Please Touch the Hedgehog: Haptic Exploration of Mounted Specimens Increases Inspection Time and Positive Evaluation of an Exhibit
Saved in:
| Title: | Please Touch the Hedgehog: Haptic Exploration of Mounted Specimens Increases Inspection Time and Positive Evaluation of an Exhibit |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Constanze Hampp (ORCID |
| Source: | Science Education. 2025 109(6):1701-1715. |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 15 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Museums, Biodiversity, Sensory Experience, Learning Modalities, Tactual Perception, Attention, Interaction |
| DOI: | 10.1002/sce.21991 |
| ISSN: | 0036-8326 1098-237X |
| Abstract: | Natural history museums with their huge collections and exhibits seem to be particularly well suited to create an understanding and awareness of biodiversity. Mounted specimens are typical learning objects in natural history museums. The visual sense obviously plays a role here, but the haptic exploration of certain elements can also be conducive to learning. By combining an observational study and a mixed-method study using a questionnaire and a semistructured interview, we analyzed how visitors use, evaluate, and benefit from the haptic exploration of mounted specimens. We also investigated whether a combination of a fur piece and a photo would be a less conservation-sensitive alternative for mounted specimens. Although both studies indicate that visitors only spent a relatively short time at the exhibit, the possibility of haptic exploration led them to engage with more objects and to spend more time with them. This was independent of whether the mounted specimens or the combination of a photo and a piece of fur was presented. In addition, positive evaluations tended to occur more frequently in the conditions in which touching was permitted, whereas negative evaluations were more frequent in the conditions without haptic experience and the lack of opportunity for interaction was often criticized in these conditions. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1486671 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFZYwOrYNeqeZprN_Bgndb9AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAW-wDrOiG8g3mgvmAIBEICBmx5EID_biicdFilu9R1Jq6kmoZ7wwBwUEUxtzAwwJ0_ZjkoXVOueMLeLOy5_g1vri9vz11Nfz_4kPDo-DprOWoVRqCd_dGpEYZLfQIS8kzfUl6VhBOJNEP-6xmkI9OOXBm4RQfvKxk7sUNLMh68lmhGPT1Y8i76JgEYGnpnnegMy5r8yozhgGbHLff2-Ro7CFqGMCniznUuBiTxF Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0188607211;sed01nov.25;2025Oct14.06:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188607211-1">Please Touch the Hedgehog: Haptic Exploration of Mounted Specimens Increases Inspection Time and Positive Evaluation of an Exhibit </title> <p>Natural history museums with their huge collections and exhibits seem to be particularly well suited to create an understanding and awareness of biodiversity. Mounted specimens are typical learning objects in natural history museums. The visual sense obviously plays a role here, but the haptic exploration of certain elements can also be conducive to learning. By combining an observational study and a mixed‐method study using a questionnaire and a semistructured interview, we analyzed how visitors use, evaluate, and benefit from the haptic exploration of mounted specimens. We also investigated whether a combination of a fur piece and a photo would be a less conservation‐sensitive alternative for mounted specimens. Although both studies indicate that visitors only spent a relatively short time at the exhibit, the possibility of haptic exploration led them to engage with more objects and to spend more time with them. This was independent of whether the mounted specimens or the combination of a photo and a piece of fur was presented. In addition, positive evaluations tended to occur more frequently in the conditions in which touching was permitted, whereas negative evaluations were more frequent in the conditions without haptic experience and the lack of opportunity for interaction was often criticized in these conditions.</p> <p>Keywords: haptics; natural history museum; real objects; science learning; touch</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-2">Introduction</hd> <p>One of the most important aspects of biodiversity competence is the capability to properly identify species in their natural environment (Pfeiffer et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref1">32</reflink>]). Besides classroom curricula and outdoor learning study trips, visits to museums or zoos also contribute to biological learning, albeit to a lesser extent (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref2">27</reflink>]). Mujtaba et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref3">26</reflink>]) found in a literature review that natural history museums can make an important contribution to student learning and engagement in science, including biological themes. Especially with regard to biodiversity, natural history museums seem to be particularly well suited to create an understanding and awareness of this topic because of their huge collections that provide rich resources for addressing biodiversity in exhibitions and educational programs (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref4">27</reflink>]). Besides fossils, minerals, rocks, insects, and plants, these resources include various types of mounted specimens (standalone or mounted in dioramas; see Scheersoi and Tunnicliffe [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref5">41</reflink>]) to be able to properly identify different animal species. While museum practice often focuses mainly on visual inspection, basic multimedia research on the role of multisensory experiences suggests that haptic exploration may increase the richness of learning experiences. Accordingly, opportunities to touch taxidermy species may contribute to visitors' engagement and learning by helping them to identify and understand animal characteristics, such as properties of skin or fur. However, empirical research on this topic is largely lacking. To fill this gap, the present two studies investigated the effects of being allowed to touch mounted specimens on visitors' behavior, motivation, emotion, and cognition.