Flexible Interventions to Increase Family Engagement at Natural History Museum Dioramas KAREN KNUTSON, MANDELA LYON, KEVIN CROWLEY, and LAUREN GIARRATANI

Volume 59 Number 4 October 2016

ARTICLE

Flexible Interventions to Increase Family Engagement at Natural History Museum Dioramas KAREN KNUTSON, MANDELA LYON, KEVIN CROWLEY, AND LAUREN GIARRATANI

Abstract A research/practice collaboration designed, implemented, and tested strategies to facilitate family engagement with natural history dioramas. Across a series of design studies, 295 family groups with at least one adult and one child aged 4–18 were observed at a wildlife diorama of deer in their natural habitat. Each mini-study tested a different intervention intended to encourage families to engage more deeply with the diorama. Compared to a baseline condition where families used the original diorama with no intervention, findings suggested that all interventions supported increased engagement, but that some interventions were more successful at engaging younger children, increasing conversations about biodiversity and ecosystems issues, or in developing science skills such as observation and classification. We make recommendations for supporting family learning at dioramas and also reflect upon how our research/practice partnership was vital to the work.

INTRODUCTION history museums are feeling pressure to provide scientific information in more compelling ways By presenting realistic flora and fauna in to their audiences (Watson and Werb 2013), their natural context, dioramas provide a rich and in recent years, museums have attempted to way for visitors to understand biodiversity and retool dioramas to make them more engaging ecosystems. Early dioramas were first created and compelling for visitors (Davidson et al. for scientific or taxonomic purposes; however, 1991; Loveland et al. 2014). in the United States dioramas have always had The Hall of North American Wildlife at the primary goal of public education (Reiss and Carnegie Museum of Natural History (CM) Tunnicliffe 2011; Kamcke and Hutterer 2014). includes 26 large dioramas that depict animals Eye-catching dioramas often included dramatic from diverse biomes. Dioramas focus on speci- active scenes of animals hunting, eating, or car- mens posed in simple narratives that suggest ing for young. While dioramas continue to be caring for young, or walking through a land- much-loved exhibits in natural history muse- scape, but there are also more dramatic scenes ums, there is a sense that they are old-fashioned that include, for example, hierarchy conflict or and not as engaging as newer, technologically predator and prey relations. Most of the diora- advanced exhibit styles (Wonders 2003). Many mas in the Hall are traditional glass-fronted sce- dioramas are now historical artifacts in them- nes with painted landscapes, but several popular selves, with a level of craftsmanship and detail dioramas feature scenes that extend beyond the that would be impossible to replicate. Natural frame into the gallery space, where visitors can

Karen Knutson, Associate Director, University of Pittsburgh Center for Learning in Out of School Environments Mandela Lyon, Program Development Coordinator, Carnegie Museum of Natural History Kevin Crowley, Professor of Learning Sciences and Policy, University of Pittsburgh Lauren Giarratani, Director of Education, Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

walk entirely around specimens in their simu- interventions that might invigorate the visitor lated landscapes. A paragraph of text explains experience in Wildlife Hall. key features of each scene and in some cases a In this article we describe a design-based digital touchscreen next to the diorama provides research study where museum educators part- visitors the opportunity to scroll through text nered with University of Pittsburgh Center for and images that provide additional information Learning in Out of School Environments on the flora and fauna visible in the scene. (UPCLOSE) researchers to create, test, and In spite of the wealth of information avail- evaluate a series of low-cost interventions able in these richly detailed environments, and designed to improve visitor engagement with even though the animals in the dioramas can existing dioramas. Our partnership focused on be a popular draw for families, visitor engage- iteratively developing questions and interven- ment is often rather low. In a timing and tions with the goal of providing quick-turn- tracking study we conducted as a pilot for the around data to inform further design of current research, we observed families viewing activities. The project provided a useful mecha- dioramas in the main path through the Hall of nism for educators to prototype ideas about North American Wildlife – an area that family learning and engagement without having includes 13 large-scale dioramas. We observed to commit to full-scale program development. that 20% of families spent less than 1 minute, Interventions included new signage, hands-on 40% spent 2–5 minutes, 33% spent 6–9 min- activities, and human facilitation designed to utes, and only 6% spent 10 minutes or longer. encourage conversations and support families in Furthermore, researchers rarely noted close making scientific observations. We brain- observation, pointing, or talking –behaviors stormed ideas for the interventions within the that might be associated with deeper family constraints that they should be cost-effective engagement with the dioramas. Most com- and easy to replicate, so that they could be easily monly, families were observed to traverse the spread to other dioramas in the museum and hall in a slow, steady stroll; maybe stopping shared with the field. here and there to point something out, but rarely stopping to explore the dioramas more METHODS closely. As in many natural history museums, these The project team (museum educators and dioramas are an iconic and historic permanent researchers) selected a focal diorama to be used exhibit at CM and replacing these displays with for testing. The chosen diorama portrayed more contemporary hands-on experiences is not white-tailed deer in a natural setting that desirable, practical or feasible. While the included flora, fauna, and evidence of human museum had already installed interactive sta- presence in nature. The team selected this tions in the wildlife hall (two that included regionally familiar habitat and animal, postu- question/answer flap labels, two short videos, a lating that it would draw on museum visitors’ touchable furs area, and a thematic display of possible prior knowledge and familiarity with taxidermy from the local region), with low visi- relevant local issues, such as deer overpopula- tor learning engagement outcomes and the con- tion. And the diorama was not one of the hall’s straints of the historic exhibits, the museum was signature attractions. Our studies of the wild- interested to explore the kinds of low-cost life hall confirmed findings at other diorama

340 Article: Flexible Interventions to Increase Family Engagement at Natural History Museum Dioramas Figure 1. Deer diorama Carnegie Museum of Natural History showing pre-existing label copy and digital screen (Leaf litter intervention stationed in front). Photo: Mandela Lyon. [Color ﬁgure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] halls (Davidson et al. 1991), the deer diorama targeted content areas for this particular was neither exotic nor dramatic; did not have diorama (Figure 2). the attracting power of megafauna such as Researchers then conducted unobtrusive moose and bear; and, at the CM, the deer dior- observation studies to assess how families ama is also situated in the middle of a long run engaged with and utilized the diorama with of wildlife dioramas and not at an important each intervention. Observers were stationed off vista location. We chose it to provide a good to the side of the diorama, so that families could test of what it takes to increase engagement use the exhibit without undue interference. around an “average” natural history museum Observers were looking for family groups where diorama. Prior to beginning the project, the the children appeared to be between the ages of deer diorama had an existing traditional label 4–18. If a member of the family spent more than panel and a digital touchscreen embedded in 5-seconds at the diorama, the group was the wall to the right of the diorama that pro- included in the study. Behaviors such as look- vided more information about the location, ing, pointing, sitting, bending, touching, doing ﬂora, and fauna on display (see Figure 1). an activity, and reading were noted on an obser- For each of eight interventions, the project vation sheet that had checkboxes for each team created and supplemented the diorama behavior. After the last family member in the with a variety of low-cost materials (signage and targeted group moved away from the diorama, activities) that were geared to encourage differ- observers stopped the timer and made notes ent kinds of exploration and conversation in about the family’s interactions at the diorama,

Karen Knutson, Mandela Lyon, Kevin Crowley, and Lauren Giarratani 341 Figure 2. Bioblitz intervention set up below diorama. Photo: Mandela Lyon. [Color ﬁgure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] including who initiated and who terminated the an important purpose of our larger research/ experience, as well as any conversations or ques- practice partnership, was to work in ways that tions that could be overheard. A series of would intentionally increase the museum’s prompts on the data collection sheet further capacity to use data from practical measurement directed observers to note whether families to support local improvement (Bryk et al. 2011). looked or talked together, if they seemed inter- We developed our data collection sheets and ested in the diorama, whether they appeared to observation methods so that they could be used look at multiple elements of the diorama, if they independently by museum staff or student connected the intervention activity to subse- interns with no more than a few hours of train- quent observation at the diorama, or if they used ing. And more importantly, our results could be the touchscreen or took photos. quickly turned around to be utilized in the next All methods have trade-offs. In this case, round of intervention development. Practical we might have elected to audio or video record measurements should, above all, be usable and family interactions. By then doing line-by-line informative in terms of decision making (Knut- analysis back at the university research lab, we son and Crowley 2005; Penuel et al. 2011). would have more reliable and accurate data, especially with respect to family talk. This would White Tailed Deer Baseline Condition have been our preferred method if the primary purpose of this study was to build theory about To establish a baseline for comparison, we family learning. But the point of this study, and observed 35 families at the white-tailed deer

