This document discusses how museums can effectively communicate earth science topics to visitors. It emphasizes that the goal of interpretation should be to provoke curiosity, not just convey facts. Successful interpretation requires knowledge of both the resource and the audience. The document also stresses that scientists should collaborate with museums, which have expertise in interpretation, exhibition design, and audience engagement. Accompanying text is important but can undermine exhibits if it uses too much scientific jargon or information. Overall, earth scientists and museums should work together to spark visitors' natural curiosity about the planet.

1. Museums and Earth Science Interpretation
EXPERIENCE PLANET EARTH
Simon Schneider, GETOECHNOLOGIEN coordination office

2. “Do not try to satisfy your vanity by teaching a great
many things. Awaken peoples’ curiosity! It’s enough
to open minds, do not overload them. Put there just
a spark. If there is some good inflammable stuff, it
will catch fire.” - French author and Nobel-Laureate
Anatole France
(as cited in Ward & Wilkinson, 2006, p. 24)

3. There are a lot of regional museums, sometimes as
small as a single room or a shed somewhere in the
wild, interpreting geological features like
outstanding rock formations, paleontological
discoveries, or breathtaking lookouts.

4. Exhibition areas about plate tectonics, volcanoes, or
natural hazards are common in natural and natural
history museums. Occasionally even mineralogical
features such as common rock types and natural
resources are chapters within these museums.
But the relevance of Earth and Space sciences for our
daily live stays only marginally highlighted.

5. There are two sides to Earth science communication in
museum environments.
 The slow and shy approach from scientists toward
museums
 The new demands of the Information Age on
museums to develop into multitasking, educational,
and entertaining facilitators of knowledge

6. What science has to learn:
 museums are more than just showcases for artifacts,
exhibits, and pictures.
 Museums maintain a complex and multifarious
infrastructure - not only to support the presentation
but also to develop new and innovative approaches
in communicating content, to develop and conduct
innovative and creative programs.

7. The communicative know-how at museums is highly
specialized to present complex issues.
There are Educationalists who …
 bring curriculum expertise to museums
 translate scientific vocabulary into a suitable
language for different audiences.
 They are trained in developing educational
programs (face-to-face, workshops, children’s
birthday parties, book signings, special events (e.g.
International Museum Days or “Long Nights”)

8. Public Understanding of Science and Humanities
(PUSH) has become the focus of controversial
discussion within both protagonist camps:
 scientists are no longer willing to “downsize” and
translate their research without proper support by
agencies and policy,
 communication research has shown that science
communication by itself is not the suitable tool for
building the targeted “understanding of science”.
(for example Renn, 1986; Schiele, Claessens, & Shi, 2012)

9. American journalist and author Freeman Tilden
defined the function of interpretation as
“an educational activity, which aims to reveal
meaning and relationship through the use of original
objects, by firsthand experience, and by illustrative
media, rather than simply to communicate factual
information”.

10. Wells, Butler, and Koke (2013) quoted Sir Ken
Robinson that
“rather than anesthetizing learners using the
traditional factory model [of education] we should
be waking them up by stimulating their
imaginations and creativity”.
Ergo, taking science into museums should not have
strict learning as a goal; instead, it should focus on
provoking critical thinking and curiosity.

11. An important principle within developing programs for
science communication in museums is the so-called
interpretive equation (National Park Service, 1999, 2000;
Larsen, n.d., 1998):
(KR+ KA) AT = IO
This equation summarizes a scheme to obtain the key factors for successful
interpretation. Within the equation, KR represents the interpreter’s
“knowledge of the resource,” KA represents the interpreter’s “knowledge of the
audience,” AT represents the interpreter’s use of an “appropriate technique,”
and IO represents the production of an “interpretive opportunity” for visitors.

12. Scientists and others who start an exhibition project
often underestimate the impact of accompanying
text. It is easy to damage the good impression of a
well-made exhibition by using too much text, the
wrong style and language, or scientific terms and
tone.

13. “Too often writing is seen as unimportant, something
done in a spare half-hour. Writing which commands
attention and is memorable is hard work” (Carter,
2000).
Tip-sheets proffer guidelines about how to write
effective text for exhibitions (see for example the
London Metropolitan University tip sheet).
A summary on research related to the effectiveness and reception of
exhibition text is given by Bitgood (2000).

14. Traveling exhibitions represent great tools for research
organizations that do not have a museum.
If scientific organizations and museums cooperate,
then they can share collective resources such as
materials, time, consulting with experts on
particular themes of interest (e.g. family learning or
accessibility), as well as time with evaluators.

15. There is both a need and an opportunity to develop the
exhibit-building capacity of small museums by
cooperating with research institutions and
organizations.
“A collaborative, therefore, is not only seen as a good
way to build better exhibits, but is also seen as a
good way to engage in a collective capacity-building
endeavor” (Carroll et al., 2005).

16. Museum professionals and Earth scientists would do
well to remember the wise words of Anatole France:
“The whole art of teaching is only the art of
awakening the natural curiosity of young minds for
the purpose of satisfying it afterwards”.
Simon Schneider, GETOECHNOLOGIEN coordination office, simon@geotechnologien.de

17. References
 Ward, C. W., & Wilkinson, A. E. (2006). Conducting meaningful interpretation: A field guide for success.
Golden, CO, USA: Fulcrum Publishing.
 Hudec, H. (2004). Evaluation: A critical step in creating effective museum exhibits. (Unpublished thesis).
University of Chicago. Retrieved from
http://mps.uchicago.edu/docs/2005/articles/hudec_thesis_short.pdf
 Renn, O. (1986). Akzeptanzforschung: Technik in der gesellschaftlichen Auseinandersetzung. Chemie in
unserer Zeit. 20. Jhrg. Nr.2. Weinheim, Germany: VCH VerlagsgesellschaftmbH (p 44–52).
 Schiele, B, Claessens, M., Shi, S. (2012). Science Communication in the World, Hamburg, Germany: Springer
(pp 125–137)
 Wells, M. D., Butler, B., & Koke, J. (2013). Interpretive planning for museums. Walnut Creek, CA, USA:
LeftCoast Press.
 National Park Service. (1999). All about the program. Interpretive Development Program Homepage [On-line].
Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/idp/interp/
 National Park Service. (2000). Module 101: How interpretation works: The interpretive equation. Interpretive
Development Program Homepage. [On-line]. Retrieved from
http://www.nps.gov/idp/interp/101/howitworks.htm
 Larsen, D. L. (1998). Observation for “Quest” meeting. (Unpublished manuscript).
 Leyland, E. (2011). Interpretive Text Panels. Retrieved from
http://eric-leyland.blogspot.de/2011/08/interpretive-text-panels.html
 Bitgood, S. (2000). The role of attention in designing effective interpretive labels. Journal of Interpretation
Research, 5(2), 31–45.
 Carroll, B., Huntwork, D., & St. John M. (2005). Traveling exhibits at museums of science (TEAMS). A
Summative Evaluation Report, Inverness Research Associates. Retrieved from http://www.inverness-research.
org/reports/2005-04-teams/2005-04-Rpt-Teams-summative_eval.pdf