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-3">Using Animal Taxidermy for Science Learning</hd> <p>Mounted specimens are typical learning objects in natural history museums. Due to their three‐dimensionality and authenticity, anatomical features of the animals can be observed in detail (Tunnicliffe and Reiss [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref6">52</reflink>]). A distinctive characteristic of mounted specimens is that the most determining part, the animal skin, has not been created by humans—as is the case with a model, for example—but belonged to an animal that had lived and is now dead and has merely been discovered by humans and turned into a museum object through conservation or preparation (Anantharaman and Innamorato [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>]). They are therefore artifacts based on natural material that allow for a vivid experience of a particular species. In addition, the fact that they were once living animals that are now dead enables a close inspection of their anatomical details that would probably not be possible with a living animal (Sanders and Hohenstein [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref8">40</reflink>]; Bunce [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>]; Polte and Wilde [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref10">33</reflink>]). A typical way to exhibit mounted specimens, for example, and show the animals in their natural environment is dioramas. Dioramas are a kind of snapshot of moments in the wild, which are thus made visible to the visitor (Reiss and Tunnicliffe [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref11">36</reflink>]). However, animal preparations are also often exhibited alone or only with an accompanying text.</p> <p>In a study, Prokop et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref12">35</reflink>]) investigated various factors that influence the development of children's knowledge. Each child was asked to make a drawing that represented the inside of an animal. They found that children who had been shown mounted specimens made more detailed drawings than those who had only seen a two‐dimensional drawing of the animal. They concluded that the use of real (live or preserved) and novel animals is likely to be more attractive to children to capture their attention and interest than using two‐dimensional representations. A similar conclusion was reached by Tunnicliffe and Reiss ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref13">52</reflink>]) in a study examining learners' conversations during interaction with three different animal representations: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>) robotic models in a museum, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>) preserved animals in a museum, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>) preserved animals presented in a school setting. They found that all three types of three‐dimensional representations give learners the opportunity to explore anatomical features better than two‐dimensional representations do and that they can also give an insight into specific animal behaviors.</p> <p>In a study by Bunce ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref17">5</reflink>]), visitors were asked to evaluate mounted specimens according to whether they support learning and whether they belong in a museum. Participants were presented a rabbit either as a mounted specimen in a glass case or as a mounted specimen that could be touched or as a touchable mounted specimen together with a toy rabbit. As expected, the number of visitors who believed that the mounted specimen of the rabbit belonged in a museum and that it could facilitate visitors' learning about rabbits increased with age and was higher when it was displayed together with the toy rabbit. Hence, when the mounted specimen could be directly compared to a toy rabbit, the visitors justified their decision with the fact that the mounted specimen of the rabbit allowed for intense observation, exploration, and reflection by focusing on its authentic features and its former status as a living animal. In addition, a study by Bunce ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref18">6</reflink>]) with a similar design showed that the opportunity to touch did not increase judgment of authenticity, however, it did result in slightly more accurate biological property attributions.</p> <p>In line with findings from a science museum that have found closer attention and improved memory when looking at real objects than at their photographic reproductions (Schwan et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref19">42</reflink>]), the studies discussed indicate that mounted specimens are particularly valuable for learning in natural history museums because of their authentic, natural, and realistic character. They offer an opportunity to explore the anatomical details of animals in a way that would hardly be possible with living animals. This applies not only to features that can be experienced visually but also to features that can be explored haptically, such as the texture of the fur, claws, or hooves. Whereas it was common in early museums to make exhibits tangible for museum visitors, a no‐touch policy developed in the 19th century (Classen [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref20">9</reflink>]; Leahy [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref21">20</reflink>]) due to the fear that exhibits could be destroyed if conservation requirements were not followed. Since then, however, there has been a shift towards an increased use of hands‐on and interactive exhibits especially in natural science museums (Allen [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>]). There are several studies that suggest that haptic exploration can be beneficial for the museum visitor. These are presented in the next section.