Science Museum Exhibits’ Summative Evaluation with Knowledge Hierarchy Method
It is aimed in this research to measure via knowledge hierarchy the things regarding exhibit themes learned by the visitors of the exhibits and compare them with the purpose that the exhibits are designed for, thereby realizing a summative evaluation of the exhibits by knowledge hierarchy method. The research has been conducted in a children’s science museum with totally 12 middle school students, nine of which are in the sixth grade and three of which are in the seventh grade. Semi-structured interview forms have been used to make interviews with those students before and after the visit, and based on these interviews their knowledge levels have been identifed. It has been found out that the students at the lower levels of the knowledge hierarchies of the exhibits have moved up to the higher levels after the visit. An accumulation of the students has been observed at higher levels and the exhibits meet the purpose of the visit.
Allen, S. ve Gutwill, J. (2004). Designing with multiple interactives: Five common pitfalls. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(2), 199-212.
Anderson, D., Lucas, K. B., Ginns, I. S. ve 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.
Anderson, D., Lucas, K. B. ve Ginns, I. S. (2003). Theoretical perspectives on learning in an informal setting. Journal of research in science teaching, 40(2), 177-199.
Beetlestone, J. G., Johnson, C. H., Quin, M. ve White, H. (1998). The Science Center Movement: contexts, practice, next challenges. Public Understanding of Science, 7(1), 5-22.
Bitgood, S. (2013). Attention and value: Keys to understanding museum visitors. Left Coast Press.
Dean, D. (2002). Museum exhibition: Theory and practice. Routledge.Chicago.
Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects: for small-scale social research projects. McGraw-Hill International.
Dierking, L. D. ve Falk, J. H. (2003). Optimizing out-of-school time: The role freechoice learning. New Directions for Youth Development. 97(1), 75-88.
Ertaş, H., Şen, A. İ. ve Parmaksızoğlu, A. (2011). Okul Dışı Bilimsel Etkinliklerin 9.Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Enerji Konusunu Günlük Hayatla İlişkilendirme Düzeyine Etkisi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 5(2), 178-198.
Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171-190.
Fadigan, K. A. ve Hammrich, P. L. (2004). A longitudinal study of the educational and career trajectories of female participants of an urban informal science education program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 835-860.
Falk, J. H. (2005). Free-choice environmental learning: framing the discussion. Environmental Educational Research, 11(3), 265-280.
Falk, J. H., Storksdieck, M. ve Dierking L. D. (2007). Investigating public science interest and understanding: evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 455-469.
Griffin, J. (1998). Learning Science through practical experiences in museums. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 655-663.
Henriksen, E. K. ve Jorde, D. (2001). High school students’ understanding of radiation and the environment: Can museums play a role?. Science Education, 85(2), 189-206.
ICOM, 2007. Web site: http://icom.museum/the-vision/museum-definition.
Johnson, C. (2013). Web site:http://www.astc.org/resource/education/johnson_scicenters.htm
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Perry, D. L. (1993). Measuring learning with the knowledge hierarchy. Visitor Studies, 6, 73-77.
Perry, D. L. (2012). What makes learning fun?: principles for the design of intrinsically motivating museum exhibits. Rowman Altamira.
Rennie, L. J. ve McClafferty, T. P. (2002). Objects and learning: Understanding young children’s interaction with science exhibits. Scott G. Paris (eds) Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums (pp. 191-213). Taylor & Francis.
Schaefer, J. Perry, D. ve Gyllenhaal, E. (2002). Underground Adventure Summative/Remedial Evaluation. Chicago, Illinois: Selinda Research Associates.
Screven, C. G. (1990). Uses of evaluation before, during and after exhibit design. ILVS review, 1(2), 36-66. Spiegel, A. N., Evans, E. M., Frazier, B., Hazel, A., Tare, M., Gram, W. ve Diamond, J. (2012). Changing museum visitors’ conceptions of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 5(1), 43-61.
Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Baskanligi (TTKB), (2005). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi Öğretim Programı.http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/program2.aspx?islem=2&kno=25
Vance, C. ve Schroeder, D. (1992). Matching visitor learning style with exhibit type: implications for learning in informal settings. Visitor Studies, 185-200.
Wellington, J. (1990). Formal and informal learning in science: the role of the interactive science centres. Physics education. 25(5), 247-252.
Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Sage
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The copyright for all articles belongs to the authors. All other copyright is held by the journal.