342 Article: Flexible Interventions to Increase Family Engagement at Natural History Museum Dioramas Volume 59 Number 4 October 2016

diorama in an unmodified state (which included came deeper knowledge. The diorama could also a 200 word text panel and a touchscreen sometimes support meaningful conversations for extended label). Families spent a median time of those with knowledge or interest in deer. For 16 seconds, with 38% spending 10 seconds or example, one family used the deer diorama as an less, 18% spending 11–30 seconds, 12% spend- opportunity to discuss the grading system for ing 31–60 seconds, and 15% spending more buck points and deer hunting more generally. than 1 minute. The maximum time was around 3 minutes. Eighty seven percent of families said The Interventions “look at that” (or the equivalent) at least once during their stop at the diorama. Sixty seven Each intervention was implemented in the percent of families pointed at objects or touched space immediately adjacent to the deer diorama. the glass of the diorama. Twenty five percent of As part of the iterative process of testing and eval- families were observed to use the touchscreen uation, the project team met to review findings next to the diorama, and this ranged from one after each round of testing. Discussion of results child paging through and reading each possible from each implementation cycle helped shape the page of text, to another who merely tapped the next intervention. In some cases, a single inter- screen and didn’t seem to read the text. In most vention was tested in several implementation cases the partner of the screen user was looking cycles in order to ascertain whether or not an out- at the diorama while the other used the screen. come could be further improved or changed. The baseline study suggested that most The primary objective was to find ways to families were quick to breeze past the deer dio- help visitors attend to, and learn from, details rama without too much focused attention. A they might overlook. The team was hoping to typical interaction like this sounded like: see parents engaged in the activities, and to see “Look at the deer”. One family member family members looking and talking about the would notice the deer and call the rest of the diorama together. Ideas for each intervention family’s attention to it. In some cases, the family were brainstormed by the team, sometimes slowed down briefly, but glanced over in the reflecting ideas from the educators, or adapted deer’s direction. In other groups this comment from educational materials developed for use was a sign for the rest of the group to stop and with school groups or for tabled programs. acknowledge the initiating family member’s Sometimes interventions reflected ideas from interest. These families spent some time look- the research literature, and sometimes they were ing at the diorama and tried to find something inspired by programming we had seen at other to say in response to the interested party’s call museums, or wished we had been able to try in for the group’s attention. this context. Large content-related goals For many visiting families, deer are a famil- focused on supporting families engaging in at iar sight and one that is not worthy of a second least one of three ‘big ideas’ in natural history: glance. The deer population is rapidly growing identifying and grouping organisms (taxon- in suburban areas and deer are seen as a nui- omy); how organisms are adapted to an environ- sance. We heard some families say: “We see ment (form and function); and the importance them all the time.” Or, sometimes, “well, we of sharing observations with other people in don’t see that every day” (with sarcasm). How- the process of identifying and answering ever, in a couple of cases, with this familiarity questions (process of science). Additional skills

Karen Knutson, Mandela Lyon, Kevin Crowley, and Lauren Giarratani 343 CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL

appropriate for the families with school-aged find things they didn’t see at first glance. A children were also considered in the develop- worksheet and clipboard were stationed on ment of modifications, including counting, a table in front of the diorama. Family sorting, measuring, and comparing. groups worked together to find all of the In the end, we developed and tested eight animals and plants exhibited in the dio- interventions. Five of the interventions repre- rama. The worksheet provided spaces for sented different approaches, with modifications participants to count the numbers of differ- that involved the use of tools, labels and different kinds of organisms present in high- ent kinds of sorting activities. Three interven- level groupings (plants, mammals, birds, tions involved iterations of activities that etc.). A later modification used laminated focused on authentic objects and specimens that cards on a ring to ask families to locate the visitors could touch. different kinds of organisms. • Puppet Play: Realistic hand puppets of a • Human Impact. In this intervention, graph- fox, raccoon, and skunk, three animals ical displays with imagery and text were absent from the diorama but likely to be mounted on a series of rotating cubes that, found in that habitat, were provided with a when pushed, could spin on a PVC pipe prompt requesting that families act out the frame and align to reveal one of four stories puppet animals’ different behaviors and exploring different impacts of human how they might interact with the animals activity on the ecosystem. Three different in the diorama, then share the story they stories about deer overpopulation were developed on a feedback board placed next explored: the effect of habitat loss on local to the diorama. bird populations due to deer browsing, the • Leaf Litter Sorting: Realistic leaves, lami- loss of top-level predators and resulting nated organism cards, and bins for sorting increase of deer populations, and the rela- cards by taxonomic group were used to cre- tionship between deer over-browsing and ate a leaf litter ecosystem sorting activity in invasive species. One additional story an empty child’s play sand table. Placed in about logging drew visitor attention to front of the diorama, the table extended direct evidence of human activity observ- the foreground of the diorama to show the able within the deer diorama. A feedback ecosystem at soil level that is only slightly board and related signage placed in front of visible in the diorama. Images of organisms the diorama prompted visitors to share typically found in the leaf litter of an east- their thoughts on local issues of deer popu- ern deciduous forest were laminated and lation management. hidden in realistic leaves that corresponded • Bioblitz worksheet. This intervention to tree species in the diorama. Participants focused on helping families to notice the dug through the leaves to find the cards. biodiversity depicted in the diorama by Participants could then sort them into bins noting and classifying species on a work- representing major taxonomic groups sheet. The activity also took advantage of (fungi, insects, snails, etc.). some “hidden” or at least less noticeable • Naturalist’s Tools: This intervention mod- specimens in the diorama – it promised eled the naturalist’s toolkit. A box con- that with careful looking, visitors might taining binoculars, tools, and a notebook

344 Article: Flexible Interventions to Increase Family Engagement at Natural History Museum Dioramas Volume 59 Number 4 October 2016

for recording and sharing observations, tools and comparison prompts and the modeled after a biologist’s field notebook, materials were spread out on an activity were placed in front of the diorama along table placed in front of the diorama. with a sign that encouraged visitors to Objects on the table included deer antlers “Look and Share,” prompting use of the and lower jaws, a measuring tape, informa- binoculars and sketching or writing in the tion prompts, and comparison prompts to notebook. Families were challenged to help participants determine that tooth connect their observations of birds in the wear is a better determinant of animal age diorama to objects placed on an activity than antler complexity, which can be used table. Bird skulls, a microscope, a bird call to compare animal health and nutrition. player, and challenge cards on the table • Object and Facilitation: A museum educa- prompted visitors to connect clues from tor was stationed near the deer diorama at a each observation and to identify the two table with touchable specimens and mea- bird skulls. surement and observation tools used in the other box interventions. The educator was The final three interventions were a linked instructed to engage families in conversa- series of interventions that all involved authen- tion and activities around the diorama, and tic objects. used prompts and activities from the self- guided Box and Binocular interventions to • Objects: Based on an earlier joint exhibit facilitate these interactions. development project, called Exploration Basecamp, this intervention provided a set FINDINGS of specimens and tools related to the topic of the deer diorama. A large toolbox con- We had a target of collecting about 30 fam- taining authentic materials and books and ily units for each intervention, with an under- tools from the CM educational collection standing that the sample size would be large was placed in front of the diorama. The enough to capture a good range of families who exterior of the box was painted with ani- attend the museum. If however, initial data col- mals and plants, offering visitors a hint to lected for an intervention revealed that the its contents. Inside the toolbox, prompts intervention was not working at all, as in the on each specimen encouraged visitors to case of Puppet Play, we terminated data collec- look in the diorama for connections tion early. Two hundred and ninety-five fami- between objects outside of and within the lies were included in our overall sample. The diorama. Biofact objects included white- average family group size was three. Forty-five tailed deer antlers, white-tailed deer tooth percent of groups included one adult, 49% had growth series, Riker mounts of scat from two adults, and 6% had three or more adults. eastern forest mammals, a red squirrel The sample included 242 adult women and 192 study skin, a blue jay skull, magnifying men. glasses, and books on eastern deciduous Dwell time is used in visitor studies to pro- forest ecosystems. vide an objective, easy to use measurement of • Object and Tools. The toolbox described the use of exhibit features (Bitgood et al. 1988). above was augmented with measuring In addition to collecting behavioral observations