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-4">Making the Exhibition Collection Accessible: The Haptic Sense in Museums</hd> <p>The concept of touch can be subdivided into passive and active touch, which corresponds to the distinction between (passive) tactile stimulation and (active) haptic exploration (Novak and Schwan [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref23">29</reflink>]). In museum contexts, speaking of touch typically means allowing visitors to haptically explore a certain exhibit. In addition, haptic exploration must be distinguished from interactivity. Whereas haptic exploration emphasizes the role of sensory (i.e., proprioceptive and tactile) feedback for learning, interactivity focuses on learning by observing the consequences of one's activity, such as using a knob to navigate a ball through a maze or pressing a button to start a chemical experiment. In the latter case, interactivity is high while tactile and proprioceptive feedback is at a minimum. Accordingly, Bitgood ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref24">4</reflink>]) distinguished between simple hands‐on exhibits, participatory exhibits, and interactive exhibits. Touching animal fur is considered a simple hands‐on exhibit that creates an increase in interest, focuses the visitor's attention on the object, and produces both sensory learning and affective learning. In contrast, interactive exhibits aim to teach visitors more complex cause‐effect relationships via discovery learning or guided learning.</p> <p>Whereas research on the use of properly designed interactives in science museums and science centers has shown positive effects for situational interest and learning (Yannier et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref25">57</reflink>]), empirical research on haptic exploration of simple hands‐on exhibits such as stones, bones, or fossils is scarce. Therefore, the present study focuses on active touch, that is, the haptic exploration of animal specimens. The haptic sense helps us to come into direct contact with the environment and other human beings. Through various exploration strategies, we can not only learn about the properties of everyday objects (Lederman and Klatzky [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref26">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref27">22</reflink>]) but also explore exhibits in museums in all their details (Christidou and Pierroux [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref28">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to Paas and Sweller ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref29">30</reflink>]), the handling and manipulation of objects can be seen as a form of prioritized learning that supports the acquisition of biologically primary knowledge. Based on Geary's ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref30">12</reflink>]) evolutionary educational psychology, Paas and Sweller suggested the distinction between biologically primary and secondary knowledge. Whereas biologically primary knowledge, on the one hand, means learning in an effortless, uninstructed, unconscious, rapid, and intrinsically motivated way and without loading the working memory, biologically secondary knowledge, on the other hand, is all knowledge that must be instructed by others and acquired at the expense of cognitive resources. Biologically primary knowledge may be used to support the acquisition of secondary knowledge in formal and informal educational settings (Paas and Sweller [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref31">30</reflink>]; Pouw et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref32">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Paas and Sweller ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref33">30</reflink>], 36) explicitly state that object manipulation can be considered a source of primary biological information. Their approach fits well with the Cognitive Affective Theory of Multimedia Learning (CAMTL) proposed by Moreno and Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref34">25</reflink>]). Traditional models of multimedia learning have focused on written or spoken texts and pictorial illustrations, that is, on the visual and auditive senses. In contrast, CATML emphasizes that all human senses can be used to contribute to successful learning experiences, including touch, smell, and taste. In addition, CATML goes beyond cognitive processes of learning by including affective and motivational variables as further important prerequisites for successful learning. This is in line with empirical research on embodied cognition, which shows that performing gestures or touching material objects may foster learning and understanding (Paas and Sweller [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref35">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Learning settings in which objects and occasionally also the touching of these objects play an important role are museums and exhibitions (Howes [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref36">17</reflink>]). There are several empirical studies showing that the haptic exploration of exhibits can have a positive effect on different aspects of the museum visit experience (e.g., Koran et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref37">19</reflink>]; Novak and Schwan [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref38">29</reflink>]; Novak and Schwan [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref39">29</reflink>]; Sweetman and Hadfield [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref40">49</reflink>]): Koran et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref41">19</reflink>]) showed that in a natural history museum the number of visitors of an exhibition room increased when touching the exhibits was allowed. In addition, 3D printed replicas are highly valued by museum visitors when used to provide a tangible impression of the exhibition content (Di Franco et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref42">11</reflink>]; Wilson et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref43">54</reflink>]). In a study by Tam ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref44">50</reflink>]), 34 students explored two sculptures and reflected on the experience of viewing and touching them. Conclusions on the students' learning experience and the impact on learning were drawn from reflective essays written by the students. The students reported that touching feels more reliable than just seeing the objects and that it can enhance the understanding of the objects. Furthermore, touching helped them to correct misconceptions, for example, on the weight of the objects. Overall, the haptic exploration of the objects led to a more intense learning experience that helped to build up confidence in the students' learning.