Abstract
Despite the fact that the majority of museum visitors are often very young children, much research in museums focuses on pre-teen learners (ages 8–12). Our goal in this study was to investigate the behaviors of children aged 5–8 during a visit to a science exhibition. We aim to develop a methodology to assess children’s levels of engagement with the interactive exhibits and how the participation of explainers (mediation) affected this engagement. Our working hypothesis was that different activities (and different kinds of mediation) would generate different levels of engagement. We recorded videos from 13 groups of 5- to 8-year-old children visiting “Aventuras pelo corpo humano,” an interactive exhibition about the human body. A large data set including thousands of excerpts of video-taped activity was analyzed using collaborative, online, qualitative data analysis software (Dedoose). The results suggest that the type of mediation overrides the design of the exhibition when it comes to children visitors’ experiences and that, despite their emphasis on promoting visitor engagement, explainer mediation strategies often represented deficit and banking models of teaching and learning, highlighting the importance of training for explainers that goes beyond content training and focuses on strategies of mediation that promote learner agency and protagonism. This study confirms previous empirical insights, which can help guide the design of future exhibitions as well as professional development of explainers and science communicators.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Carletti, C., & Massarani, L. (2015). Explainers of science centres and museums: a study on these stakeholders in the mediation between science and the public in Brazil. Journal of Science Communication, 14, A02–A02.
Christidou, V. (2006). ‘Greek students’ science-related interests and experiences: gender differences and correlations. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1181–1199.
Dawson, E., Calabrese Barton, A., Dierking, L., Greenberg, D., Archer, L., & Seakins, A. (2015). Pathways in informal science learning: a practice-research brief. London: King’s College London.
Dewey, J. (1916/1966). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
Dickson, D. (2005). The case for a ‘deficit model’ of science communication. SciDev.Net. http://www.scidev.net/global/communication/editorials/the-case-for-a-deficit-model-of-science-communic.html#sthash.57BagBvO.dpuf. Accessed 25 November 2016.
Engestrom, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2002). Lessons without limit: how free-choice learning is transforming education. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
Freire, P., & Freire, A. M. A. (1994). Pedagogy of hope: reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Giroux, H., & Freire, P. (2005). Critical pedagogy and cultural power. In H. A. Giroux (Ed.), Border crossings: cultural workers and the politics of education (pp. 123–136). New York: Routledge.
Kisiel, J., Rowe, S., Vartabedian, M. A., & Kopczak, C. (2012). Evidence for family engagement in scientific reasoning at interactive animal exhibits. Science Education, 96(6), 1047–1070.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewenstein, B.; Brossard, D. (2010). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: using practice to inform theory. In Kahlor, L., Stout, P. (orgs.). Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication (pp. 11–39). New York, London: Routledge.
Matusov, E. (2011). Authorial teaching and learning. In E. J. White & M. Peters (Eds.), Bakhtinian pedagogy: opportunities and challenges for research, policy and practice in education across the globe (pp. 21–46). New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
Mayo, P. (2013). Museums as sites of critical pedagogical practice. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 35(2), 144–153.
McCallie, E. et al. (2009). Many experts, many audiences: public engagement with science and informal science education. A CAISE inquiry group report. http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=eth_fac. Accessed 11 December 2017.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: people, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Neves, R., Massarani, L. (2016). O olhar das crianças sobre uma exposição interativa (Children’s view over in interactive exhibition). In Massarani, L., Neves, R., Amorim, L. (Orgs.). Divulgação científica e museus de ciência: O olhar do visitante. (Science communication and science museums: Visitor’s perspective) (pp. 65–72). Rio de Janeiro: Museu da Vida/Casa de Oswaldo Cruz/Fiocruz; Redpop.
Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejía Arauz, R., Correa-Chávez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 175–203.
Rowe, S. (2016). Re-authoring research conversations: beyond epistemological differences and toward transformative experience for researchers and educators. Cultural Studies in Science Education Special Issue, 2020. Vision: Envisioning a New Generation of STEM Learning Research, 11(1), 183–193.
Rowe, S.; O’Brien, S. (2016). Pesquisa sobre aprendizagem em museus: um campo em busca de foco? (Research on learning in museums: a field looking for a focus?). In Massarani, L., Neves, R., Amorim, L. (Orgs.). Divulgação científica e museus de ciência: O olhar do visitante (Science communication and science museums: Visitor’s perspective) (pp. 9–21). Rio de Janeiro: Museu da Vida/Casa de Oswaldo Cruz/Fiocruz; Redpop.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Publishing.
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. (2004). The self in cultural-historical activity theory: reclaiming the unity of social and individual dimensions of human development. Theory & Psychology, 14(4), 475–503.
White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Acknowledgments
This study is a partnership between House of Oswaldo Cruz/Oswaldo Cruz Foundation - Fiocruz (Brazil) and Oregon State University (USA), and linked to the Brazilian Institute of Public Communication of Science and Technology.
Funding
This study was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and the Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Supporting Research in the Rio de Janeiro State (Faperj). This material is also based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation under Grant No. ESI 1114741.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The project was approved by the Fiocruz Ethics Committee. And every child included in the study had parental permission to participate.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Massarani, L., Chagas, C., Rocha, L. et al. Children’s Protagonism in a Science Exhibition: an Exploratory Study of an Exhibition in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Res Sci Educ 51, 1307–1324 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09886-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09886-w