Comparing the Effectiveness of Two Communication Formats on Visitors’ Understanding of Nanotechnology

REFERENCES

• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bromme, R., & Jucks, R. (2001). Wissensdivergenz und Kommunikation: Lernen zwischen Experten und Laien im Netz [Divergence in knowledge and communication: Learning between experts and laymen in the internet]. In F.W. Hesse & H.F. Friedrich (Eds.), Partizipation und Interaktion in virtuellen Seminaren [Participation and interaction in virtual tutorials] (pp. 81–103). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
   Google Scholar
• Bromme, R., & Jucks, R. (2003). Wenn Experten und Laien sich nicht verstehen [When experts and laymen don't get along]. Forschungsjournal der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster, 12, 20–25.
   Google Scholar
• Bromme, R., & Rambow, R. (2001). Experten-Laien-Kommunikation als Gegenstand der Expertiseforschung: Für eine Erweiterung des psychologischen Bildes vom Experten [Expert-layman communication as object of research on expertise: Broadening of the psychological image of an expert]. In R.K. Silbereisen & M. Reitzle (Eds.), Psychologie 2000. Bericht über den 42. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Jena (pp. 541–550). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science.
   Google Scholar
• Bromme, R., Rambow, R., & Nückles, M. (2001). Expertise and estimating what other people know: The influence of professional experience and type of knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 317–330.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, T.W., O’Connor, D.J., & Stocklmayer, S.M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cegala, D.J., Coleman, M.T., & Turner, J.W. (1998). The development and partial assessment of the Medical Communication Competence Scale. Health Communication, 10, 261–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H.H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, S., McCallie, E., Simonsson, E., Lehr, J., & Duensing, S. (2009). Discussing dialogue events that do not inform policy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 338–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11, 181–197.
   Google Scholar
• Ecsite. (2011). Outcome Nanototouch project: Carrying out live nano research across European science centres and museums. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2008). Young people and science (Flash Eurobarometer 239). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
   Google Scholar
• Geyer, C., Neubauer, K., & Lewalter, D. (2013). Public understanding of science via research areas in science museums: The evaluation of the EU project NanoToTouch. In L. Locke & S. Locke (Eds.), Knowledge in Publics: Beyond Deficit, Engagement and Transfer (pp. 50–74). . London: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Hix, P. (2011). Nanototouch: Support to outreach and communication in nanotechnology. München, Germany: Deutsches Museum.
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G.L. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 87–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 27–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyllonen, P.C., & Lajoie, S.P. (2003). Reassessing aptitude: Introduction to a special issue in honor of Richard E. Snow. Educational Psychologist, 38, 79–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lehr, J.L., McCallie, E., Davies, S.R., Caron, S.R., Gammon, B., & Duensing, S. (2007). The value of “dialogue events” as sites of learning: An exploration of research and evaluation frameworks. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1467–1487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewalter, D. (2003). Besucherbefragung in der Pharmazieabteilung des Deutschen Museums München. Hinweise auf motivationale Effekte des Museumsbesuchs [Visitor survey in the pharmacy exhibition of the Deutsches Museum München. Evidence for motivational effects of the museum visit]. In A. Noschka-Roos (Ed.), Besucherforschung in Museen. Instrumentarium zur Verbesserung der Ausstellungskommunikation [Visitor research in museum] (pp. 45–82). München, Germany: Deutsches Museum.
   Google Scholar
• Liem, A.D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 264–282.
   Google Scholar
• McKenna, F.P. (2002). Commentary: Subjective measures: Not perfect but what is? Ergonomics, 45, 998–1000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000. Science education for the future. London, UK: King's College.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J.D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nückles, M. (2001). Perspektivenübernahme von Experten in der Kommunikation mit Laien: Eine Experimentalserie im Internet [Perspective adoption of experts in communication with laymen: An experimental series in the internet]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
   Google Scholar
• Overskaug, K., Holt, G., Hagen, K.G., Naess, A., & Steffensen, M. (2010). An analysis of visitation patterns at the museum of natural history and archaeology, Tronheim, Norway from 1954 to 2006. Visitor Studies, 13, 107–117.
   Google Scholar
• Renninger, K.A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46, 168–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwan, S., Grajal, A., & Lewalter, D. (2014). Understanding and engagement in places of science experience: Science museums, science centers, zoos, and aquariums. Educational Psychologist, 49, 70–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarzer, R., & Schmitz, G.S. (1999). Skala Lehrer-Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung [Chart on teacher self-efficacy]. In R. Schwarzer & M. Jerusalem (Eds.), Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer - und Schülermerkmalen [Charts on registration of teacher and student attributes] (pp. 60–61). Berlin, Germany: Freie Universität Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Takahashi, M., Tanaka, K., & Miyaoka, H. (2006). Reliability and validity of communication skills questionnaire (CSQ). Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 60, 211–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venohr, B. (2007). Die Sicht des Anderen. Perspektivenübernahme in der Arzt-Patienten-Kommunikation als beispielhafte Experten-Laien-Kommunikation [The vision of the other. Perspective adoption at the doctor-patient-communication as an example of expert-laymen-communication]. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
   Google Scholar
• Waldron, A.M., Spencer, D., & Batt, C.A. (2006). The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 569–575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmer, R., Hertel, R., & Böl, G.-F. (Eds.) (2008). Wahrnehmung der Nanotechnologie in der Gesellschaft [Perception of nanotechnology in society]. Berlin, Germany: BfR Wissenschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Zorn, T.E., Roper, J., Weaver, C.K., & Rigby, C. (2012). Influence in science dialogue: Individual attitude changes as a result of dialogue between laypersons and scientists. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 848–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar