In July/August 2006, ASTC Dimensions examined new social technologies—blogs, podcasts, wikis, RSS feeds, and other “Web 2.0″ communication tools that allow Internet users to personalize their online experiences. That was then; this is now. Moving past MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube, the buzz today is about immersive digital experiences, mixed realities, avatars, and the 3-D Web. Researchers document the benefits of video gaming and design “serious” games to support educational or therapeutic ends. In the multi-user online world Second Life, your custom-designed alter ego can visit a museum, take a class, view a webcast, or interview for a job. Seniors can’t get enough of digital brain games, second graders play Zoo Tycoon, and Nintendo’s whole-body Wii gaming console flies off the shelves. How does all of this relate to learning in science centers? In this issue, we’ll explore the new digital immersive technologies and learn how museums are using them to create experiences for the tech-savvy audiences of the 21st century.

CONTENTS
• Immersive Digital Interactives: An Emerging Medium for Exhibitions, by Eric Siegel
• Digital Games as Learning Platforms, by Heather Choy
• Magical Science: Evaluating the Impact of Immersive Exhibits, by Daniel Tan and Sharlene Anthony
• From 2-D to 3-D Web: The Science Center in ‘Second Life,’ by Paul Doherty and Robert J. Rothfarb
• Embedding Virtual Reality in Exhibitions: A Perspective from Paris, by Marc Girard
• Digital Planetariums for Astronomy Education, by Ka Chun Yu and Kamran Sahami
• Virtual Reality and Immersive Environment Resources
• Changes in Attitudes: Designing for Visitor Expectations, by Nina Simon
• Otronicon: Celebrating Digital Media, by Jeff Stanford

Download the full issue.

Subscribe/order back issues

Museums are already using 3-D visualization, animation, and even single-user virtual worlds in their real-world exhibits and programming. Why then go to the trouble of creating multi-user, online virtual spaces? Is there something about these social 3-D spaces that enables online visitors to experience science exhibits differently than via 2-D web sites and interactives?

Designing for multi-user-enabled web sites requires consideration of real-time interpersonal communication. In the context of current Internet methods, this could be user-created personas/identities, chat, messaging, videoconferencing, and/or games. And even if you don’t attempt to create games or game-like experiences online, you will need to think about online content and exhibit design in the context of how multiple visitors might experience those things together.

Despite those concerns, and others related to costs and technical requirements, many museum professionals feel a need to create a more social Internet and to widen their online exhibit aesthetic to include more of this element. Multi-user 3-D virtual worlds allow “face to face” interaction between web users around the world, in spaces that are representational, abstract, or completely imaginary. They also offer a way for museums to stay in touch with community members and casual audiences and to design and present content that’s relevant for and interesting to those audiences in a personal way.

Predating Web 2.0, most 3-D virtual worlds have, at the core of their user-experience design possibilities, built-in tools and methods for collaboration and user-created content. As a developer of content and experiences in virtual worlds, you will need to think about balancing the elements of 3-D interaction, real-time communication, and user-created content. Each of these elements is familiar and powerful by itself. By bringing them together, and by designing content and experiences that leverage how they work together, you can create personalized and social experiences and learning opportunities for your online visitors.

At the Exploratorium, media creators and educators have been experimenting in Second Life (SL), a rapidly growing (9 million+ registrants to date), massively multi-user, 3-D virtual world and online community. This unique space is not a game, but an open-ended environment where all the content is created by the members of the community, or “residents.” (Note: To access the secondlife:// URLs referenced in this article, you must have the SL client software installed on your computer.)

SL makes experiences of the 3-D Web accessible not only to content creators, but also to a web-savvy public. In SL, users navigate their “avatars” (virtual-world characters) through the world’s virtual landscape. Through a spatialized audio system, SL residents can now speak to one another using microphones connected to their computers. This mix of real-world and virtual-world realities allows participants to further personalize their experience.

Moving into Second Life
On March 29, 2006, the Exploratorium presented a live webcast covering a total eclipse of the sun as viewed from Side, Turkey. Telescopic views of this rare sun/moon/earth alignment, created in collaboration with NASA’s Sun-Earth Connection Education Forum, were broadcast with scientific commentary via satellite, television, and Internet streaming to hundreds of thousands of viewers worldwide. We also created an overnight program at our museum in San Francisco where the public came to view the live eclipse webcast.

This event seemed a perfect opportunity to try our first venture in Second Life. We streamed the program into several locations in SL and created a companion set of in-world exhibits. The combination of live streaming video, a unique viewing environment, interactive exhibits, and in-world hosts to answer questions provided a virtual-world experience that mirrored our real-world museum programming. The 65 SL residents who attended remained actively engaged throughout the one-hour presentation. This showed us that a live webcast-viewing experience in-world could attract and engage SL visitors.

Our next SL undertaking was to create the ’Splo, an industrial-looking space in an in-world urban setting filled with more than 100 3-D exhibits (secondlife://Midnight City/ 176/58/26). Some of these exhibits were new to the Web; many would be hard to make in a real-world museum.

Encouraged by positive visitor experiences at the ’Splo, as well as by the response to the eclipse event, we were inspired to establish a larger SL presence for the Exploratorium and develop relationships with other educational content creators working in-world. We have since built an entire island called Sploland (secondlife://Sploland/ 175/75/25), filled with both serious and humorous exhibits, and have hosted two more live SL events.

The first of these, in November 2006, was an astronomy presentation offered in conjunction with the National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO) at Kitt Peak, Arizona. We offered a live streaming webcast of telescopic views of the transit of Mercury as it crossed the face of the sun. In SL, the event was hosted at the International Spaceflight Museum (secondlife: //Spaceport Alpha/48/78/24/) by ’Splo avatar-scientist Patio Plasma (an Exploratorium physicist and educator in real life), who demonstrated the phenomena using an interactive, 3-D planetary-orbit model.

We also presented a Pi Day event on March 14, 2006, jointly celebrating Einstein’s birthday and the number pi (3.14). In the real world, the Exploratorium has hosted Pi Day events for more than a decade. This year, staff built dozens of Pi Day exhibits specifically for SL, including PiHenge (like Stonehenge, but with pi-lithons replacing trilithons) and a giant Pi sculpture that spit out cherry pies. Avatars could try “hands-on” activities, such as building a Pi glass, a cylindrical drinking glass as tall as its circumference. Exploratorium visitors could watch the SL goings-on in our real-world theater and ask questions about the virtual world, and Pi Day events at the museum were streamed into SL, where avatars could query staff avatars about them. In San Francisco, visitors were served slices of pizza and dessert pies; in Second Life, avatars received free Pi Day T-shirts.

Most recently, we have launched Exploratorium Island (secondlife:// Exploratorium/163/124/23), a multipurpose space where we plan to build and prototype exhibits, present public programs, and offer workshops from our teacher-education programs. Exploratorium Island and Sploland are part of a group of science-technology-themed SL locations called SciLands (http://scilands.wordpress.com), a sprawling campus where avatars can stroll (or fly!) around and engage in experiences across a range of topics. SciLands includes both real and virtual institutions; it has a governing board to oversee the addition of new content areas.

What you can do in SL
So what kinds of online exhibits can a virtual-world science center offer that visitors can’t get in real life? Here are a few ideas we’ve tried with success.

1. Move the visitor around
In the real-world Exploratorium, there’s an exhibit where visitors walk up to an upside-down photo of TV personality Vanna White. At first, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with Vanna, but when you rotate her photo, you see that her eyes and mouth have been cut out and placed upside-down in her otherwise right-side-up face. The effect is grotesque and disturbing. The exhibit shows that people analyze pictures of faces in pieces, looking at the eyes and mouth independently. In our SL museum, we’ve made two copies of the exhibit. In one, the viewer rotates the photograph as in the real world; in the other, the avatar gets rotated instead—a memorable experience for SL residents.

Another exhibit allows avatars to either watch the orbit of Comet Halley, or ride the comet as it races away from the sun, slows near aphelion, and finally plunges back toward the sun. Most choose to ride the comet.

2. Change the scale of objects
Unlike in the real world, it’s easy to change the scale of natural phenomena in the virtual world. For example, to help visitors understand eclipses, we built a scale model of the earth/moon system in SL. We hung an earth model in space (easier to do in a virtual world!) and, at the same scale, hung a moon model 30 meters (100 feet) away. People visiting the exhibit, including real-world astronomers, have noted that they had no true appreciation of Earth’s scale relative to the moon before encountering this exhibit.A virtual world can also offer access to the very small: One inspired SL resident built a model of the Brownian motion phenomenon, which describes the random motion of particles. In his model, four cubes that would be a few nanometers across in the real world tumble and spin inside a transparent cube 10 meters on a side. Taking advantage of what we’d learned about a virtual visitor’s scale-of-reference experience, we suggested allowing avatars to ride the cubes. The view from a particle undergoing Brownian motion and rotation in 3-D makes for a wild ride.

3. Make exhibit information portable
Museums in the real world often struggle with how to present interpretive materials with their exhibits. Too much information for one visitor might not be enough for another. In a virtual museum, you can create rich textures offering visual or textual information adjacent to or on exhibits, or you can attach “notecards” that avatars can read and discard or save in an “Inventory” file. Notecards can be linked to other notecards or to web pages, offering deeper levels of detail, examples, references, or links to real-world museums.Both notecards and objects can have scripts attached that offer mementos or artifacts. You can give a visiting avatar a talking book or a T-shirt or hat customized with museum graphics. The ability to integrate textual and other external web content into the virtual experience is an active area of development for Linden Labs, creators of SL.

