Engaging the brain in science exhibits

(Reposted from January 18, 2012)

Our brain demands we follow certain rules and processes, developed over evolutionary time, to make sense of information and keep us from being eaten by lions or wolves.

Researchers tell us that the brain essentially processes and files new knowledge in three steps: focus, comparison, and building relationships. Museums report that on average, a visitor spends 46 seconds at an interactive exhibit before moving on. If so, in the first few engaging seconds, any exhibit we create should force focus and then hit the other two steps in order.

According to a panel of experts smarter than me, one way is to start by asking the visitor a question. What do you want to know? How can we find out? What does it remind you of? At the root of each answer is a need to make sense of a problem or issue. Asking them, then, to compare the issue to something familiar forces the visitor to focus, but also recall information they already know, define parameters, and concentrate on two or more things at once.  To make sense of these comparisons, the brain is forced to establish relationships, which leads to developing concepts.  If “red” and “”yellow” are comparisons, “color” is the concept that develops. Concepts are not in this world (empirical). They are in our heads and are what differentiate us from that lion.

So, what are some practical tactics and applications of these ideas in exhibits? According to those same panel of experts:

— When we’re creating an exhibit, it’s not about cramming in the highest possible learning per square foot. People need “white space” as much in an exhibit as they do on the written or virtual page. That space gives people time to process.

— Slow people down; increase their linger time
— Provide a low buy-in threshold (low-hanging rewards), but let the visitor take the activity as high as it can go for them
— Honor existing social interactions between people (parents, co-workers, chaperones, docents, etc) who can help discuss comparisons and relationships. Also, allow for peripheral or group observation. Interaction with other people is key. There’s proof to the axiom that “all learning is social.”
— Create a collaborative, not competitive, environment
— Create experiences worth having and remembering: Stretch them and challenge them to learn something new.

— Learning is not terminal: we don’t stop learning at any time in our conscious lives. Think across generations!

Read More >>

Weenies

(Reposted from November 11, 2011)

I ran into a new-to-me phrase for a tried-and-true concept that I thought interesting. The concept is the design technique of visually positioning key elements in an exhibit to tease the visitor along a prescribed and intended path of discovery. The “path” can be literal or figurative. The new-to-me phrase is “finding the weenie”. Maybe it refers to some obscure reference to the hotdog stand at the back of Coney Island or perhaps to the art of hunting for the prized hotdog morsel in a can of beenie weenies. Who knows?

I heard the phrase used by Disney Imagineers in a meeting a couple of weeks ago and I’m told it came from Walt himself. Apparently, “finding the weenie” has become design dogma to Imagineers (who are pros at using 3d space, proportion, sound, light, and motion) to encourage a visitor to be more open to learn. Sometimes that learning comes from methodically suspending disbelief, like in a Space Mountain Epcot ride. But the same techniques also can be used to deliberately lead visitors through a series of experiences in such a way that participants leave with their new knowledge already filed in historical, social, technical or political context. It’s analogue to a speaker stressing one word over other words…and then winking.

Visitors want closure and will make (intended or unintended) connections between unlike content depending on how that content is presented. Layering, ordering and accenting content helps them do that.

According to the Imagineers, a good floor plan, like a good graphic layout, should lead an inquiring mind where it wants to go anyway. Visitors WANT to find the weenie. They are looking for it farther ahead in their exhibit experience than we might think. They want to know what they’re going to see just around the corner and spend mental energy anticipating what is going to surprise or wow them at the end.  Maybe it’s that energy that is the catalyst to learning and retention.

Read More >>

Science myths

(Reposted from August 29, 2011)

So, I was listening to this science program on public radio last weekend and the social scientist being interviewed mentioned that technology development has always preceded science discovery. Having missed that concept in my science classes, I went Web surfing to determine if conventional wisdom supports this concept. The short answer: obviously the two are related and there are many examples to argue cause and effect in either direction.

However, during my search I ran across an interesting article titled “Quizzing Students on the Myths of Science,” posted by the National Science Teachers Association at: science.nsta.org/enewsletter/2006-07/tst0411_58.pdf

In the article, the two authors, Eugene Chiapetta and Thomas Koballa, present a quiz of 12 questions designed to spark some introspection about how we’ve come to see the nature of science.  Take the test and see how you do on it!

