Pro or con nanotechnology? [Elektronische Ressource] : support for critical thinking and reflective judgement at science museums = Pro oder kontra Nanotechnologie? / vorgelegt von Kristin Knipfer

Kknipfer

Informations

• Publié par: eberhard_karls_universitat_tubingen
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2009
• Nombre de lectures: 16
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Pro or Con Nanotechnology? Support
for Critical Thinking and Reflective
Judgement at Science Museums.
Pro oder Kontra Nanotechnologie?
Unterstützung von kritischem Denken
und reflektiertem Urteilen im Museum.


Dissertation
der Fakultät für Informations- und Kognitionswissenschaften
der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen
zur Erlangung des Grades eines
Doktors der Naturwissenschaften
(Dr. rer. nat.)


vorgelegt von
Dipl.-Psych. Kristin Knipfer
aus Nürnberg


Tübingen
2009




























Tag der mündlichen Qualifikation 28.01.2009
Dekan Prof. Dr.-Ing. Oliver Kohlbacher
1. Berichterstatter Prof. Dr. Dr. Friedrich W. Hesse
2. Berichterstatter Prof. Dr. Stephan Schwan
3. Berichterstatter Prof. Dr. Rainer Bromme thanks to…


my PhD supervisor Prof. Hesse
Stephan
Carmen
Eva
Jessica
Maike
Antonia
Gabi
Daniel
Jürgen
Daniel W.
Eva R.
Markus A.
Sieglinde
Rosi
all my research project fellows
my VGK-fellows & all VGK-Profs

my flatmates Daniela & Amgad
“the Knipfers”
Thomas
Preface

The present dissertation project was embedded in the context of a larger research project
(Knowledge Media Research Center, Tuebingen; Deutsches Museum, Munich; Institute for
Science Education, Kiel) on learning in the museum by means of new media, which is funded
by the "Pact for research and innovation" of the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/museum). In this three-year interdisciplinary research
project, the educational potential of advanced media applications within the context of science
exhibitions was explored with regard to knowledge acquisition, the development of interests and
the formation of opinions. The following dissertation project is only one of about 12 research
projects that will further contribute to our understanding of informal learning from science
exhibitions and the role advanced media applications can play in this context. I tremendously
profited by the input of my research colleagues who contributed a lot to the development of my
ideas. So have considerations presented in Part I of this dissertation been arisen from intense
collaboration with Dr. Carmen Zahn and Mag. Eva Mayr.

During 2005 to 2008, I have been participating in the Virtual PhD-Program "Knowledge
Acquisition and Knowledge Exchange with New Media" (VGK; http://www.vgk.de) sponsored by
the German Research Association (DFG). The VGK enabled me to collaborate with researchers
from three German universities (Tuebingen, Muenster, Freiburg) in order to share ideas and
knowledge, and to gain insight into other research projects. This dissertation benefited hugely
from discussions with my VGK-fellows and the involved faculty members (Prof. Hesse, Prof.
Bromme, Prof. Spada, Prof. Diehl, Prof. Gerjets, Prof. Fischer, Prof. Renkl, Prof. Plötzner, Prof.
Strube).




Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 1

1 PART I: ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES FOR KNOWLEDGE COMMUNICATION
IN SCIENCE EXHIBITIONS ................................................................................. 8
1.1 SCIENCE EXHIBITIONS AS DYNAMIC INFORMATION SPACES FOR KNOWLEDGE
BUILDING ......................................................................................................10
1.2 THREE PATHWAYS OF KNOWLEDGE COMMUNICATION ......................................11
1.3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES FOR VISITOR-TO-VISITOR KNOWLEDGE
COMMUNICATION ...........................................................................................13
1.3.1 Advanced Technologies for Knowledge Dialogue ....14
1.3.2 Advanced Technologies for Knowledge Pooling .......................................16
1.4 LEARNING MECHANISMS IN VISITOR-TO-VISITOR KNOWLEDGE COMMUNICATION ...17
1.4.1 Learning through Socio-Cognitive Conflict ...............................................18
1.4.2 Learning through Internalization of Social Processes ...............................20
1.4.3 Learning by Giving and Receiving Help....................................................21
1.4.4 Learning through Argumentation ..............................22
1.4.5 Learning through Co-construction of Knowledge and Group Cognition ....24
1.4.6 Learning through Active Participation in Knowledge-Building Processes ..25
1.4.7 Concluding Reflections on Learning Mechanisms in Visitor-to-Visitor
Knowledge Communication ......................................................................27
1.5 DISCUSSION ..................................................................29

2 PART II: A DISCUSSION TERMINAL AS SUPPORT FOR DELIBERATE
OPINION FORMATION AT SCIENCE MUSEUMS .............................................36
2.1 OPINION FORMATION ABOUT SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC ISSUES ...36
2.1.1 Communicating Contemporary Science at Science Museums .................36
2.1.2 Informal Reasoning, Critical Thinking and Reflective Judgement .............37
2.2 DISAGREEMENT AND CONTROVERSY AS MAJOR PROMOTER OF DELIBERATE
OPINION FORMATION .....................................................................................41
2.2.1 Social Comparison of Opinions and Consequences of Disagreement ......42
2.2.2 Informational Social Influence on Individual Judgement ...........................43
2.3 A DISCUSSION TERMINAL INFORMED BY SOCIO-COGNITIVE THEORIES ..............45

3 STUDY 1: THE ROLE OF ACTIVE OPINION EXPRESSION AND SALIENCE OF
ARGUMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL OPINION FORMATION .................................48
3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ......................................................48
3.2 METHOD .......................................................................................................49
3.2.1 Research Design .....................................................................................49
3.2.2 Material ....................................................................50
3.2.3 Participants ..............................................................................................51
3.2.4 Procedure ............................................................................................... 51
3.2.5 Measures ........................................ 51
3.3 RESULTS ....................................................... 54
3.3.1 Argument Repertoire ............................................................................... 56
3.3.2 Opinion Quality ........................ 57
3.3.3 Attitudes ........................................................................... 59
3.3.4 Factual Knowledge .................................................................................. 60
3.4 DISCUSSION ................................................................. 61

4 STUDY 2: DISAGREEMENT AMONG VISITORS AS MAJOR PROMOTER OF
DELIBERATE OPINION FORMATION .............................................................. 66
4.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ..................... 66
4.2 METHOD ...................................................................................................... 67
4.2.1 Research Design................................................................ 67
4.2.2 Material ................................................................... 68
4.2.3 Participants .............................................................. 69
4.2.4 Procedure ....................................... 69
4.2.5 Measures ......................................... 70
4.3 RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 74
4.3.1 Manipulation Check ......................................................... 74
4.3.2 Overall Judgement and Opinion Change ................................................. 75
4.3.3 Argument Repertoire ............................................... 76
4.3.4 Opinion Quality ........................ 77
4.3.5 Counterargument Generation/Rebuttal Construction ............................... 78
4.3.6 Attitudes .................................................................................................. 79
4.4 DISCUSSION ........... 79

5 GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 85
5.1 GENERALIZABILITY OF RESULTS .................................................................... 87
5.2 METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................ 88
5.3 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ......................................... 92
5.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF DISCUSSION-BASED MEDIA INSTALLATIONS 94
5.5 FUTURE RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 97

SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................