There is more to touch than meets the eye: haptic exploration in a science museum

References

• Adams, K. M. (2015). Back to the future?: Emergent visions for object-based teaching in and beyond the classroom. Museum Anthropology, 38(2), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/muan.12085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afonso, A. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2007). Educational value of different types of exhibits in an interactive science and technology center. Science Education, 91(6), 967–987. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20220
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., Ginns, P., Howard, S. J., Leahy, W., & Paas, F. (2015). Giving learning a helping hand: Finger tracing of temperature graphs on an iPad. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 427–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9315-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, S. (2004). Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education, 88(S1), S17–S33. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bara, F., Gentaz, E., Colé, P., & Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2004). The visuo-haptic and haptic exploration of letters increases the kindergarten-children’s understanding of the alphabetic principle. Cognitive Development, 19(3), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bitgood, S. (1991). Suggested guidelines for designing interactive exhibits. Visitor Behaviour, 6(4), 4–11.
   Google Scholar
• Breyer, B., & Bluemke, M. (2016). Deutsche version der positive and negative affect schedule PANAS (GESIS Panel). Zusammenstellung Sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen, https://doi.org/10.6102/zis242
   Google Scholar
• Candlin, F. (2008). Mueums, modernity and the class politics of touching objects. In H. J. Chatterjee (Ed.), Touch in museums: Policy and practice in object handling (pp. 9–20). Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, H. J. (2008). Introduction. In H. J. Chatterjee (Ed.), Touch in museums: Policy and practice in object handling (pp. 1–5). Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Chatterjee, H. J., Hannan, L., & Thomson, L. (2015). An introduction to object-based learning and multisensory engagement. In H. J. Chatterjee & L. Hannan (Eds.), Engaging the senses: Object-based learning in higher education (pp. 1–18). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Christidou, D., & Pierroux, P. (2019). Art, touch and meaning making: An analysis of multisensory interpretation in the museum. Museum Management and Curatorship, 34(1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2018.1516561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Classen, C. (2005). Touch in the museum. In C. Classen (Ed.), The book of touch (pp. 275–286). Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Classen, C. (2017). Introduction. In C. Classen (Ed.), The museum of the senses experiencing art and collections (pp. 1–7). Bloomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Di Franco, P. D. G., Camporesi, C., Galeazzi, F., & Kallmann, M. (2015). 3D printing and immersive visualization for improved perception of ancient artifacts. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 24(3), 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dohn, N. B. (2011). Situational interest of high school students who visit an aquarium. Science Education, 95(2), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etzi, R., Spence, C., Zampini, M., & Gallace, A. (2016). When sandpaper is ‘kiki’and satin is ‘bouba’: An exploration of the associations between words, emotional states, and the tactile attributes of everyday materials. Multisensory Research, 29(1–3), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-00002497
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2013). The museum experience revisited. Left Coast Press.
   Google Scholar
• Falk, J. H., Storksdieck, M., & Dierking, L. D. (2007). Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506064240
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2008). A memory for touch: The cognitive psychology of tactile memory. In H. J. Chatterjee (Ed.), Touch in museums: Policy and practice in object handling (pp. 163–186). Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2009). The cognitive and neural correlates of tactile memory. Psychological Bulletin, 135(3), 380–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015325
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. J. (1962). Observations on active touch. Psychological Review, 69(6), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046962
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginns, P., Hu, F. T., Byrne, E., & Bobis, J. (2016). Learning by tracing worked examples. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(2), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannan, L., Chatterjee, H. J., & Duhs, R. (2013). Object based learning: A powerful pedagogy for higher education. In A. Boddington, J. Boys, & C. Speight (Eds.), Museums and higher education working together: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 159–168). Ashgate Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Howes, D. (2014). Introduction to sensory museology. The Senses and Society, 9(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.2752/174589314X14023847039917
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutmacher, F. (2019). Why is there so much more research on vision than on any other sensory modality? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02246
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M. G., & Magana, A. J. (2015). Haptic technologies to support learning. In M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 331–333). SAGE Reference.
