Take Two: A Study of the Co-Creation of Knowledge on Museum 2.0 Sites Jeff Grabill, Michigan State University Kris Morrissey, University of Washington Bill Hart-Davidson, Michigan State University Kirsten Ellenbogen, Science Museum of Minnesota Troy Livingston, Museum of Life + Science Stacey Pigg, Michigan State University Katie Wittenauer, Michigan State University

How Do Web 2.0 Technologies Impact Museum Learning and Practice? Most museums with an online presence either have or are planning to experiment with web interactivity. What is really happening in these online spaces? Have Web 2.0 tools brought about changes in the ways knowledge is shared, created and co-created, and the ways that visitors interact with the museum and each other?

How Do Web 2.0 Technologies Impact Museum Learning and Practice? The Take Two study is an examination of online museum activity and impacts on museum practice. We focus on a science museum blog (Science Buzz from the Science Museum of Minnesota) and on the impact that Web 2.0 technologies have on museum practice (Museum of Life + Science in North Carolina).

Study Questions What is the nature of the community that interacts through Science Buzz? What is the nature of the online interaction? Do these online interactions support knowledge building for this user community? Do online interactions support inquiry, learning, and change within the museum—what is the impact on museum practice?

What is the nature of the community that interacts through Science Buzz?

What is the nature of the online interaction?

Do these online interactions support knowledge building for this user community?

Do online interactions support inquiry, learning, and change within the museum—what is the impact on museum practice?

Coding for Discourse Analysis Our investigation of online activity relies on discourse analysis to characterize that activity, focusing on four major rhetorical acts:

Preliminary Results (some) Informal argumentation happens—lots. Slightly over sixty percent of our total sample was coded as “Building an Argument.” Writers build and articulate individual identities (25.22% of the total sample). Writers build community. All threads contained community identity moves, and over ten percent of sampled threads (11.36%) were coded as contributing to building community identity .

Informal argumentation happens—lots. Slightly over sixty percent of our total sample was coded as “Building an Argument.”

Writers build and articulate individual identities (25.22% of the total sample).

Writers build community. All threads contained community identity moves, and over ten percent of sampled threads (11.36%) were coded as contributing to building community identity .