</p> <p>Sweetman and Hadfield ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref45">49</reflink>]) compared visitor responses to archaeological material presented in four different formats: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>) 3D digitalizations, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>) display case, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>) "blind‐touch" of replicas and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref49">4</reflink>) handling originals. For all ages and interests, looking at the objects in the glass cases held people's attention for the shortest time, whereas touching the original objects was the most popular sensory experience for adults. Overall, the study showed that comprehension was most enhanced by using a variety of sensory experiences in conjunction with each other. Sweetman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref50">48</reflink>]) examined differences in memory performance when archaeological material was presented in three different formats: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>) display case, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>) virtual manipulation, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>) handling objects. This study showed that object recognition and recall was better when objects were handled, suggesting that multisensory experiences enhance memory for both the objects themselves and the descriptions associated with them.</p> <p>Additionally, Novak and colleagues (Novak and Schwan [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref54">29</reflink>]) found evidence in two studies that in an exhibition on the topic of animal husbandry the participants were able to build a stronger mental representation of the exhibited tools when they were allowed to touch them. However, they did not show that the haptic experience had a positive influence on the acquisition of additional object‐related knowledge, such as the object's usage, which was presented via audio guides and on separate text panels. One important conclusion of their studies is to establish a stronger explicit connection between learning content and the haptic experience to support the learning of additional information.</p> <p>The studies presented show that the hands‐on experience can have an impact on different levels of the museum visit experience. Research in other learning settings also provides evidence that haptic sense can support learning. For example, there are positive effects of tracing science learning materials with the index finger (e.g., Agostinho et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>]; Ginns et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref56">13</reflink>]; Ginns and Kydd [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref57">14</reflink>]; Tang et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref58">51</reflink>]) and of handling physical, three‐dimensional models when teaching scientific content (Roberts et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref59">38</reflink>]; Harris et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref60">15</reflink>]; Smith [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref61">45</reflink>]; Yammine and Violato [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref62">56</reflink>]; Stull et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref63">47</reflink>]; Casselman et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref64">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-5">The Present Studies</hd> <p>Learning at natural history museums can enhance understanding and awareness of biodiversity. Original objects, such as mounted specimens, play a particularly important role here. These can be explored not only visually but also haptically.</p> <p>The haptic sense, as a form of prioritized learning that supports the acquisition of biologically primary knowledge, should help improve the accessibility of the learning material. The previous discussion of empirical findings does indeed show that the haptic sense can have a positive effect on the museum experience and on learning. Nevertheless, the haptic exploration of original objects may meet with resistance from exhibition designers and especially from curators because of the fear that the objects could be destroyed and of the duty to preserve and protect the collection objects (de Kluis et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref65">10</reflink>]). Therefore, it is important to explore presentation alternatives that avoid the dangers of destroying fragile pieces, but at the same time allow visitors to use their haptic sense. Besides using reproductions or 3D prints, the presentation of robust but authentic parts (such as bones or pieces of fur) may be an option. This is where the present studies come in.</p> <p>In the present two studies, we chose the topic "properties of animal fur" because with this topic the learning content can be directly experienced through the haptic sense. Novak and Schwan hypothesized that this linkage is relevant to the additional learning provided by haptics (Novak and Schwan [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref66">29</reflink>]). In the present studies, a variable exhibit was designed that allowed for different forms of presentation. On the one hand, we varied whether or not the participants had the opportunity for a haptic experience. On the other hand, we varied the way the exhibit was presented: While one group of participants could explore a mounted specimen, the other group had a photo of the exhibited animal combined with a piece of fur. First, this had purely practical reasons, as it is often not possible in museums to make the mounted specimens available to touch. We wanted to find out whether a combination of a photo and a piece of fur would have a similar effect. Perhaps this kind of combination is a good alternative to exhibiting real mounted specimens. Second, it is also interesting on a theoretical level to investigate whether there is an advantage in presenting the real mounted specimen compared to the combination of a photo with a piece of fur. A three‐dimensional presentation is compared to a two‐dimensional presentation in this case. In the mounted specimen presentation, all information can already be seen and felt directly together in one object, whereas in the photo‐fur piece‐combination, the photo must first be mentally combined with the fur piece. Empirical studies (Tunnicliffe and Reiss [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref67">52</reflink>]; Prokop et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref68">35</reflink>]) have shown that three‐dimensional animal preparations provide a benefit over two‐dimensional images. In the corresponding studies, however, a touch object was not additionally available in the form of a piece of fur.