Preschoolers’ social emotional learning in children’s museums and community playgrounds

Interest in social emotional learning (SEL) is higher than ever, as parents, educators, and policymakers recognize that children need more than cognitive skills for later life success. However, most SEL research has been conducted in formal education settings. This article describes results from an empirical study of 4–5 years old SEL in two informal learning settings, including children’s museums and community playgrounds. Members of the Children’s Museum Research Network observed 606 preschool children using the Revised/Shortened Minnesota Preschool Affect Checklist (MPAC-R/S). Findings show that preschool children engaged in SEL in both settings, but that significantly more instances of SEL were seen in children’s museums compared with community playgrounds. We argue that children’s museums may provide an important, peer-to-peer opportunity for children to develop and practice their SEL, one that is unique from the more common teacher-child interactions provided in schools.

Advantages of joint work of school with organizations of supplementary education at different historical stages

Article deals with the problem of interaction of the museum and school from the early ages. Authors give thoroughly full images of joint work of museums and schools in developed countries and analyze their experiences in conducting this way of cooperation. In the article there were listed the problems of interaction between the museum and the school and features of interaction at different historical stages. Authors describe the promising models of cooperation and the answers to question ‘How the problem of “museum and school” is solved abroad?’ Work of museums with students have been discussed in details, i.e. work with preschoolers and younger students, middle and high school students. Authors gave classification of museums of educational institutions: university museums, school museums, pedagogical museums. They have considered pedagogical museums in the period of origin and prosperity, the evolution of pedagogical museums, museums of the history of education and children's museums. Authors have analyzed the prospective of having museumschool partnership

Evaluation and Discussion of Genetics Content in Museums

BackgroundGenetics literacy is crucial for making informed personal decisions. With rapid advances in genetic technology, a foundational understanding of genetics is now more important than ever for meaningful engagement with questions surrounding health, privacy, and policy. However, genetic content engagement barriers, including geographic unavailability, lack of prior education, and misleading media narratives, can make it difficult to reach diverse populations. Furthermore, with growing mistrust in science and genetic information, interventions to improve genetics literacy, particularly to those beyond a K – 12 classroom, require an approach centered on building science trust and self-efficacy. ResultsFor the meta-analysis, we found genetics content in 88 of the 691 museums queried, typically in science (n=37) and natural history (n=25) exhibits. While genetics content was present in 42 states, there were large portions of the country that were more than 150 miles away from any museum featuring genetics. We found a high concentration of genetics content in sponsored exhibits and a low concentration of content within children’s museums, reinforcing narratives of genetic technology as product and genetics as difficult, respectively. In framing devices, museums fell into one of three categories. Museums with the meta-narrative “Genetics is Fun” focused on interactivity and volunteer facilitation, and emphasized specific inherited traits and genetics tools and technology. Museums highlighting the meta-narrative “Genetics is Relevant” highlighted DNA basics and health testing. Finally, museums with the meta-narrative “Genetics is Discovery” featured heavy use of fishbowl-style genetics labs, highly visible museum collections, and an emphasis on visitor participation in science research. ConclusionWhile each of these meta-narratives leads to high engagement with genetics topics, they also all lead to construction of different personal identities around these topics. For example, watching a diverse set of scientists work in a fishbowl lab broadens definitions of who can be a scientist, but active participation in a genetics experiment through volunteer facilitation builds science self-efficacy. Furthermore, narratives focusing on technological breakthroughs alone may inadvertently send a message that genetics is complex and impersonal. Exhibit creators should consider the design ramifications of each of these choices when creating an impactful genetics exhibit.