4. Let visitors experience dangerous situations, or take them to remote locations.
It can be tricky to explore the inside of a nuclear reactor core in real life, but avatars in Second Life need have no fear flying around inside a 3-D model of a working nuclear reactor. Bringing live audio and video from expeditions into SL simulations offers a unique way to engage visitors and connect them to activities at inaccessible locations.

Exhibits and social interaction
Visitors to virtual-world museums are more than just usernames; they’re “residents” who can express an identity and demonstrate interest in a museum’s ideas and exhibits. Through design, voice, chat, and gesture, this persistence of identity and level of expressiveness allows both museum staff and visitors to make important social connections that, for many, are not as easily made or maintained on the 2-D Web.

Because virtual-world audiences typically enjoy interacting with one another, public programs that offer shared experiences add an important dimension that can increase your level of contact with the SL community. And watching residents interact with your content in real time opens an opportunity to prototype exhibits and spaces and get important feedback about use patterns and good design. Although audience numbers in virtual worlds are not yet as large as those on big web sites, the time that individuals spend with in-world content can be significant. Visitors to the ’Splo, currently about 200 per week, spend a lot of time viewing and playing with exhibits—more if they visit with other avatars, a trend we plan to study.We’ve found that ongoing interaction with other residents—including other museums and educators—is important to staying in touch with the community and keeping content and programming relevant. New members can take advantage of guilds, groups, and communities of interest already organized in SL, or start their own. In addition, designing exhibits and programs that allow tech-savvy content makers to build things, share images and video, or make machinima (movies created entirely in virtual worlds; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machinima) can keep visitors returning to your space.

Paul Doherty is co-director of the Teacher Institute, and Rob Rothfarb is director of web development at the Center for Learning and Teaching, the Exploratorium, San Francisco, California. This article is adapted from “Creating Museum Content and Community in Second Life,” in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds), Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings (Archives & Museum Informatics, March 2007.) The Exploratorium has set up the Museum Virtual Worlds web site to share information and resources with museums and other educational institutions about theory, design, and practices of developing content and experiences in multi-user virtual worlds.

 IS SECOND LIFE RIGHT FOR YOUR MUSEUM?

Advantages of getting into Second Life…
• Extends reach of content and community to a growing online audience
• Gets your museum involved in the social aspects of the Internet
• Expands your audience on an international level
• Appeals to Gen X, youth, and gamer cultures
• Allows user-generated content
• Enables collaboration
• Allows wandering/linking/searching activities that promote discovery
• Offers evolving content and social networks that enable emergent patterns and interaction models
• Offers built-in economy for donations and sale of content, merchandise, or event ticketing

Compelling technical features…
• Persistence of objects and identity
• Rich media content support
• Built-in scripting language, possibility of support for new scripting languages
• Ability to interface with external data sources
• Up-to-date hardware capabilities
• In-world building tools that keep costs down and are easy to learn and use
• Infrastructure actively supported and enhanced by developer
• Support for internationalization
• Open-source client that allows development of customized browsers and features
• Active third-party development that contributes to overall platform development growth and extensibility

…And a few disadvantages
• Limited audience compared to other electronic media, including the Web
• Technical barriers to entry (hardware/ broadband requirements; ease of use
• Not yet seamlessly integrated with other web media or virtual worlds
• Openness to live content/content modification and associated consequences, a la Wikipedia
• Moderated events can be challenging
• Can’t accommodate large numbers of participants in a single space
• Overall stability issues.
—P.D. & R.J.R.

From the November/December issue of ASTC Dimensions.

About the image: Second Life residents, known as avatars, view the total solar eclipse streamed live by the Exploratorium on March 29, 2006. © The Exploratorium

September/October 2007
IN THIS ISSUE

The IMLS-funded VolTS (Volunteers TryScience) project described in the September/October 2007 issue of ASTC Dimensions is a recent U.S. effort aimed at helping ASTC members forge better relationships with practicing scientists and engineers. But collaborations among content experts and museum educators are nothing new. Such partnerships date back to the founding of the field and continue to strengthen our institutions. Whether as museum volunteers or as partners in grant-funded projects, scientists and engineers welcome the chance to tell the public about their work and contribute to the goal of a “science-literate” society. In this issue, we share some examples of successful projects and examine the factors that make for success (or challenges) when two cultures—research science and informal science education—meet.

CONTENTS

• Where Science Meets the Public: Remembering the Founders of the Field, by Wendy Pollock
• Content and Commitment: Insights from the VolTS Front-End Study, by Renee Miller
• A Passion for Public Engagement, by Eric Marshall
• In the Comfort Zone: Working with Scientists on Exhibition Design, by Sheila Grinell
• The Universe in a Cell: Partnering in a SEPA Project, by Roberta Cooks
• Better Communicators: Postdocs at the Exploratorium, by Kristin Abkemeier and Carolyn Sutterfield
• Portal to the Public: Bringing Scientists and the Public Together, by Lauren Russell and Dennis Schatz
• Making the Right Match: Four Approaches to Collaboration, by Theresa Mattei, Carolyn Sutterfield, Kathy Patterson, and Missy Miller
• Attracting Faculty: Getting Researchers Involved with a University Museum, by Beryl Rosenthal
• Spotlighting Research at Universum, by Cristina Heine

Download the full issue.

Subscribe/order back issues

In November and December 2005, Randi Korn & Associates Inc. (RK&A) conducted a front-end study for the Volunteers TryScience (VolTS) project (see sidebar at end). The evaluators conducted and analyzed 26 in-depth telephone interviews with members of three groups:
• scientists and engineers who volunteer in educational programs outside of science centers
• scientists and engineers who currently volunteer in science centers
• science center staff who work with volunteers.

The volunteers came from both academic and corporate backgrounds; some were retired from full-time employment. Discussion groups were also held with science and engineering professionals who attended a 2006 IEEE conference; these findings, though not presented officially in the RK&A report, did inform the analysis and recommendations.

This article is based primarily on the interviews done with the volunteers and staff who work in science centers. Museums were picked by location, size, and range of volunteer opportunities they offer. The kinds of collaborations represented ranged from advisory panels to one-time lectures to exhibition development. From the observations and recommendations in these interviews emerges a summary portrait of the characteristics that make for a healthy partnership.

Attitudes and motivation

Why would busy scientists and engineers take time out to share their expertise with science center audiences? Most volunteers we interviewed had only positive things to say about informal science education. They praised the inquiry approach of science centers and their outreach to general audiences:
“The value is in the hands-on nature….”
“Science centers do a good job of just giving people access.”
“I know that they have a commitment to the community, so I was happy to get involved when they asked.”

Volunteers expressed a desire to “give back” to the community, but they also saw their role in the museum in specific terms. Some had come to the museum to share their expertise in a certain area of science:
“They asked me to be the champion for that volunteer activity.”
“My role was basically in an advisory capacity, for the science end of things.”

Others saw an opportunity to educate the public about what scientists do:
“I think people think of engineers and scientists as boring; the science center helps the public interact with people doing the jobs.”
“It is all about networking; You’re meeting people and getting to talk about your passion.”

Even for those who, like one NSF-funded researcher, came because their particular project required community outreach, the social element was an important factor:
“Otherwise, I don’t have the opportunity to talk to people about my work outside of work.”
“It made me realize how good it was for me, from a job perspective, to talk to the people you’re trying to serve.”

Interviews with volunteer coordinators revealed that they value equally the role that these expert volunteers play in the science center. “They are able to make real-life science connections,” said one staff member. Said another, “It is extremely important to … show that we are in contact with people doing real work, real research, right now.” In general, museum staff value in their scientist/engineer volunteers what one coordinator called their “instinctively higher regard for and understanding of science and the science process.”

Recruitment

Scientists often have difficulty finding volunteer opportunities aligned with their interests and expertise, tending to rely on word-of-mouth or personal connections. Some suggested that recruiting efforts should come from the top, be explicitly supported by the top, and be addressed to the top:
“You have to have people on the same level talking.”
“Let them meet and talk with the director. Let them know that they’re being invited to be part of a collaborative team.”

Others recommended going through existing channels, such as corporations, graduate-degree programs, or professional societies:
“You’ve got to get people to start volunteering by the time they’re grad students. Make it part of their education.”
“Go speak to the engineering society meetings. African-American graduate fraternities and sororities are typically active in large cities.”

Almost all of the scientists/engineers we interviewed are employed either full- or part-time. With little time to spare, they value clarity about their role in the science center:
“How many hours, what are my interactions, what am I going to get, what do you need from me? Scientists love it if you spell it out…. Then they can actually use it in the grant-writing process, in their annual reports.”
“I need to know exactly what’s expected of me. If [the museum representative] can say, ‘This is the commitment I want; this is your role,’ then the scientist can say, ‘I can do this’ or ‘No, I can’t.’”

Volunteer coordinators identified as major recruiting challenges a lack of funding (“Publicity and marketing … is staff-intensive work.”) and turnover in personnel at partnering companies and universities (“I may have a contact from one year who may not be the same person the next year”).

Like scientists, museum staff saw partnerships with graduate students and postdocs as a promising direction: “There is some leverage that could be gained from giving young scientists in training more interest and skills in communicating more broadly…. We would be moving toward the larger goal of having a more science-literate society.”

Training

Interviews with scientists and engineers revealed a general level of resistance to formal training by museum staff and a lack of interest in direct interaction with museum visitors:
“First of all, [we] don’t believe in training. Scientists have never heard the words ‘professional development.’ Personally as a scientist, I don’t know what that means.”
“Being a scientist, I wanted to just deal with the science…. There was just so much other stuff that went along with it. I wanted to help them deal with the science, interpret the science—nothing more, nothing less.”

Museum staff are aware of these attitudes. “Certain scientists and engineers are great with people,” said one coordinator, “and certain ones are not. What we take advantage of is their interest level … and desire to share knowledge.” Another acknowledged that “there is a perception that we cannot ask them to commit to many hours of training.”
Some scientists admitted they need help in approaching new audiences. “It’s easy to … make assumptions that are invalid simply because you’re not used to speaking to such an audience,” one confessed. “That’s a challenge the museum can help you meet.” But instead of classroom-based training, several suggested a partnering relationship, in which the volunteer would contribute knowledge and passion about content, and the staff person would contribute knowledge about museum practice.

This idea makes sense to museum personnel, too. Some favor “face-to-face” training for scientists and staff on how to collaborate successfully; one wished for an online “repository of great exhibits … or case studies [to show] potential volunteers about successful experiences.” Unlike the volunteers, some staff members expressed a desire for related professional development, particularly in keeping up with science research and best practices.

As with recruiting, finding the time and resources to manage volunteers is a challenge for museum staff, “not so much because of the volunteers but because of the work load and how thin we are spread right now.” As one coordinator said, “Staff do not necessarily have the time to get to know them [the scientists] the way we do with our regular volunteers.”

Nurturing the relationship

Most of the collaborations involving study participants were time-limited. Short-term projects appeal to volunteer scientists because they are manageable and to coordinators because they provide a positive initial exposure to museum culture.

But even more rewarding, some said, are relationships that are sustained and long-term—the kind that become, as one coordinator put it, “necessary to daily operations.” To achieve that goal, mutual understanding and respect are essential. “There are some cultural barriers between museums and scientists, but I think these can be breached,” said a volunteer. “You have to know how to interact with each other.”

One thing on which most agree is the importance of recognition, regardless of the scope of the activity. One scientist said, “It’s the little things that let people know they’re valued…. Once an exhibit is up, bring us in and show it to us. Put our names on a plaque. It’s just a nice gesture.” Another stressed the significance of feedback: “It’s important to have some sense of accomplishment, some evidence….
I’m a scientist. [We like] to know that what we’re doing with our free time matters.”

For staff, appreciation consists not only in providing appropriately challenging work and recognition, but also in demonstrating a commitment to ongoing relationship. “Our volunteer program has a full-time manager, a volunteer association, formal events … all signifying that [they] are a serious business to us,” said one coordinator. “The most important thing for me,” said another, “is to … get buy-in from the volunteer. It is important that the volunteer see what the science center is doing, and what its purpose is, to give them that ownership.”

Formerly a senior research associate at Randi Korn & Associates Inc., Alexandria, Virginia, Renee Miller recently accepted a position as an elementary and middle school science teacher at the Langley School, McLean, Virginia.
Volunteers TryScience: A Fresh Look at a Longstanding Relationship

Scientists and engineers have participated actively in science centers for decades. But many of these partnerships have occurred in isolation, with little chance for others to learn from their example. Even within a given organization, there may be roadblocks to learning from experiences with content experts.

VolunteersTry Science (VolTS) is a partnership among the New York Hall of Science, IBM, ASTC, the Institute of Electrical Engineers (IEEE), and the National Science Digital Library (NSDL) that seeks to facilitate more involvement of scientist and engineer volunteers with informal science education institutions through better communication, training, and resources. Funded in 2005 by the Institute for Museum and Library Services, VolTS represents an opportunity to share stories of exemplary accomplishments and ongoing projects and to initiate a broader conversation, from the perspective of both sides, about effective ways to manage those relationships.

For more details, or to participate in VolTS, contact Eric Marshall, emarshall@nyscience.org.

Researchers who study the human brain and nervous system continue to find connections between environmental sound (both ambient and organized) and behavioral and emotional response. Anthropologists and neuroscientists alike tell us that music has been and remains critical to the development and survival of our species. It seems that people are hard-wired to respond to the quality of sound around us. Yet the auditory environments of science centers do not always reflect that understanding. The July/August 2007 issue of ASTC Dimensions draws on research into acoustics, the brain, and learning, as well as current museum practice, to explore the effect of sound on human experience—with implications for the design of both exhibits and the larger museum environment.

