The science of nature and the nature of science: Natural history museums on-line

All of these issues feature in the research programmes of natural history museums and are potentially accessible through the material made available on-line. These provide an alternative series of elements for which evidence can be sought. Each is explored below, while Table 5 provides a summary of this analysis, which can be compared with to that presented (Table 3).

In recent years both students and the general public have increasingly come to question earlier notions that science is inherently beneficial and worthy of support. A heightened realisation that science is neither certain nor neutral – especially in its selection of topics for research – has been a significant factor in this. Rationale for research is therefore expected to be explicit, even in apparently non-controversial areas, and natural history museum websites are beginning to go some way towards providing this.

The most frequently emphasized, and the most likely to be explicitly expressed, is ‘biodiversity’. Biodiversity is a theme that looms large in the realm of natural history museum websites, despite its being a term little understood by non-specialists, and one that is not present in many school science curricula. (The National Curriculum in England & Wales (QCA 1999) has recently introduced the concept of ‘sustainable development’, but ‘biodiversity’ itself remains surprisingly absent.)

Natural history museums display a range of examples of biodiversity resources on their websites. Some of these are virtual representations of real exhibitions. Others stand alone. There are even examples that encourage learners to participate in the collection, identification and mapping of organisms such as woodlice (Hawkey 2001b).

Other than biodiversity, the most common rationale given for natural history museum research is for the benefits that it can offer to humanity: predicting volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, increasing food supplies, locating oil and gas reserves, maintaining and conserving natural resources. Occasionally, reference is made to economic or commercial considerations – and even, rarely, to sources of funding – but often the goal is expressed simply as that of ‘better understanding’.

The collection of data and its subsequent analysis are integral to much of the scientific process. Almost every natural history museum website includes reference – whether in outline or in detail – to more traditional and/or contemporary methods. Table 4 indicates a range of these, divided into predominantly field and laboratory techniques, drawn from a variety of sites.

Recent reports on museum education (Anderson 1999) and in both science education (Millar & Osborne 1998) and science communication (House of Lords 2000) have proposed a shift in emphasis in the presentation of science. These changes in balance can be summarised as moving from a perception of science as unquestioned answers to one of unanswered questions (AAAS 1993), or from expectation to inspiration, from elucidation to innovation and from interpretation to empowerment (Hawkey 2001c).

Developing learners’ understanding, however simply, of the kinds of questions that scientists ask about evidence – and the ways in which they interpret it – must be a key aim of the science educator. However, despite some clear statements of policy and some excellent examples such as Science Casebook (The Natural History Museum 1997), the links between data collection and accepted scientific ‘knowledge’ are often tenuous. Natural history museums as a sector have yet to acquire the confidence to expose the less committed learner to the issues.

The more advanced student can, however, find excellent resources, often in the form of on-line essays. What could be more enthralling than Martian Meteorites, and the search for life on Mars (Grady 1999), with its explicit emphasis on evidence and its interpretation?

Despite some attempts to indicate ‘how we know’ or ‘what we do not yet understand’, the majority of natural history museum websites do present science as a fixed body of knowledge. This is, in essence, little different from the perspective of their nineteenth century counterparts – the transmission of the curator’s expert knowledge to an ignorant public. The challenge for museums is to present the dynamism and fluidity of science as well as an authoritative view of current understanding (Hawkey 2001c). It will be interesting to see whether the changes in emphasis recommended in recent studies make any impact.

Meanwhile, however, for those prepared to delve deep, there are alternative insights. In many ways parallel to the discussion of life on Mars – and even more difficult to find – is Stringer’s (1999) essay, entitled Were the Neanderthals Our Ancestors? Although also concerned with evidence, this provides lively access to the nature and status of scientific ideas. 

Students and public alike – and, especially, the media – frequently express surprise when scientists disagree. Whether or not one takes a Kuhnian view on paradigm shifts, a key element of the scientific process is argument, discussion, debate. Publication – at conferences, in journals or on-line – is an essential component of this process. Although publications do feature on natural history museum websites, they rarely give this critical perspective and are more likely, for a public audience, to be used for the simple dissemination of information, with any element of dialogue reserved for experts.

There are rare examples of web resources that allow learners to share findings and ideas. One such is QUEST, significant among whose features is an on-line notebook. This provides access to this aspect of science – discussion and debate – that is all too often absent from conventional learning resources, and rarely included as a significant component of formal science education (Hawkey 2000a). 