   Google Scholar
• Knogler, M., Harackiewicz, J. M., Gegenfurtner, A., & Lewalter, D. (2015). How situational is situational interest? Investigating the longitudinal structure of situational interest. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Koran, J. J., Morrison, L., Lehman, J. R., Koran, M. L., & Gandara, L. (1984). Attention and curiosity in museums. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(4), 357–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development. Theoretical consid-erations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 383–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00011-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L. (1987). Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 342–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(87)90008-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L. (2009). Haptic perception: A tutorial. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(7), 1439–1459. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.7.1439
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewalter, D. (2020). Schülerlaborbesuche aus motivationaler Sicht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Interesses. In K. Sommer, J. Wirth, & M. Vanderbeke (Hrsg.), Handbuch Forschen im Schülerlabor – Theoretische Grundlagen, empirische Forschungsmethoden und aktuelle Anwendungsgebiete (pp. 63–70). Waxmann-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Loomis, J. M., & Lederman, S. J. (1986). Tactual perception. Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, 2, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.8.1126
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia mearning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 43–71). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Minogue, J., & Jones, M. G. (2006). Haptics in education: Exploring an untapped sensory modality. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 317–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076003317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novak, M., & Schwan, S. (2020). Does touching real objects affect learning? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09551-z
   Google Scholar
• Ogawa, R. T., Loomis, M., & Crain, R. (2009). Institutional history of an interactive science center: The founding and development of the exploratorium. Science Education, 93(2), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20299
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oum, R. E., Lieberman, D., & Aylward, A. (2011). A feel for disgust: Tactile cues to pathogen presence. Cognition and Emotion, 25(4), 717–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.496997
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 27–42). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peck, J., & Wiggins, J. (2006). It just feels good: Customers’ affective response to touch and its influence on persuasion. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Romanek, D., & Lynch, B. (2008). Touch and value of object handling: Final conclusions for a new sensory museology. In H. J. Chatterjee (Ed.), Touch in museums: Policy and practice in object handling (pp. 275–286). Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, S. (2002). The role of objects in active, distributed meaning-making. In S. G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums (pp. 19–35). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Psychological needs. In R. M. Ryan & E. L. Deci (Eds.), Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness (pp. 80–101). Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Schnotz, W. (2014). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 72–103). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwan, S., Bauer, D., Kampschulte, L., & Hampp, C. (2016). Representation equals presentation? Journal of Media Psychology, 29(4), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000166
   Google Scholar
• Schwan, S., Dutz, S., & Dreger, F. (2018). Multimedia in the wild: Testing the validity of multimedia learning principles in an art exhibition. Learning and Instruction, 55, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharp, A., Thomson, L., Chatterjee, J., & Hannan, L. (2015). The value of object-based learning within and between higher education disciplines. In H. J. Chatterjee & L. Hannan (Eds.), Engaging the senses: Object-based learning in higher education (pp. 97–116). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Skolnick, A. J. (2013). Gender differences when touching something gross: Unpleasant? No. Disgusting? Yes!. The Journal of General Psychology, 140(2), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2013.781989
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skydsgaard, M. A., Møller Andersen, H., & King, H. (2016). Designing museum exhibits that facilitate visitor reflection and discussion. Museum Management and Curatorship, 31(1), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2015.1117237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, D. P. (2016). Bringing experiential learning into the lecture theatre using 3D printed objects [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research, 5(61), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7632.1
   Google Scholar
• Smith, L., & Gasser, M. (2005). The development of embodied cognition: Six lessons from babies. Artificial Life, 11(1/2), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1162/1064546053278973
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, J. C., Skiba, R. M., Coleman, T. L., & Berryhill, M. E. (2014). Real-world objects are more memorable than photographs of objects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00837
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spence, C., & Gallace, A. (2008). Making sense of touch. In H. J. Chatterjee (Ed.), Touch in museums: Policy and practice in object handling (pp. 21–40). Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Stull, A. T., Gainer, M. J., & Hegarty, M. (2018). Learning by enacting: The role of embodiment in chemistry education. Learning and Instruction, 55, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.09.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, M., Ginns, P., & Jacobson, M. J. (2019). Tracing enhances recall and transfer of knowledge of the water cycle. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09466-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A. L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilde, M., Baetz, K., Kovaleva, A., & Urhahne, D. (2009). Überprüfung einer Kurzskala intrinsischer motivation (KIM) [Testing a short scale of intrinsic motivation]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Natuwissenschaften, 15, 31–45.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, P. F., Stott, J., Warnett, J. M., Attridge, A., Smith, M. P., & Williams, M. A. (2017). Evaluation of touchable 3D-printed replicas in museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 60(4), 445–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar