Hi david,
what an excellent question! Interactives are not really that new, about
30+ years or so, but young compared to the royal institution.
How about turning the question round and asking how else could a broad
range of basic science be communicated to a wide range of publics?
The visitor experience should be multi-sensory and affective. these are
strong inputs for learning. Have you seen Falk, J. and Dierking, L.
(1992) The Museum Experience, Washington: Whalesback Books.? Its a good
starting point.
I would also recomend Beetlestone, J G, et al (1998) "The science center
movement: contexts, practice, next challenges" Public Understanding of
Science, 7, pp. 5-26.
Also Hayes, N. (1999c) "Psychological Dimensions of Interactivity"
available at http://www.nickyhayes.co.uk/nicky/abstracts/BIG.html
[August 1999]. gives a flavour of the learning psychology.
And Umiker-Seboek, J. (1994) "Behaviour in a Museum: A semio-cognitive
Approach to Museum Consumption Experiences" Signifying Behaviour, 1 (1).
Having finished my MSc in communicating Science (Techniquest /
Universtiy of glamorgan) this summer, I wish you luck with yours.
If there is any interest out there I will make my dissertation available
as a PDF file. It attempted to link the visitor experience with exhibit
design using the exhibit as a functional semiotic metaphor. (It still
awaits a final mark ;-))
all the best,
Phil.
--
Phil Pinder
Pinder Research Services
Tel: 01222 419917
Fax: 01222 319610
Mobile: 0771 4514613
------------------------------------------------------
*The general public has long been divided into
two parts; those who think science can do anything,
and those who are afraid it will.
[New Scientist, July 5, 1973]
Dixy Lee Ray, 1914-1994
-------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|