Table 5
Evaluation of natural history museum websites, using science process categories

	AMNH	Field (Chicago)	NHM (UK)	California Academy	Smithsonian	TePapa (NZ)
rationale for research	*	*	*	*	*	*
data collection	**	**	*	*	*	*
evidence & interpretation	*	*	**	*	*	*
models, hypotheses, theories	*	*	*	*	**	*
publication, debate, peer review	*	*	*	*	*	*

Key: ** clear and/or frequent * evident - little or none apparent

A science education approach

It is possible to focus on the technical aspects of the use of the Internet for learning. It is common to stress ways in which the Internet can deliver conventional science education messages more rapidly, more effectively and to a much wider audience. But the essential issues of on-line learning are much more fundamental. It is now twenty-one years since Papert (1980) imagined, in the broader context of educational computing, a learning revolution. He envisaged a complete reappraisal of the curriculum and of pedagogy, with the responsibility for decisions about learning being transferred to the learners themselves. As Hawkey (2001a) has observed, use of the Internet can facilitate democracy and differentiation by learner choice. Do the websites of natural history museums provide such opportunities? Has Papert’s view come of age or are his ideas still in their infancy?

Resource (2001) has recently produced an extensive report that explores the whole basis of museum education on-line. Not only is this analysis useful in its own right, but it reaffirms the dictum that the key issues of on-line learning are essentially the same as those relating to learning in any museum context. Hawkey (1999b) has suggested four categories in which to evaluate the potential of resources, especially websites, for science education. These ask the teacher (or, increasingly, in independent learning scenarios, the learner him or herself) to consider four factors.

* Is the proposed activity intrinsically worthwhile, rather than merely trivial?

Of course, any notion of ‘worthwhile’ is subject to changes in philosophical, ethical and sociological perspectives; it is even possible to argue that desirable goals can give meaningful status to apparently trivial tasks. And if the website is intended primarily as an information resource, to be incorporated into an educational programme, then any consideration of worth will depend on the wider context.

* Is using the resource inherently interactive?

Although it is important not to simplistically equate museum interactives with multi-media, Caulton’s (1998) definition of an interactive museum exhibit can be readily extended to the virtual domain. He requires that there are ‘clear educational objectives which encourage individuals or groups of people working together to understand real objects or phenomena through physical exploration which involves choice and initiative’. It certainly seems appropriate to expect a website with educational aspirations to incorporate clear learning objectives and a multiplicity of outcomes depending on the visitor’s individual explorations.

* Does the material provide an appropriate model of scientific enquiry?

(This has been dealt with in previous parts of this paper.)

* Does the use of the website embrace an apposite philosophy of education?

There is a naïve model of education, increasingly inappropriate in an age of information, which regards learning principally as the receipt of knowledge (Hawkey 2000b). This is certainly unsuited to the museums of the 21^st century, which are places for exploration and learning through discovery, and where – rather than provide all the answers – exhibits should ‘be interactive and stimulate the visitor to ask questions’ (Abungu 1999). This idea is also evident in Anderson’s (1999) study, which signals the move of museum education ‘away from the rigid, supply-side model of the past, and towards individual choice and responsibility for learning in a diversity of contexts’. And, if ‘…museums offer the learner the opportunity to stop at will, to loiter and repeat, to ignore what does not stimulate, and to share what seems interesting’ (Hein 1990), then museum websites should do so par excellence.

A similar theme is taken up by Wild & Quinn (1998), who point out the importance of providing multiple paths for navigation that facilitate choice. This enables the learner to ‘engage, explore and build’, by providing information resources, deliberately facilitating cognitive processes and offering opportunity for ‘scaffolded reflection’. The attempt of QUEST to fulfil these aims and to support different learning styles is evident in its underlying educational philosophy and rationale (Hawkey 1999a). Indeed, in many ways it appears to be the very antithesis of the conventional approaches taken by museums in providing access to objects and educational programmes (Hawkey 1998).

It is important to distinguish between perceptions of knowledge – from revealed truths to best-fit paradigms – and perspectives on learning – from tabula rasa to personal sense making. There are both epistemological and cognitive perspectives that are often labelled as ‘constructivist’ and which, as Hein (1995) has highlighted, have frequently caused confusion and contradiction in the museum context. His simple model overcomes this, creates four complementary, but distinct, philosophies – and can be applied to museum websites as readily as to museum exhibitions. The categories so created – behaviourist, constructivist, didactic and heuristic – form a useful means of checking both the philosophy of science and that of education that are predominant. Figure 2 applies the model to a number of elements of the website of The Natural History Museum (UK); it could equally well be applied to that of any other museum on-line.