CONTENTS

• Wild Music: Making the Most of Sound in an Exhibition, by Wendy Pollock and J. Shipley Newlin
• Sound Advice: Acoustic Considerations for Exhibit Design, by Andrea Weatherhead
• Designed for Attentive Listening: Dealing with a Challenging Environment, by Eric Dimond
• Wired for Music: The Science of Human Musicality, by Donald A. Hodges
• Composing an Exhibition, by Philip Blackburn
• Heureka’s Music: Sound with a Sociocultural Perspective, by Mikko Myllykoski
• Science Sonatas: Listening to Data, by Stephen Pompea
• Sound Resources

Download the full issue.

Subscribe/order back issues

Sound in an exhibition? Most of the time, exhibition planners think of sound as something to be dampened, controlled, or contained. The very term “sound bleed” suggests exhibits battling for attention in an atmosphere of cacophony.

In planning Wild Music: Sounds & Songs of Life, the exhibition team—an unusual partnership among ASTC, the Science Museum of Minnesota (SMM), and the Music Research Institute at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro—decided to approach sound from an alternative perspective. We would treat it as an element to be tuned and composed, as well as an opportunity to enrich the experience for visitors who are blind or have low vision. Funding from the National Science Foundation, Harman International, and NEC Foundation of America ensured that the team was well positioned for this task.

We also were encouraged by what we were learning from our science advisors who study natural sounds as “soundscapes” (the acoustical equivalents of biomes), not just birdsong extracted from its context or a frog’s call minus its chorusing kin. Why not regard the exhibition in a similar spirit, with an overall and positive approach to acoustics paralleling traditional approaches to visual and spatial design?

Of the many people who provided advice and expertise to guide us on this path, two were especially important in our experiments with sound: Walter Waranka, an access advisor we invited to serve on the exhibition planning team, and Philip Blackburn, the musician who ultimately composed the exhibition’s overall soundscape.

Strategies for interpreting sound

An employment consultant and president of the Minnesota chapter of the American Council of the Blind, Wally Waranka had participated in an ASTC Accessible Museum Practices workshop in 2002. His regular attendance at Wild Music planning sessions helped maintain a focus on the experiences of people with disabilities.

Waranka could see the potential of the subject for people who are blind, as he is. Whale song, bird and insect calls, human music, the physics of sound—all are part of the study of the biological origins of music. There would be plenty to listen to. But assuming we could achieve high-quality sound, how could we ensure that the sounds would make sense to those who can’t read signs? And what experiences could be meaningful for people who are deaf or hard of hearing?

With Waranka’s advice, the developers devised an array of strategies for
interpreting sounds. These included
• Braille and acoustic labels. Standardized locations make these easy to locate.
• Tactile relief models. In one exhibit, for example, whale models are associated with buttons that activate different species’ songs.
• Tactile diagrams. In an exhibit about animal vocalization, visitors can select a tactile sonogram of a bird, mammal, or insect song and insert it into a slot, activating an audio recording. In an exhibit about the human voice (see above), tactile diagrams illustrate the shapes of anatomical airways and working mechanical analogs.
• Experiences of sound as vibration. A spectrum analyzer that works through vibrating metal reeds allows visitors to both feel and see that single sounds are often composed of several frequencies. In the exhibition’s small theater, “bass shaker” speakers bolted under the seats let visitors feel low-frequency parts of the soundtrack, while limiting the spread of these hard-to-contain sounds into the rest of the exhibit space.
• Visual representations of sound. In a working model of a larynx, a fan blows low-pressure air through rubber flaps. By pulling on a control knob, visitors can stretch the flaps and bring them together, producing a sound that varies in pitch with the tension applied. Strobe LEDs help visitors see how vibrations make the sounds they hear—or to see sounds they can’t hear.

After constructing a series of prototypes with Waranka’s advice, we tested them with other consultants who had developed exhibits with people who are deaf and hard of hearing. We also tested prototypes during a session focused entirely on accessible design. This was attended by members of several Twin Cities groups that represent people who have personal and professional experience with disabilities.

Containing and controlling sound

In addition to making individual sound experiences intelligible to a wider range of users, we were committed to creating an overall sound environment that was meaningful and harmonious. With 32 interactive exhibits in a 4,000-square foot space, this required a variety of sound-containment strategies.

From among the more familiar, we adapted several that were best suited to the exhibition’s intent:
• Headphones. Although headphones have drawbacks, our musical consultants persuaded us that there was no way to achieve enough high-quality sound experiences without them. We were encouraged by the example of Seattle’s Experience Music Project, which makes extensive use of headphones. We chose lightweight AKG headphones and, to counter the potentially isolating effect, provided them for the most part in pairs.
• Near-field speakers. We mounted high-quality speakers at about ear height for an adult seated on a stool, and provided start buttons and volume controls to reduce unnecessary sounds when an exhibit is not in use.
• Enclosures. We constructed three types of enclosures: a professional music practice room; open, roofless carrels with nonparallel, insulation-filled walls to reduce internal reflection and sound bleed; and a theater that uses hanging baffles with other acoustic elements.

A positive experience for all

It was important to the Wild Music team that an exhibition about the deep roots and universality of music be broadly accessible and offer a rich and positive sonic experience. Not content with containing, controlling, and interpreting a collection of sounds, we decided to approach the entire exhibition as a soundscape—or, more exactly, three interconnected soundscapes.

Because the songs of birds, whales, and people are key strands in the biology of music, we organized much of the exhibition into thematic areas we called the Edge of the Forest, the Town, and the Ocean Deeps. Each is anchored by a schematic “set” and distinguished by a composition by environmental sound artist Philip Blackburn. The compositions create an acoustic niche both for exhibits that can be heard at a distance (such as a giant wooden xylophone) and for visitors’ conversations.

These themes were extended in a teacher workshop and public programs held when Wild Music opened. Whale expert Roger Payne, one of the project advisors, spoke about his research and played recordings of whale songs; we had to rent speakers capable of transmitting the vibrations of their deep bass notes throughout the museum. A local gamelan performed bird-related Indonesian compositions, and SMM’s teen volunteers shared pocket science demos with visitors.

Work in progress

Wild Music opened at SMM in March 2007. As it moves to the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences in June, we are just beginning to explore the possibilities for reaching new audiences through its rich sound experiences and themes. Evaluation suggests some fine-tuning that will help improve the visitor experience, but in general the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Visitors are telling interviewers that they appreciate the tactile experiences and the presence of Braille and acoustic labels, even though most haven’t used them themselves.

Wally Waranka reports that this is the first exhibition he feels he can navigate and enjoy almost entirely on his own. In fact, he has brought his colleagues in the employment agency to visit, hoping to inspire their approach to workplace accommodations.

From the July/August 2007 issue of ASTC Dimensions.

Wendy Pollock is ASTC’s Director of research, publications, and exhibitions. J. Shipley Newlin is program director for physical sciences at the Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul.

More about Wild Music and the exhibition tour

ASTC Dimensions last took an in-depth look at teacher education programs in science centers and museums in 2002. Since then, the No Child Left Behind legislation has altered the formal education landscape in the United States, and formal-informal collaborations have changed elsewhere as well. We asked museum educators to tell us how their professional development programs for teachers have changed and how science centers are maintaining the commitment to inquiry-based education in the face of the new expectations from public funders. This issues represents a sampling of their responses.

CONTENTS

• When Schools Meet Museums: Finding a Third Way, by Bronwyn Bevan
• Leave No Teacher Behind, by Linda Shore
• Partners for a New Era: The Challenge of the NCLB Funding, by Coleen Pelak
• Building Teacher Leaders: The Da Vinci Fellows Program, by Dave Smith and Tara Broczkowski
• What Teachers Told Us: Implementing Inquiry Learning for Schools, by Mary Ann Wojton
• Experience, Confidence, and Tools: The Grounding in Botany Program, by Martha Kirouac
• Field Trips for Teachers, by Christine Lewis
• Promoting Technology Literacy in Schools: A Museum of Science Initiative, by Cary Sneider
• Leveraging Training through Networks, by Eva Jonsson
• Learning Before 4: Science for Early Childhood Educators, by Cindy Detuelo
• Looking Beyond NCLB: Alternative Audiences for Teacher Education, by Pete Yancone
• Supporting Xciters: A PENCIL Project Program, Sheena Laursen

Download the full issue.

Subscribe/order back issues

Let’s assume that you, the reader, already believe that informal science institutions (ISIs) can be powerful centers of science learning expertise, resources, and experience in their communities. You know that visitors to science museums, zoos, aquariums, and the like can see, touch, explore, and imagine aspects of the natural world that often remain invisible, unnoticed, or inaccessible in people’s everyday lives. You know that ISIs draw on their spatial, temporal, textural, and material qualities to build a visitor’s sense of the connectedness, historicity, relevance, and salience of science, in ways that many other learning settings cannot.

Visitors often say to ISI staff: Why wasn’t science taught like this in school? That makes us nod and smile, or maybe shrug and smile. We informal educators have often been drawn to work in informal settings precisely because of these unique qualities—because of distinctions between the way science is taught and experienced in schools and the way we believe it is experienced in the real world.

That’s fine. But there is something else we know: ISIs, as places, as pedagogies, and as resources, are not accessed equitably. For the most part, our audiences are white, middle class, and college educated—populations that already actively seek and secure the resources they need to further their own learning and to create more seamless developmental environments for their children.

Many ISIs undertake special efforts and programs to expand their reach to new audiences, especially to community groups that have been historically underrepresented in the sciences. But by almost any measure, these efforts seem to have little overall impact on the demographics of our institutions’ regular visiting audiences, much less on expanding participation in science fields and studies.

Natural and best partners

At the Center for Informal Learning and Schools (CILS), we believe that ISIs can contribute significantly to strengthening and diversifying participation in science. And we believe that schools are the natural, and perhaps the best, partners for any serious ISI efforts in this regard.

Schools are the key democratic institution in every community, working across all socioeconomic lines. While ISIs bring to the table ways of making science accessible, collaborative, tangible, and joyful, schools bring to the table ways of conceptualizing science as a coherent and systematic set of practices and ideas. Museums and schools need each other—and our colleagues in afterschool programs—to create the coherent learning environment essential for initiating and sustaining engagement with science.(1)

CILS sees the key constituency of classroom teachers as the linchpin for such collaborations. Teachers have much to teach us about our communities, about our children, and about being accountable for teaching practices. At the same time, ISIs have much to offer teachers, notably (a) strategies and resources for engaging and sustaining student interest in science and (b) science-rich professional communities that can nourish and sustain teachers themselves. Working together, informal and formal educators can expand their repertoires of practice so that science learning, across multiple settings, becomes more engaging and coherent for more children.

It is past time to move beyond the either/or proposition that seems to dog the ISI discourse about working with schools, or about ISIs’ role in expanding participation in science. There is a “third way” to be found in thoughtful collaborations between informal science institutions and schools. So what do such collaborations look like?

March/April 2007

Historically, showmanship and science have been a popular combination in science centers. More than 91 percent of ASTC-member museums feature “classes and demonstrations” in their programming, and some of the larger museums also support a science theater program. But do these events make a lasting impression on visitors? Which techniques are most effective? How is the classic science show changing (or needing to change) to teach today’s audiences? What can science centers do to refresh their live science programs? In this issue, we look back to roots of science performance, share some research findings, and examine how some ASTC members are reinventing the science show.

CONTENTS
• Science Demonstrations: Hot or Cool?, by Eddie Goldstein
• Performing Science: A Demo and Drama Sampler, compiled by Carolyn Sutterfield
• Agreeing on Truth: The Continuum of Science Demonstration, by Richard Toon
• Shockin’ at The Bakken, by David J. Rhees
• People Presence: Why Live Demonstration Matters, by Dante Centuori
• Valued by Visitors, by Dawnne LePretre
• The Impact of Science Shows: A Research Study, by Wendy Sadler
• Animal Archive: A BIG Collaboration, by David Price
• Presenter’s Practicum: A Science Shows Workshop, by Walter Ginckels and Harri Montonen
• Staging Science: The Case for Theater in Museums, by Catherine Hughes
• Theater at the New York Hall of Science, by Marcos Stafne

Download the full issue.

Subscribe/order back issues

January/February 2007
IN THIS ISSUE

Call it the Age Wave, the Silver Tsunami, the Longevity Revolution. It’s the demographic shift we’re seeing as the “baby boom” generation, people born between 1946 and 1964, turns 50, 60, and more. According to ASTC’s 2006 General Member Survey, 33 percent of ASTC museums already offer programs “targeting senior citizens,” but it will require increasing levels of sophistication to address the needs and aspirations of the active, aging boomers. In June 2006, representatives of 25 U.S. science centers and museums met for three days in Washington, D.C., with representatives of organizations that serve older Americans at the local, state, and national level. The conference was organized by the SPRY Foundation, ASTC, and other sponsors, as well as being funded by the National Science Foundation. In this issue, we share insights, outcomes, and resources from that event and describe how some science centers are reaching out to 50+ audiences.

CONTENTS
• The Longevity Revolution: Challenge and Opportunity, by Russell Morgan
• Museums and Older Adults: A Senior Perspective, by Lynn Simmons
• Aging Reinvented: A View from the ‘Oldest’ State, by Gillian Thomas
• A Field Guide to the U.S. Aging Community, by Richard Adler
• In Their Own Right: Adult Learning at Explora, by Kristin Leigh
• Curious Scientific Investigators: A Cross-Generational Program, by Rick Crosslin
• Aging Resources
• What’s In It for Me? Attracting Older Adults to Museums, by Douglas Wagner
• Staying Sharp: A Partnership for Brain Health, by Michael Patterson
• What Research Says about Learning and the Aging Brain
• Mutual Benefit: Partnering for Learning in Tampa, by Terrie Nolinske and Ara Rogers
• Promoting Healthy Aging: The MetLife Grants, by Carolyn Sutterfield
• Aging for All Ages: A ‘Lifelong Learning’ Exhibition, by Paul Siboroski

Download the full issue.

Subscribe/order back issues