Karen Knutson, Mandela Lyon, Kevin Crowley, and Lauren Giarratani 345 CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 Human Bioblitz Puppet Play Sorting Naturalist's Object Object and Object and Impact Worksheet Through Tools Tools Facilitation Leaf Litter

0-59 60-119 120-179 180+

Figure 3. Median dwell time in seconds by intervention. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] we calculated family dwell time. As shown in appeared to share a high bar for engagement. Figure 3, every intervention was successful in Most families chose not to get involved in the increasing dwell time at least three times over intervention, however, for the slightly more baseline, with the most successful intervention, than 50% of families who did engage, the Objects and Facilitator, supporting a median interventions did a decent job extending fami- dwell time almost eight times above baseline. lies’ time spent. Figure 3 shows how dwell time data were In contrast, Leaf Litter and Naturalists’ distributed within each intervention. The first Tools show relatively even distributions. Fam- thing to notice is that Human Impact and Bio- ilies using these interventions could simply Blitz Worksheet show distinctive “U” shaped walk up and start doing things like picking up distributions. Most families stayed for less than a magnify glass or rummaging around in the 60 seconds, which is not enough time to leaf litter box. Although there were more engage fully in either activity as designed. So, structured aspects to the interventions (i.e., families came up to the exhibit, looked at the the sorting bins at Leaf Litter and the sketch intervention, perhaps spun a few cubes on the book in Naturalists Tools), these could be Human Impact intervention or picked up the integrated into activity on the fly. Families BioBlitz Worksheet, but ultimately did not did not need to figure out (and agree) how to really get involved in the activity. However, for do the activity before they began interacting. these interventions, when visitors did engage Both interventions supported extended (particularly for BioBlitz Worksheet), they engagement, with around half of the interac- tended to stay a longer time. These interventions tions exceeding 2 minutes.

346 Article: Flexible Interventions to Increase Family Engagement at Natural History Museum Dioramas Volume 59 Number 4 October 2016

Now consider the iterative development when we looked at how the Puppet Play inter- of the Authentic Object interventions. Fig- vention was working, we found that many peo- ure 3 shows that the median interaction times ple were choosing not to engage with the increased steadily between Objects, Objects activity, and also that there was some confusion and Tools, and Objects and Facilitator. But about the structure of the activity we had sug- the really interesting findings are in the distri- gested. Next, we provide an overview of issues butions plotted in Figure 3. In the Object that emerged through our analysis of the quali- condition, the proportions decrease steadily as tative observation data, which documented con- time increases. This is a pattern consistent versations, behaviors, use of labels and with a low bar to entry, but a limited engage- intervention materials. We created a table that ment potential for the longer term. In the provides highlights of some of the more impor- Object and Tool condition, we see more tant findings from these behavioral data. Below potential for extended engagement, with more we break down the outcomes across interven- than 40% of families staying between 1 and tions and point out how different interventions 2 minutes. This makes sense as, now that worked or did not work to support the design there are objects and tools, there is more to (Table 1). explore, and 20% of families will extend that exploration beyond 3 minutes. Observation Skills It is in the final intervention, Object and Facilitator, that we find the longest engage- Encouraging visitors to spend more time ment of any of the eight interventions – only observing the diorama was a top-level goal for 10% of families stayed less than a minute interventions. Interventions sometimes and almost 50% stayed for more than 3 min- involved a trade-off between privileging the utes. Families were interacting with a human observation of details in the diorama versus who had a planned introduction to the dio- completing an activity stationed in front of it. rama, could answer their questions, and could Bioblitz did an excellent job of focusing families’ draw their attention explicitly to targeted attention on locating details in the diorama, concepts related to the diorama. Museum while Human Impact produced a low amount of professionals may not be surprised that a live focused attention on details within the diorama. human facilitation promotes longer engage- Human Impact however, was more likely to ment, but it is interesting to see the incre- support visitors having great conversations mental increases we got compared to the about the conflict of man and nature and in- non-staffed interventions. Although the best depth content explorations of ecosystems issues. in terms of median dwell time, human facili- Families also shared their views on a feedback tation times were not twice as long as the board for other visitors. next closest interventions. Observing and Comparing THEMATIC DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Several interventions helped visitors to While dwell time gives us an overall sense focus on specific nuances of specimens and arti- of how each intervention might be working, it facts. Providing real bones to handle, turn, see, does not tell a complete story. For example, and feel helped visitors to notice the scale of

