Hi Sue,

Thank you for taking the time to watch our video and for your questions. 

Seeing Scientifically does not decouple the interactive scaffolding from the living (and ever changing) specimen visible to visitors at the exhibit.   In fact, it is quite the opposite. The scaffolding we are trying is highly domain specific and dynamic to what is immediately in view. 

The exhibit is ‘smart’ in the sense that it can derive the age of the specimen based on initial values the biology lab enters at the beginning of the day when they prepare the slide and exhibit.  Based on what the staff inputs and because zebrafish development is so well studied and progresses in a very predictable manner, the computer can somewhat accurately guess what is visible at a certain microscope position and time and, therefore, what is visible to the visitor   --- although occasionally the zebrafish can move to obscure key structures from visitor view, and they can hatch as well!  Areas of special interest, such as the heart, are detected through image processing algorithms, but none of these ‘algorithms’ are 100% accurate.

One of our challenges is to figure out is how to make the computer’s guess useful to visitors and how to establish the appropriate tone and experience flow that encourages visitors to use their own scientific eyes to observe closely without resorting to a (computer’s or staff’s) voice of authority. 

Hi Priti - Thanks for your comments & watching our presentation.  Since this is a Pathways project, we'd be very pleased if we were able to shed light on some basic practices that would support observation in this particular exhibit that might be extensible to other types of exhibit and even disciplines beyond biology.  In terms of takeaways for the visitor, since we are focused on process, we would like them to feel that they have used an accessible tool to explore something of interest to them and that they became more and more curious the more they looked.

Hi Jamie,

We have not specifically looked at the role authenticity has in visitors’ engagement with our prototypes. At this point, our primary challenge has been to help visitors make close observations.  We have not worked as hard at building an awareness that they are doing so with tools and skills scientists use. Instead, we are depending on past evaluations that show that visitors are aware that they are manipulating a ‘scientific-looking’ microscope in the lab behind the glass partition.   

Thanks Joyce, that focus makes sense and indeed I realize can be challenging enough in itself. Kudos for working thoughtfully to support this important skill. I wonder if you have considered the exhibit surrounds or adjacencies with regard to enhancing an environment that fosters close observation. I'm thinking of something like the Experiment Benches as the Science Museum of Minnesota or the "half walls" at Explora in Albuquerque.

Hi Jamie, 

Yes, we have been thinking about the larger exhibit environment.  Sadly, we cannot do very much when it comes to the location (along a corridor not conducive to close observation); the exhibit kiosk needs to be right next to the microscope that is in the larger lab that flanks that hallway.  We are, however, thinking about making the kiosk more comfortable for small groups to encourage visitors to stop and spend time looking.  Cushy love seats may be in its future. 

Hi Vicki - Thanks for your interest in our project.  And you're right - although we are focusing on process, we do provide a fair amount of content to set context and pique interest in the sample.  The scope of the project is such that we are only evaluating the visitor's experience at this particular prototype, so no, we haven't looked at skill transfer to other exhibits.  That said, we are looking at how visitors apply their newly learned skills to other zebrafish embryos in the exhibit after they have spent time on their first sample.

Hi Anna -

When we embarked on this project, we defined the ability to observe scientifically in biology as:

Moving fluidly between what is seen and knowledge of the biological process and system being observed, having an understanding of the underlying principles and the research question being studied, having an awareness of the limitation of the technology used to make observation, and partaking in systematic recording of one's observation.

Since then, we have been thinking about how scientific observation can really manifest on the museum floor.  For example, can we really expect visitors, during their short time an exhibit, to formulate and own a research question and to then systematically record data?

Currently, our working definition for visitors seeing scientifically are that: (1) they ask productive questions (i.e., answerable with visual inspection of the specimen) and  (2) they interpret what they see (i.e., what features are salient and why, how systems and structures change over time).

We hope that we can come to a more refined understanding for what makes for scientific observation on the museum floor by the end of this grant as well as how to better support close observation.  Although the biology content area has been our focus, we also hope that we can shed light on some strategies that would be applicable to other fields that are based in careful observation of detailed, changing images such as astronomy.  We should definitely talk more to think through: what is extensible? --- and how, across disciplines?

These are all very intriguing questions! Thank you, Kristina.

If you ever want to get together with some astronomers to ponder how your techniques and findings might apply to our similar-but-different field, the ASP is your neighbor in San Francisco!

Exciting work.  This is a step in the right direction to help the field understand how to support scientific observation.  I hope your findings are broadly disseminated to the museum and research communities.  I think you pose a good question about how much we can learn from a given project that can be extended to other disciplines or other settings.

We have been thinking about scientific observation as one of the science practices preschool-age children engage with in the My Sky Tonight project.  My research team has been analyzing video of programs (mostly in museums/science centers) to look at how we are supporting their use of scientific observations in ways that move them towards sense making about astronomical phenomena (I wouldn't say observations are our focus, but they are a key practice used in the programs). 

Hi Kalie,

We designed the interactive kiosk for Seeing Scientifically to comfortably accommodate 2-3 visitors at a time.  Typically, one visitor controls the microscope, but the touchscreen is large enough for multiple folks to look at the specimen, to clearly see how the microscope is being controlled, and to talk with each other about what they notice about the organism.  We think this all helps in establishing common ground for the users. In fact, very early on, we experimented with different layouts and found, through evaluation, that a horizontal (vs a vertical) layout of the screen and controls encouraged more groups to stop and use the microscope exhibit.  So, we went with that physical design.

We also have a large screen over the kiosk so visitors standing a little bit a ways from the kiosk can still see the specimen under the scope, although, of course, this is a very different experience from being at the kiosk and controlling the scope and interacting with the scaffolding and tools.

From our naturalistic observations, we have found that more visitors stop at the exhibit in small groups versus as individuals.  And, those who stop in groups do stay longer regardless of the prototype version.  We suspect, though we have not done this kind of analysis, that visitors in small groups are helping each other see.  (Perhaps, 2-3 pairs of eyes are better than one?)

Hi Steve,

Yes!  We have been very interested in offering tools built into the exhibit that enable visitors to take measurements or record what they see.   One of the tools we are experimenting with is in fact a pulse counter, so that visitors can take their own pulse and compare it to the zebrafish’s or compare pulse rates between samples.  We also have capabilities that will let us offer an annotation/drawing tool and let visitors record video & photos. Designing an interface so that we can offer these tools in the right context and make them meaningful in a stand-alone exhibit has been an interesting challenge.

Hi Preeti, 

Seeing Scientifically is experimenting with scaffolding observation at a standalone exhibit --- no human facilitators for now. We have conducted interviews with microscopists while they guided novices in visually examining living specimens, and that has been helpful in informing our work with the exhibit scaffolding.  But, beyond that, we have not experimented with translating strategies used by human facilitators to the standalone exhibit, nor we have looked at how humans can become better at supporting observations at the microscope.

We have, also, been solely focused on the immediate experience and have not thought about gauging the residual learning after their visit. Seeing Scientifically, is a pathways; so, perhaps the next project?  We are curious --- what would you be interested in knowing in a follow-up interview with visitors?

Thank you, Helen.

We hope that visitors do gain a deeper appreciation of the intricacies of science as they explore with the Seeing Scientifically exhibit (as well as with the other exhibits in the museum).  We think that that type of awareness is likely hard to effect with one experience, but instead accumulates with varied and repeated interactions with science. So, we haven’t done anything to specifically look at that, but hope that we are contributing to that appreciation, nonetheless.