A. (1992) Exhibitions and the public understanding of science. In J. Durant
(Ed.) Museums and the public understanding of science. London: Science Museum, pp.27-
33.
MINTZ, A. (1995) Communicating controversy: Science museums and issues education.
Washington, DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers.
MOLELLA, A. & STEPHENS, C. (1996) Science and its stakeholders: The making of 'Science in
American Life'. In S. Pearce (Ed.) Exploring Science in Museums, London: Athlone Press.
NOBLE, J.V. (1995) Controversial exhibitions and censorship. Curator, 38(2), 75-77.
OGUNNIYI, M.B. (1997) Adapting western science to traditional African culture. International
journal of Science Education, 10(1), 1-9.
ONTARIO SCIENCE CENTRE. (1997) A Question of Truth educational guide.
OSBORNE, J.F. (1999) Constructivism in museums: A response, Journal of Museum Education,
23(1), 8-9.
PALMQUIST, B., & FINLEY, F. (1997) Preservice teachers' views of the nature of science during
a postbaccalaureate science teaching program, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
34(6), 595-616.
PAQUIN, M. & ALLARD, M. (1998) L'impact de l'agent d'éducation muséale sur l'apprentissage
d'ordre cognitif et affectif chez des élèves de la quatrième année du primaire. Canadian
journal of Education, 23(1), 16-28.
PARIS, S.G. (1998) Situated motivation and informal learning, Journal of Museum Education,
22(2 & 3), 22-26.
PEARCE, S. (1996) Exploring science in museums. London: Athlone Press.
PEDRETTI, E. (1996) Learning about science, technology, and society (STS) through an action
research project: Co-constructing an issues-based model for STS education. School Science
and Mathematics, 96(8), 432-440.
PEDRETTI, E. (1997) Septic tank crisis: A case study of science, technology and society education
in an elementary school. International journal of Science Education, 19(10), 1211-1230.
PEDRETTI, E. (1998) Learning about science and social issues beyond schools: Perspectives on
adopting an issues-based approach to exhibit design in science centres. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Diego,
CA, USA.
40 Erminia Pedretti
PEDRETTI, E. (1999) Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and
social responsibility in schools and science centres through an issues-based approach. School
Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181.
PEDRETTI, E., & HODSON, D. (1995) From rhetoric to action: Implementing STS education
through action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 463-486.
PEDRETTI, E. & FORBES, J. (2000) A question of truth: Critiquing the culture and practice of
science through science centres and schools. In D. Hodson (Ed.) OISE Papers in STSE
Education, 1, 87-106. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
PEDRETTI, E., LIVINGSTONE, & SOREN, B.J. (in press). Visitor comments and the socio-
cultural context of science: public perceptions and the exhibition A Question of Truth.
Museum Management & Curator ship.

PEDRETTI, E., MACLAUGHLIN, H., MACDONALD, R., & GITARI, W. (in press) Visitor
perspectives on the nature and practice of science: Challenging beliefs through 'A Question
of Truth'. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education.
POSNER, G., STRIKE, K., HEWSON, P., & GERZOG, W. (1982) Accommodation of a scientific
conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
RAMSEY, J. (1993) The science education reform movement: Implications for social
responsibility. Science Education, 77(2), 235-258.
RAMEY-GASSERT, L. & WALBERG, H.J.I. (1994) Re-examining connections: Museums as
science learning environments. Science Education, 78(4), 345-363.
RAMEY-GASSERT, L (1996) Same place, different experiences: Exploring the influence of gender
on students' science museum experiences. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8),
903-912.
RENNIE, L.J. & MCCLAFFERTY, T. (1996) Science centres and science learning. Studies in
Science Education, 27, 53-98.
SANDIFER, C. (1997) Time-based behaviors at an interactive science museum: Exploring the
differences between weekday/ weekend and family/ nonfamily visitors. Science Education,
81(6), 689-701.
SCHAUBLE, L. & BARTLETT, K. (1997) Constructing a science gallery for children and families:
The role of research in an innovative design process. Science Education, 81(6), 781-793.
SCHAUBLE, L., LEINHARDT, G. & MARTIN, L. (1998) A framework for organizing a
cumulative research agenda in informal contexts. Journal of Museum Education, 22(2 & 3),
3-7.
SIMMONS, I. (1996) A conflict of cultures: Hands-on science centres in UK museums. In S.
Pearce (Ed.) Exploring science in museums. London: Athlone Press, pp.79-94.
SMITH, M. & SCHARMANN, L. (1999) Defining versus describing the nature of science: A
pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83(4),
493-509.
SOLOMON, J. (1994) Knowledge, values, and the public choice of science knowledge. In J.
Solomon and G. Aikenhead (Eds.) STS education: International perspectives in reform. New
York: Teachers' College Press, pp.99-111.
SOLOMON, J. (1993) Teaching science, technology and society. Philadelphia: Open University
Press.
SOREN, B.J., LORD, G., NICKS, J. & SPENCER, H. (1995) Triangulation strategies and images
of museums as sites for lifelong learning. Museum Management and Curatorship, 14(1), 31-
46.
SOREN, B.J. (1999) Meeting the needs of museum visitors. In G.D. Lord & B. Lord (Eds.) The
manual of museum planning.2nd edition. London: Stationary Office, pp.55-67.
SOREN, B.J. (in press) Qualitative and quantitative audience measures. In G.D. Lord & B. Lord
(Eds.) The manual of museum exhibitions. London: Stationary Office.
SMITH, W.S., MCLAUGHLIN, E. & TUNNICLIFFE, S.D. (1998) Effect on primary level
students of inservice teacher education in an informal science setting. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 9(2), 123-142.
STEVENS, R., & HALL, R. (1997) Seeing tornado: How video traces mediate visitor
understandings of (natural?) science museum. Science Education, 81(6), 735-748.
TURNER, S., & SULLENGER, K. (1999) Kuhn in the classroom, Lakatos in the lab: Science
educators confront the nature-of-science debate. Science, Technology & Human Values,
24(1), 5-30.
UCKO, D. (1995 ) Preface. In T. Bridal and S. McCormick (Eds.) Science on stage. Washington,
DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers.

