Summative Evaluation - OMSI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Summative Evaluation of OMSI’s Technoquest (Innovation Station) p. 4The results show that most visitors do not come away from this exhibition with aconscious perception of technology as a main theme. However, many people dorecognize one or more of the process-words inherent in technology, selecting thewords designing, inventing, or engineering from a list of possible themes. Furthersupporting this perception, a majority of children felt that they had designed orinvented something in this Hall. The examples they gave included both Technoquest(Innovation Station) and Engineer It! exhibits, suggesting that it was appropriate toput these exhibits together in one space as they reinforce each other. Repeat visitsappear to enhance the sense of inventing and designing things, perhaps as peoplediscover some of the less-used exhibits that round out the experience or perhaps asthey move beyond basic patterns of use (figuring out how to use an exhibit) to explorehow to use an exhibit differently (becoming more conscious of their options or role increating something).Relevance to Everyday LifeThe exhibit team was initially concerned that people think technology is high-techstuff that’s mechanical, complicated, and outside of the range of everyday life.Therefore, another goal of this exhibition was to make technology personallymeaningful by connecting to visitors’ everyday experiences.In their exposure to the variety of exhibits here (many of which are “low-tech”), it’sclear that visitors associate technology with a wide range of everyday things. Twothirdsof the children felt that they had seen familiar things that relate to everyday life,giving examples such as computers, paper cups, airplanes, bottle rockets, toilets,bridges, balls, and light bulbs. Adults perceived some exhibits as being relevant toeveryday life (Tech Choices, Oregon Inventors), while some other exhibits were not(Ball Room, Float Table, Program a Robot).Educational Value of the ExhibitsThe project team had concerns about the effectiveness of some of the new exhibits.Mini-studies of six exhibits (method 3) provide some systematic information aboutthe educational value and visitors’ understanding of the interpretive content for thefollowing exhibits:♦ Ball Room: Is anyone learning anything here or are people just throwing balls ateach other? The findings suggest that it’s some of each. About half of adults, andsomewhat fewer children, were able to reasonably explain the main point of thisexhibit in terms of content or principles (learning about air pressure, vacuum,designing tubes for a purpose). This activity especially conveyed the ideas that“you can play around without caring which way works better” and “there’s morethan one way to do things.”♦ Float Table: Do people understand this activity, or are they just having funfloating things in the air with no particular purpose? Although only about half ofResearch report by People, Places & Design Research © OREGON MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY, August 2005
Summative Evaluation of OMSI’s Technoquest (Innovation Station) p. 5the adults said they had read the labels, the vast majority of them (84%) gave areasonable explanation of the main point of the activity. This exhibit wasperceived as “encouraging creativity,” “showing there’s more than one way to dothings,” and “playing around without caring which way works better.” Nearly allthe adults who stopped here did participate in the activity (with their children).♦ Program a Robot: Are people using this activity? do they like it and understandit? The results indicate that this is not a highly used exhibit: only 25% of thechildren recalled stopping here. The activity had moderate appeal among adultsand children. However, of those who did use it, most adults (79%) had areasonable understanding of the main point. Some people enjoyed the challengewhile others got frustrated; some adults complained that the light level made ithard to see, while some children had difficulty telling left and right.♦ Technology Choices: Are people engaged by a serious quiz-type game on acomputer monitor? Do they understand that there are a lot of ways that we makechoices about technology in our lives? The findings indicate that this exhibitserves a smaller proportion of the visitors (only 20% of kids interviewed said theystopped here), but among the people who did use it, the results suggest thatchildren liked this computer “game” more than adults. The main ideas are notentirely clear–about 50% of adults got a reasonable message.♦ Oregon Inventors Panels: Is it worthwhile to have a non-interactive exhibit thatmay not attract much use? Designers say that there are always requests for sometype of text and graphics panels that are not interactive, and they wonder if theseare worth doing. The findings do support the notion of lower use, at least amongchildren: only 18% stopped there. However, among adults who looked at thesepanels, three-quarters indicated a reasonable understanding of the main point (theprocess of invention), and a similar proportion felt that it related to everyday life.Perhaps this is a successful supplemental exhibit in that it provides context andrelevance.♦ Build an Aqueduct: Do visitors understand this activity? Adults and childrenunderstood the point of this activity, although a substantial portion of adultssuggested that it could be easier to operate or have better instructions (about 60%said they read the labels).The Unique Challenge of the Space of Turbine HallThe decision to blend new technology exhibits with the previous Engineer It! exhibitsin a larger space made sense. However, the planning team worried about the hugeturbine in the middle of the space – that this would be an obstacle to people’s use ofthe entire space, seeing all the exhibits. The openness and size of the architecturalspace may have been a useful cue for people that there was more to see beyond theturbine, perhaps aided by the strategy of marking a pathway along the floor past theturbine. The findings indicate that most visitors did go beyond the turbine to the farend of the hall.Research report by People, Places & Design Research © OREGON MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY, August 2005
Page 1 and 2: Technoquest (Innovation Station) Ex
Page 3 and 4: Summative Evaluation ofOMSI’s Tec
Page 5 and 6: Summative Evaluation of OMSI’s Te
Page 7: Summative Evaluation of OMSI’s Te
Page 58 and 59:
Summative Evaluation of OMSI’s Te
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
show all

Summative Evaluation - OMSI

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?