OK… I owe you all an update from my very productive Brazilian trip and conference presentations. All in all things went really well. All of my 4 presentations were  very well attended and people were not just amazed by the research potential of the Cyberlab but also excited about the possibilities of my research in Brazil. I spent just as much time answering questions as I spent actually presenting, which I think is a good indicator (and yes I answered lots of questions about “IRB” related stuff although not actually called RIB in Brazil).

I was extremely impressed with the level of research being done there. While doing literature reviews here I had a very hard time finding stuff online and having access to citations I knew existed. There is a serious problem of visibility for Brazilian publications not only outside the country’s realm but also within the national research groups doing this kind of research. Therefore, I had a very erroneous idea about the status of museum learning research in Brazilian settings. I really thought they were further behind than they really are. This first international workshop of research in museum education in Sao Paulo was not only crucial for me to be able to network and get involved with the group of museum learning researchers in Brazil but, more importantly,  it gave me a clear understanding of the historical development of museum studies in Brazil, their advancements, challenges and needs for future research (which will immensely influence decisions on my research questions).

Overall,  the status of current museum learning debate is very similar to what we experience here in the US. The same kinds of challenges were put into perspective during the event. There were robust discussions about the definition of learning, the learning theories influencing frameworks for research, where many people referred to the contextual model of learning and YES our  well debated “Vygotsky” came to surface in one of the sessions I participated – THANKS SHAWN for theory meetings! The role of the museum as a “non-formal” setting (as they called instead of informal) and the role of its educators was also largely debated. It was brought up the need for more partnerships between formal and “non-formal” institutions, form more research to identify Brazilian museum common and uncommon audiences and develop strategies to bring scarce audiences such as general family groups to the museum floor.

They also want to shy away from research that only incorporate cognitive aspects of learning to also include affective, aesthetic and other important aspects of cultural and social upbringing, which lead to conversations about the need for more studies on mediation processes and tools, reflecting on practice and inclusion research. I would say “inclusion” is the hot topic at the moment and I may even infer that they have done much more in terms of inclusion research and action than the US has. I was very impressed with the level of knowledge  and experience coming from all participating groups which composed a very diverse audience by the way. Participants included college professors and researchers, graduate students, museum administrators, staff and educators, school teachers, journalists involved with science communication, social inclusion related professionals and so on.

It was an incredibly rich and eye-opening experience for me, putting interdisciplinary initiatives into perspective and raising the issue to everyone participating that more conferences, workshops, and other events as such are in great need for the museum learning research community in Brazil, in order for them to develop better ways of communicating, exchanging efforts and making research results and methodologies available and visible to all community.

I was able to meet my co-advisor and network with many other international and national professionals and graduate students in the field, some who are excited to cooperate with my research and work as mediators when I am not physically there. I am now part of the “GEENF”  – the translation of the acronym stands for “Non-Formal Education and Science Divulgation Research Group”. It was created in 2002 and it is associated with the Science and Math Education Department at the University  of Sao Paulo (USP), partnering with many museums and research institutions, National and International. Here is a link for more information in you wish to adventure into portuguese – http://www.geenf.fe.usp.br/v2/.

It was just great for me to realize I can have a job back home when I graduate, specially when they need many more trained, knowledgable and experienced professionals in the field doing research, partnering with international institutions for cross-cultural research and replication of methodologies applied elsewhere and use of state-of- the-art technology.  Creating a partnership between Hatfield and my research site (as off now the Ubatuba Aquarium in Sao Paulo) is not too far in the horizon for me anymore and, if it gets out of paper successfully,  it has the potential to bring great benefits to both sides involved. I will be applying for some grants here soon, wish me luck!

Susan

The wave tank area was the latest to get its cameras rejiggered and microphones installed for testing, now that the permanent wave tanks are installed. Laura and I had a heck of a time logging in to the cameras to see their online feeds and hear the mics, however. So we did some troubleshooting, since we were using a different laptop for viewing over the web this time, and came up with these browser-related tips for viewing your AXIS camera live feeds through web browsers (when you type the camera’s IP address straight into the address bar of the browser, not when you’re viewing through Milestone software):

When you reach the camera page (after inputting username and password), go to “Setup” in the top menu bar, then “Live View Config” on the left-hand menu:

First, regardless of operating system, set the Stream Profile drop-down to H.264 (this doesn’t affect or matter to what you have set for recording through Milestone, by the way – see earlier posts about server load), and then Default viewer to “AMC” for Windows IE, and “Server Push” for Other Browsers.

