Abstract
Zoology collections have been important both in academic studies and public engagement with natural history for hundreds of years. Offering unique access to a variety of specimens, be they skeletons, taxidermy, or preserved organisms, zoology collections have a special place in how humans use animals in education. This chapter explores how natural history museums have shifted from ‘cabinets of curiosity’ to teaching and learning collections, while still providing the public with access to the exciting world of animal biology. We then explore how one such collection, at The Grant Museum of Zoology, London, encourages understanding of evolution through object-based learning (OBL). Central to OBL is the role of handling and touch, and it is through this process that we see how tactile interaction brings new meaning to animal specimens and allows the learner to see beyond the dead animal. The chapter closes by considering how the emerging world of digital technology offers new and exciting ways for using OBL to learn about nature.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Rather than using argumentation, the workshops had an exploratory nature to them, and thus model ‘inquiry science’ rather than specifically argumentation.
References
Ashworth, A. B (Jnr.). (1996). Emblematic natural history of the renaissance. In N. Jardine, J. A. Secord, & E. C. Spary (Eds.), Cultures of natural history (pp. 17–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baddeley, A., Eysench, M., & Anderson, M. (2009). Memory. Hove: Psychology Press.
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1373–1388. doi:10.1080/09500690500498419.
Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-Based Professional Development: What does it take to support teachers in learning about inquiry and nature of science? International Journal of Science Education, 35, 1947–1978. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.760209.
Chatterjee, H. J. (2009). Staying essential: Articulating the value of object based learning. University Museums and Collections Journal, 1, 37–42.
Chatterjee, H. J. (2011). Object-based learning in higher education: The pedagogical power of museums. International Committee for University Museums and Collections (UMAC) Proceedings, 3.
Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why is evolution true. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crawford, B. A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2004). Confronting prospective teachers’ ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-based tasks. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 42, 613–637. doi:10.1002/tea.20070.
Critchley, H. (2008). Emotional touch: A neuroscientific overview. In H. J. Chatterjee (Ed.), Touch in museums: Policy and practice in object handling (pp. 61–71). Oxford: Berg.
De Beer, G. R. (1953). Sir Hans Sloane and the British Museum. The British Museum Quarterly, 2–4. doi:10.2307/4422405.
Dig Ventures (2015, March 5). Retrieved from http://digventures.com/2015/10/sneak-preview-of-the-victoria-cave-virtual-museum/
Ellis, V., & McNicholl, J. (2015). Transforming teacher education: Reconfiguring the academic work. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2008). The cognitive and neural correlates of “tactile consciousness”: A multisensory perspective. Consciousness and cognition, 17, 370–407. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.005.
Giachritsis, C. (2008). The use of haptic interfaces in haptic research. In H. J. Chatterjee (Ed.), Touch in museums: Policy and practice in object handling (pp. 75–90). Oxford: Berg.
Gurian, E. H. (2004). What is the object of this exercise? A meandering exploration of the many meanings of objects in museums. In G. Anderson (Ed.), Reinventing the museum: Historical and contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift (pp. 269–284). New York: AltaMira.
Koerner, L. (1996). Carl Linnaeus in his time and place. In N. Jardine, J. A. Secord, & E. C. Spary (Eds.), Cultures of natural history (pp. 145–162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kraemer, H., & Kanter, N. (2014, December). Use and re-use of data how Collection Management Systems, Transmedia and Augmented Reality impact the future of museum. In Virtual Systems & Multimedia (VSMM), 2014 International Conference on (pp. 214–216). IEEE.
Limoges, C., Fox, R. & Weisz, G. (1980). The organization of science and technology in France, 1808–1914. The organization of science and technology in France, 1808–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linnaeus, C. (1754). Herb.. Amboin.
Martin, M., & Jones, G. V. (2009). Affect and alexithymia determine choice among valued objects. Emotion, 9, 340. doi:10.1037/a0015247.
Miller, B., Conway, W., Reading, R. P., Wemmer, C., Wildt, D., Kleiman, D., & Hutchins, M. (2004). Evaluating the conservation mission of zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens, and natural history museums. Conservation Biology, 18, 86–93. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00181.x.
Nehm, R. H., Kim, S. Y., & Sheppard, K. (2009). Academic preparation in biology and advocacy for teaching evolution: Biology versus non-biology teachers. Science Education, 93, 1122–1146. doi:10.1002/sce.20340.
Nehm, R. H., & Reilly, L. (2007). Biology majors’ knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. BioScience, 57, 263–272.
Oppenheimer, F. (1972). The exploratorium: A playful museum combines perception and art in science education. American Journal of Physics, 40, 978–984. doi:10.1119/1.1986726.
Outram, D. (1996). New spaces in natural history. In N. Jardine, J. A. Secord, & E. C. Spary (Eds.), Cultures of natural history (pp. 249–265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paulus, M., & Hauf, P. (2011). Infants’ use of material properties to guide their actions with differently weighted objects. Infant and Child Development, 20, 423–436. doi:10.1002/icd.704.
Pazza, R, Penteado P.R., Kavalco, K.F. (2009). Misconceptions about evolution in Brazilian freshmen students. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 107–113. doi: 10.1007/s12052-009-0187-3.
Roberts, L. (2014). From knowledge to narrative: Educators and the changing museum. Smithsonian Institution.
Solway, R., Camic, P. M., Thomson, L. J., & Chatterjee, H. J. (2015). Material objects and psychological theory: A conceptual literature review. Arts & Health, 8, 1–20. doi:10.1080/17533015.2014.998010.
Turnhout, E., Bloomfield, B., Hulme, M., Vogel, J., & Wynne, B. (2012). Conservation policy: Listen to the voices of experience. Nature, 488, 454–455. doi:10.1038/488454a.
Veall, D. (2015). University museums: A space for inquiry. School Science Review, 97, 74–78.
Were, G. (2008). Out of touch? Digital technologies, ethnographic objects and sensory orders. In H. J. Chatterjee (Ed.), Touch in museums: Policy and practice in object handling (pp. 127–131). Oxford: Berg.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Davies, P., Nicholl, J. (2017). Using Object-Based Learning to Understand Animal Evolution. In: Mueller, M., Tippins, D., Stewart, A. (eds) Animals and Science Education. Environmental Discourses in Science Education, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56375-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56375-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56374-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56375-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)