Karen Knutson, Mandela Lyon, Kevin Crowley, and Lauren Giarratani 347 CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL

Table 1. Overview of key ﬁndings

Median Also time spent attended to Intervention Activity Key focus area in seconds diorama Key points

Human impact Flip signage and Ecosystems/ 60 83% Efficient. public feedback climate change Participation and content talk. Local, relevant. Bioblitz Worksheet tally Observation and 66 95% Focused attention on diorama. worksheet and classify classification skills Really attractive for middle-schoolers. Some parents avoid Puppet play Puppets and Animal behavior 98 73% Not very popular. prompts Fun but no content talk. Sorting through Sorting and Biodiversity, 106 19% Good for young children plus leaf litter classification classification modifications for older. game Limited connection to diorama. Naturalist’s Binoculars, Observation and 121 70% Binoculars popular with tools bird calls, identification skills children. specimens Additional identification activity for structure and attention to diorama. Authentic Specimen, reading Form and function, 75 48% Individual exploration and objects/ materials, measurement, discovery. Lots of information objects and tool kit analysis available in specimens and tools and materials. Objects and Museum educator Form and function, 163 63% Personalized attention, in depth facilitator plus specimens measurement, content. Connection to diorama and tool kit analysis if facilitator encouraged. details; while short informative captions diorama into its proper category. Leaf Litter explained key factors scientists use to distin- was open-ended, but Bioblitz had a clear guish age or gender characteristics. The three “right” answer and families who engaged authentic object interventions included multiple were often driven to see the activity through examples of scat or bones from different related to the end. These activities did not foster the species that helped visitors to compare and con- same level of conversations about classifica- trast specimens and discern the key characteris- tion as some of the Box activities where sev- tics that identify animals. eral different specimens were compared.

Classiﬁcation Ecosystems Understanding

Leaf Litter and BioBlitz worksheet inter- A big challenge for engaging families ventions speciﬁcally asked visitors to make around dioramas was to turn attention beyond judgments about the kinds of items that are the focal fauna to a consideration of the other related species. Leaf Litter had small bins to details depicted—the details that highlight the help sort found objects, while Bioblitz asked ecosystem in which these animals live. The Leaf visitors to classify each element of the Litter activity helped to focus attention on

348 Article: Flexible Interventions to Increase Family Engagement at Natural History Museum Dioramas Volume 59 Number 4 October 2016

aspects of the diorama that were most often Worksheets missed by visitors, such as the flora in the scene and the ground level insects depicted. To a simi- These are a familiar format for school- lar degree, activities like Bioblitz also helped aged children and they really help to structure families to think about different categories of an activity, giving a purpose to an exploration organisms within the ecosystem displayed in the of a diorama. In our interventions that used a diorama. The Human Impact intervention worksheet, we found that children (especially explicitly engaged families in discussing the in the age range 7–12), often enjoyed com- ways in which humans and deer are in conflict in pleting them. For parents who took a tea- local suburban settings. cherly approach to the museum visit, worksheets were a useful guide especially for Local Connections parents for whom the museum visit was seen as a great educational activity. These parents Like the Human Impact intervention, called children over if they hadn’t seen the some interventions were particularly good at activity and helped to encourage and direct helping visitors to explore local connections. In children to complete the task. For other par- some cases this talk came naturally to those who ents worksheets represented a perceived level hunted, even if no intervention was placed at of time effort that was a barrier to becoming the diorama. Interventions like the Box activities engaged. provided the support for families to slow down, handle specimens, notice details, and talk, and Perceived Effort and Parent these conversations (often/sometimes) led to Disengagement discussions of local examples. For example, we observed that plasticized animal scat samples Relatedly, across our observations we were compelling for children and adults – in one noticed a common trend of parents choosing case, a grandfather talked about how he used to direct their families either towards, or away scat to track animals after being presented with from, interventions. For example, while those a set of scat replicas by his grandson. Deer who did use the Bioblitz activity tended to antlers were another popular aspect of the spend a long time working on it, a full half of Box activity. While some parents who were deer our sample participants at the Bioblitz did not hunters spontaneously began a conversation use the intervention. We heard many parents about how points on deer are calculated just by directing their children away from the activity; looking at the diorama, when presented with a “This is not for us, come along,” said one specimen and notes about antlers, these conver- mother. We postulate that with its worksheet sations became more frequent. and clipboard, the activity had a high perceived In addition to the exploration of content- effort. We also note that while the facilitation related outcomes, the research team was also intervention resulted in a long dwell time and interested in tracking aspects of visitor use interesting interactions, social norms might related to the engagement strategy employed by play a role in encouraging families to linger the different interventions. Below we outline longer than they might actually wish to. We some findings that are applicable across a num- noticed parental modeling of polite interaction ber of intervention strategies. techniques in this intervention, as parents

Karen Knutson, Mandela Lyon, Kevin Crowley, and Lauren Giarratani 349 CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL

encouraged children to ask questions and get threatening way to spend more time at the deer involved in the experience. diorama. These activities helped families to delve deeper into content related to the dio- Facilitation rama, and children experienced a sense of won- der and excitement at finding and sharing From prior work with facilitators in the different specimens in the boxes, well beyond museum, the research team knew that engage- the expected excitement of the comparative ment outcomes would be much improved if a tray of animal scat specimens. manned table was situated in front of the deer diorama. Facilitators at the museum are enthusi- Appealing to Different Audiences astic and knowledgeable, and with the addition of deer diorama related specimens, we thought All of the interventions worked well for that this intervention would be our best. Facilita- young children, except perhaps the human tors engaged families in questions about blue jays impact label experience. Leaf litter was a great and deer in activities related to diorama content. activity for the youngest toddlers, and slightly Results show that families indeed spent time and older siblings were able to assist with sorting the engaged in the structured conversations set up by found items into category bins labeled by spe- facilitators. Families did engage in content, cies. The appeal of tools, such as binoculars, and learning about the environmental features and bird calls, were also compelling for young chil- factors covered by the facilitator. However, we dren. In some cases, young visitors walked away did notice that the facilitated interventions could with binoculars wanting to use them through- be one-sided or closed-ended, with the facilita- out the dioramas on the floor. Slightly older tor taking the lead and not always allowing children enjoyed Bioblitz and the sense of com- the family to follow their own lines of inquiry. pleting a specific task. Puppet Play, somewhat Also, although facilitation was associated with surprisingly, attracted teens who were interested longer interactions, some parents had to strongly in role-playing and writing on the white board. encourage their children to participate, and to Adults seemed to enjoy the facilitated conversa- ask questions or provide answers to the facilitator tions best, but also enjoyed helping children on behalf of their children. There are real differ- with goal-oriented tasks and using tools. ences in what it costs to have floor staff assigned to a diorama versus the other non-staffed inter- CONCLUSIONS ventions we tested. We think data like these would be a nice jumping off point for educators Dioramas are a signature historic and per- who want to do cost/benefit analyses so that they manent exhibit type in natural history museums. can use their existing resources (material and While dioramas include often much loved dis- human) to maximize learning on the floor. plays, many are not well-utilised by visitors. They are expensive to replace, and renovations Open-ended Exploration that feature more contemporary hands-on experiences may not always be feasible. The process One of the strengths of the authentic of creating and evaluating a series of prototype object interventions was the extent to which interventions around the deer diorama was they provided an open-ended and non- extremely gratifying for the project team.

350 Article: Flexible Interventions to Increase Family Engagement at Natural History Museum Dioramas Volume 59 Number 4 October 2016