WATTS, M., ALSOP, S., ZYLBERSZTAJN, A., & MARIA DE SILVA, S. (1997) Event-centred
learning: An approach to teaching science, technology and societal issues in two countries.
International Journal of Science Education, 19(3), 341-351.
WELLINGTON, J.J. (1998) Interactive science centres and science education. Croner's Heads of
Science Bulletin, 16, Surrey: Croner Publications Ltd.
YAHYA, I. (1996) Mindful play! Or mindless learning!: Modes of exploring science in museums.
In S. Pearce (Ed.) Exploring science in museums. New York: Routledge, pp. 123-147.
ZOHLBERG, V. (1998) Museums as contested sites of remembrance: The Enola Gay affair. In S.
MacDonald & G. Fyfe (Eds.) Theorizing museums. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.69-82.
Contact address:
Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning
OISE, University of Toronto
252 Bloor St. W. Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5S 1V6.

Pedretti - 2002 - T. Kuhn Meets T. Rex Critical Conversations and New Directions in Science Centres and Science Museums-Annotated

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pedretti - 2002 - T. Kuhn Meets T. Rex Critical Conversations and New Directions in Science Centres and Science Museums-Annotated

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]

On: 21 April 2015, At: 05:56

Studies in Science Education

T. Kuhn Meets T. Rex: Critical

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560176

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

T. Kuhn Meets T. Rex: Critical

Conversations and New Directions in

matters in informal science settings, the informal science community has

political trappings (Cooks, 1999; Farmelo & Carding, 1997; McLaughlin,

A BRIEF HISTORY OF SCIENCE MUSEUMS AND SCIENCE CENTRES

This paper focuses on science museums and science centres as two

increased travel, voyages of discovery, and more systematic forms of

Typologies for Classifying Science Centres and Museums

Science museums which traditionally collect, preserve and interpret, are

number of external scientific, social, cultural and political contexts. Koster

NATURE OF SCIENCE AND SCIENCE CENTRE AND MUSEUM

Nature of Science (NOS) Perspectives

(McComas, Clough and Almazroa, 1998). Accordingly, NOS is

Science, Technology, Society and Environment (STSE) Perspectives

to phenomenon-based exhibitions. However, recent discussions and

SCIENCE MUSEUMS AND SCIENCE CENTRES: CRITICAL

reflect the dominant traditional way of presenting and representing science.

Hodson, 1992; MacDonald, 1998) lead to what I would identify as the

Recent Critical Exhibitions

Many of these critical exhibitions are issues-based, inviting visitors to

reconceptualize their role and purpose.

Case 1: A Question of Truth

In contrast to the unequivocal statements about the nature of science

The exhibit focuses on three major themes:

1. Frames of Reference explores the distinctly human face of science, and

2. Bias in Science and Society examines a long history of oppression and

A Question of Truth begins to examine discursive relationships. As the

Case 2: Science in American Life

Science in American Life opened in April 1994, at the Smithsonian's National

highly interactive: 'one-quarter of the floor space is devoted to laboratory

Case 3: Birth and Breeding

The Exhibition Birth and Breeding: The Politics of Reproduction in Modern

London from October 1993 to February 1994. This exhibition attempted to

materials, leaflets, letters, books, and photographs. More specifically these

Case 4: Mine Games

At Science World (Vancouver, Canada), the notion of science centres acting as

Case 5: Enola Gay

SCIENCE CENTRES AND MUSEUMS: CRITICAL ISSUES

The 'public understanding of science' has become a guiding principle for

Issues of Engagement and Learning

The above described exhibitions, unlike phenomenon-based or interactive

Motivation and Context

Csiksentmihalyi and Hermanson's (1995) work on 'flow' and intrinsic

the process of intrinsic motivation in science centres or museum settings. The

construction and reconstruction of these interweaving contexts. Recently, Falk

and physical contexts. Intentionally, the model is more descriptive than

One of the underlying characteristics of the case study exhibitions described

'Museum staff increasingly argue that the educational role of the

He then proceeds to describe three kinds of issues required to develop an

Theories of Multiple Intelligences

cognitive style for understanding, interpreting and organizing phenomena.

The Affective Domain

Interest in the affective domain in informal learning environments is growing

intellect, long-term affective dispositions, motivational state and reward value

'intelligible', 'fruitful' and 'plausible' by the learner), Alsop and Watts

Issues of Communicating Controversy

Representations of science and technology have historically been imbued