Then, to set up your computer:

Windows PCs:
Chrome: You’ll need to install Apple’s QuickTime once for the browser, and then authorize QuickTime for each camera (use the same username and password as when just logging into the camera)
Internet Explorer: you’ll have to install the AXIS codec once you go to the camera page (which may require various ActiveX permissions and other security changes to Windows defaults)
Firefox: Same as for Chrome, since it uses QuickTime, too
Safari: we don’t recommend using Safari on Windows

Mac:

Chrome: QuickTime needs to be installed for Chrome

Firefox: Needs QuickTime installed

Safari: Should be good to go

IE:  Not recommended on a Mac

Basically, we’ve gone to using Chrome whenever we can since it seems to work the best across Windows and Macs both, but if you have a preference for another browser, these options should get both your video and your audio enabled. And hopefully save you a lot of frustration of thinking you installed the hardware wrong …

I seem to have gone from walking to speed racing when it comes to projects. Not only do I have the Folklife paper I’m co-authoring for ASEE, but now I’m working on 3 more projects. Just last week I was tasked with doing new analysis on already collected data for a paper draft that’s due at the end of the month. So I’ve been slogging through file after file of the data, trying to make sense of it all so that I can get the analysis done by the end of the week. This is the first time I’ve been asked to do data analysis on data that I was not directly connected with collecting. I’ve always been very familiar with the data I was working with, as well as with the project it’s connected to. I have neither of those safety nets on this project, and it is really testing my abilities. Which is both exciting and terrifying. There is no backup plan if I am unable to get this done, so the pressure is really on. Personally I’m not a fan of pressure, I like to have things well laid out in advance with mini-milestones to keep me on track and keep the task from feeling overwhelming.

I just hope I’m able to rise to the challenge without completely freaking out.

If you google “record phone call” or “digital audio recorder+phone,” you may end up watching spy videos.  Thanks for the entertaining spy videos Google, but I’m just trying to do my thesis.  I’m trying to figure out how to record my phone interviews, and this won’t be done secretly.

The OSU Student Media Services desk at the library is extremely helpful, and they have a ton of equipment to check out.   They have a device that connects to the Zoom H2 digital audio recorder, and plugs into your ear.  Both me and the person on the phone will be recorded.  Unfortunately, it’s broken!  They said they will try to order another device soon, along with some other types of leads (things that plug into my phone and the recorder).

I’ve heard it’s good to have 2 recorders working, just to be safe, so  I’m also looking into apps that record calls.  I’ve seen a few for iPhones, but I have an Android.  Free Android apps include Record My Call, Call Recorder, and Auto Call Recorder.  One question… What are the privacy rules with these apps?  Will any outside party be able to access the recording?

If anyone has suggestions for recording phone interviews, PLEASE (!) let me know!  Thanks 🙂

Our climate change “exhibit” is rapidly losing its primacy as an exhibit on which we do research to instead becoming a  research platform that we set up as an exhibit. The original plan was to design an exhibit on a multitouch table around climate change and research, among other things, how users interact and what stories they choose to tell as related to their “6 Americas” identity about climate change.

After Mark attended the ASTC conference, in talking with Ideum folks and others, we’ve decided what we really need to build is a research platform on the table, with exhibit content just as the vehicle for doing that research. That means instead of designing content and asking research questions about it, we’re taking the approach of proposing the research questions, then finding content to put on that allows us to investigate those questions. The good news is that a lot of content already exists.

So, with that in mind, we’re taking the tack now of identifying the research questions we’re interested in in order to build the appropriate tools for answering those questions. For example,

-How do people respond to the table, and what kinds of tools do we need to build so that they will respond, especially by creating their own narratives about the content?

-How can we extend the museum’s reach beyond the building itself, for example, by integrating the multitouch exhibit and handheld tools? What is the shelf life of interactions in the museum?

-What are the differences between the ways groups and individuals use the table, or the differences between the horizontal interactions of the table-based exhibit vs. the more traditional “vertical” interactions provided by other exhibits (did you play Ms. Pac Man differently when it was in the table version vs. the stand-up kiosk?)

-How can we help facilitate visualization understanding through simulations on the table where visitors can build comparisons and manipulate factors in the data to create their own images and animations?

What other questions with the multitouch table should we build research tools to answer?

 

 

 

 

 

            When I begin to think about spatial thinking, I find it helpful to review what the scientific community has to say.  In my search, I found what the National Research Council, 2006 (NRC) report had to say extremely interesting.  They have defined thinking spatially as a separate form of intelligence based on three individual components: concepts of space, tools of representation, and process of reasoning.  Interesting… In addition, I referred to Gardner (1983); though heavily criticized for lack of empirical evidence at the onset of his theory, he included the ability to think spatially as one of his measures of a person’s intelligence.   The NRC report also claims the ability to think spatially is integral to everyday life, since everything exists in some aspect of a spatial relationship.  This statement struck me especially today in our theory meeting this morning as we were trying to define driving.  Some of the things we were considering about driving included simulator driving abilities, test taking, emotions, conditions, transferability and motor skills.  During this conversation no one mentioned spatial thinking specifically.  So if spatial thinking is so much a part of everyday life, then why do we not explicitly talk in terms of spatial thinking?  Or do we? What do you think?  How does spatial thinking effect your daily life?  Do you agree or disagree with the NRC?  Do you agree with Gardner?