Museum staff were able to rapidly test and iter- capabilities in program design and is enhancing ate on long-standing questions. For instance, their collaboration with the museum’s exhibi- the team wondered whether or not certain types tion design team. Project outcomes are finding of prompts or activity starters would actually immediate application in “In the Field,” a new work. This iterative process supplied rapid exhibition renovation within the Hall of North answers to questions like these, and even more American Wildlife. Situated among the wildlife in depth information, e.g. if they worked, dioramas, the space is outfitted as a field researchers could help to facilitate a conversa- research station with authentic science activities tion about why and which learning outcomes that visitors can use to explore neighboring dio- were specifically met. In this, staff were able to ramas. Success with iterative activity develop- prioritize the kinds of outcomes they most ment influenced the overall exhibit design of “In wanted to see, and to think about the trade-offs the Field”. With the expectation that activities of supporting one audience or another. will need to be improved based on visitor feed- Having the mandate of this specific pro- back, the design of the field station exhibit ject to design and test learning, education staff infrastructure allows for activities to be updated did not have to follow typical exhibit design on a regular basis. Specifically, one wall in the processes and protocols for on the floor activi- field stations contains hooks and a feedback ties at the museum. Being freed of the invest- board where activities can be updated on a regu- ment into lengthy design and approval lar basis. The inaugural activity in this space uses processes from other departments in the the hooks to present a Bioblitz activity on a clip- museum allowed the team to experiment with board that visitors take away to explore the dio- many ideas in a short time frame. Additionally ramas, and the feedback board invites visitors to the team was able to test, and to learn from, record and compare their Bioblitz data. Future strategies that they might never have selected iterations may swap the clipboards for satchels for full-scale development. The process of with binoculars or other tools and prompts iterating weekly and re-implementing and modified from prototypes piloted in this study. evaluating ideas stretched staff, and forced Another area of the field station includes lab both researchers and practitioners to let go of cabinets that contain specimens, prompts and the desire to have all aspects of the design tools tested in the Box interventions. Visitors perfected. Getting the team into a system of can open cabinet drawers to explore specimens weekly or bi-weekly reporting and implement- of their choice and compare touchable furs, ing helped to keep up the project’s momen- skulls, and herbarium specimens to the speci- tum. mens observed in dioramas. Museum staff con- During the course of the project, education tinue to experiment with a variety of tools, staff were working closely with researchers, specimens and prompts to optimize the experi- looking at data and learning about the observa- ence for visitors. END tion protocols. Program staff were also trained in designing observations and collecting data, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS developing institutional capacity for evaluation in the museum. The deep learning gained This project was made possible in part by the Institute throughout the iterative design process has of Museum and Library Services Grant no. LG-45- increased the museum education staff’s 14-0004-14, and by the Spencer Foundation.

Karen Knutson, Mandela Lyon, Kevin Crowley, and Lauren Giarratani 351 CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL

REFERENCES

Bitgood, S., D. Patterson, and A. Beneﬁeld. 1988. “Exhibit Design and Visitor Behavior: Empirical Relationships.” Environment and Behavior 20(4): 474–491. Bryk, A. S., L. M. Gomez, and A. Grunow. 2011. “Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education.” In Frontiers in sociology of education, edited by M. Hallinan, 127–162. Netherlands: Springer. Davidson, B., C. Heald, and G. Hein. 1991. “Increased Exhibit Accessibility Through Multisensory Interaction.” Curator 34(4): 273–290. Kamcke, C. and R. Hutterer. 2014. “History of dioramas.” In Natural History Dioramas, edited by S. Tunnicliffe and A. Scheersoi, 7–21. New York: Springer. Knutson, K. and K. Crowley. 2005. “Museum as Learning Laboratory: Developing and Using a Practical Theory of Informal Learning.” Hand to Hand. (Part 1 of 2) 18(4): 4–5. Loveland, M., B. Buckley, and E. Quellmalz. 2014. “Using technology to deepen and extend visitors’ interactions with dioramas.” In Natural History Dioramas, edited by S. Tunnicliffe and A. Scheersoi, 87–104. New York: Springer. Penuel, W. R., B. J. Fishman, B. H. Cheng, and N. Sabelli. 2011. “Organizing Research and Development at the Intersection of Learning, Implementation, and Design.” Educational Researcher 40: 331–337. Reiss, M. J. and S. Tunnicliffe. 2011. “Dioramas as Depictions of Reality and Opportunities for Learning in Biology.” Curator, 54(4): 447–459. Watson, B. and S. Werb. 2013. “One Hundred Strong: A Colloquium on Transforming Natural History Museums in the Twenty-ﬁrst Century.” Curator: The Museum Journal, 56: 255–265. Wonders, K. 2003. “Habitat Dioramas and the Issue of Nativeness.” Landscape Research 28: 89–100.

352 Article: Flexible Interventions to Increase Family Engagement at Natural History Museum Dioramas