What does this have to do with exhibits?  We make underlying assumptions based on what we learned or remember when we design an exhibit. In exhibits for science audiences or about science, we draw on what we think is “scientific.” How we write our text or scripts, the learning objectives of our interactives, even the choices of exhibit subjects, all depend on a personal understanding of words and concepts such as “theory,” objectivity,” “cause-and-effect” relationships and the “scientific method.” How you answer the questions and the “arguments” you use to defend your answers may give you some insight into why YOU think an exhibit is interesting…or why it would be interesting to a visitor or guest.

Read More >>

Virtual events

(Reposted from June 28, 2011)

This month, Exhibitor Magazine posted the results of a readership survey on the use of virtual events. Trade show exhibits are the industry communication tool of choice for serious marketing strategists, who have been watching with increasing interest to see if virtual events will change how businesses find new customers and close deals. The results: “face-to-face marketing is safe and sound – at least for the time being.”

The perception among responders was that virtual events are less effective than traditional marketing efforts like staffed exhibits. For the 40 percent of respondents who led or participated in virtual events, only 28 percent said the effort “met” or “exceeded” their expectations. Of the 40 percent, more than 2/3 said they missed the “energy of a live event.” While more than half said virtual exhibits helped them with brand awareness, sixty percent reported that virtual event costs were more or equal to face-to-face exhibits. Only 10 percent said virtual events attracted customers they would not normally have reached.

For now anyway, face-to-face conversations and interpersonal communications still seems to be the way to move the meter from “simply interested” to “interested enough to act.”

Read More >>

“If a tree falls in the forest…”

(Reposted from August 13, 2011)

There’s an interesting discussion brewing in NASA’s HQ and around its centers concerning the concept of “indefinite loans” by NASA of aircraft and artifacts for public display.

On the one hand, Logistics Management cites NASA aircraft policy, Federal Property management regulations and NASA regulation 4300.1. They point out that items are supposed to be disposed of when no longer needed operationally. Also, if an item on the books is on indefinite or long-term loan, NASA must not have an operational need for it.

On the other side of the aisle is Public Outreach and center exhibits managers, who cite the Space Act of 1958 and NASA regulation 1387.1. NASA communicators point out the legitimacy of informing the public as one of NASA’s four charted missions. Their position is that long-term and even indefinite loans support their mission and therefore these loaned items still serve an operational purpose.

Although it is truly a tempest in a teapot when we’re wrestling with so many larger issues these days, it does come down to a basic, age-old question: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it actually fall?”

In other words, if a space mission happened and no one heard about it or learned from it, by how much is the feat diminished? If the answer is “lots,” one could argue that education and public outreach and NASA’s public affairs and communication functions are key NASA operations in their own right and the tools they use (such as static aircraft and artifact loans) have legitimate operational uses, too.

Read More >>

The Meatball Story

Without argument, THE strongest brand in the U.S. Government is NASA and its logo, affectionately called the “meatball”, have become synonymous with all things space, space exploration, and in general, darings-do.

The main elements in the insignia come from the NASA seal: the circle represents the planets; the stars represents space; the red wing represents NASA’s aeronautics roots and an orbiting spacecraft. It became known as the meatball in 1975. The insignia was used for 16 years, to be replaced in 1975 by a design funded by the National Endowment for the Arts and produced under the Federal Graphics Improvement Program. It was the head of NASA’s technical publications who first nicknamed the “old” design the “meatball” and the new, more modern and sleek one, the “worm.” In 1992, NASA Administrator Dan Goldin declared the worm dead, and what was old became new again.

Today, the NASA meatball insignia remains as one of the strongest and most recognizable logos ever created. Some of it has to do with the fact that it’s (I think) the only logo currently on the moon but it’s become synonymous with NASA’s brand elements of risk taking, success, scientific advancement, and exploration.

If you ever had doubts about the importance of brand, NASA and its “meatball” are worth remembering.

Read More >>