</p> <p>Thus, in the present two studies, we implemented a between‐subjects design with the two factors of haptics (yes vs. no) and display type (mounted specimen vs. photo‐fur piece‐combination). We investigated whether differences could be found between the experimental groups with regard to visiting behavior, motivational‐affective variables, as well as cognitive variables. For present purposes, visiting behavior was operationalized as attention hold, that is, time spent at the exhibit. It has been shown to be a valid proxy for visitors' interest and elaboration of the exhibit (Serrell [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref69">44</reflink>]; Yalowitz and Bronnenkant [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref70">55</reflink>]). As a complement, a few visitor studies have also addressed situational interest directly by using standardized questionnaires showing that museum exhibitions may not only trigger immediate situational interest but may also foster continuing interest in the exhibitions' topics (Lewalter et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref71">23</reflink>]). Also, according to CATML, affective states may influence learning processes in multimedia settings (such as museums), both positively by triggering surprise and curiosity or negatively by eliciting boredom or even disgust (Vogl et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref72">53</reflink>]). Finally, indicators of knowledge acquisition, meaning‐making, and understanding were also included in the study, as they have been defined as one core purpose of museums and exhibitions (Hooper‐Greenhill [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref73">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>We assumed that the haptic experience would have a positive effect on these variables and that presenting the mounted specimen instead of the combination of fur and photo is beneficial.</p> <p>Study 1 was an observational study and focused on the objective behavior of the visitors in the exhibition without them knowing that they were being observed. Study 2 deepened this observation with a knowledge test and a questionnaire that captured the subjective assessment of the participants' behavior, situational interest, and present emotions. The subsequent semi‐structured interview complemented the results from the questionnaire. Both studies were conducted simultaneously by two different research assistants. Therefore, matching both types of data on an individual level was not possible due to logistical reasons.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-6">Setting and Design</hd> <p>Both studies were conducted at the State Museum of Natural History Karlsruhe, one of Germany's largest natural history museums. In the permanent exhibition, "Native Flora and Fauna," which shows specimens of mammals and birds native to Germany, visitors were exposed to a special, flexible exhibit that covered the topic "mammals and their fur" and was constructed and placed within the exhibition hall among the regular modules (see Figure 1).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21991-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21991-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Flexible exhibit &quot;mammals and their fur&quot; within the permanent exhibition &quot;Native Flora and Fauna,&quot; State Museum of Natural History Karlsruhe (Volker Griener, State Museum of Natural History Karlsruhe)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The exhibit consisted of three different exhibit elements, namely three different species of mammals of more or less the same size that differed especially in their type of fur: The muskrat (<emph>Ondatra zibethicus</emph>) is a rodent with a thick, short‐haired fur that protects it from the cold water and makes it perfectly adapted to its semiaquatic environment. The hedgehog's (<emph>Erinaceus europaeus</emph>) spines are hollow hairs stiffened from keratin that protect the animal from its predators. The mole (<emph>Talpa europaea</emph>) has a very short‐haired and dense fur with a very velvety texture and no stroke direction, enabling the animal to move backwards subterraneously without difficulty.</p> <p>Specially constructed for our study, the module could be set up flexibly: To realize the 2 × 2 between‐subjects design with the factors type of object (mounted specimen vs. combination of a photo with a piece of fur) and touch allowed (yes vs. no), the module allowed us to present either photographs of the mounted specimens in combination with a piece of the animal's fur (see Figure 2), or mounted specimens (see Figure 3). The possibility to touch was systematically varied by very obvious labels with either an invitation ("please touch") or a prohibition ("don't touch") to touch the objects (see Figures 3 and 4). Hence, we had four experimental conditions that are shown in Table 1. The module also contained text elements that remained unchanged between the conditions. A superordinate and rather detailed introductory text (more than 1200 characters including spaces) explained the origin and function of hair and furs of mammals. Additionally, three shorter texts (250–350 characters including spaces) accompanying the objects explained the special features of the three species and their furs.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21991-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21991-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Flexible exhibit photographs of the mounted specimens in combination with a piece of the animal's fur with labels &quot;please don't touch&quot; (Volker Griener, State Museum of Natural History Karlsruhe)." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21991-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21991-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Flexible exhibit with mounted specimens and labels &quot;please touch&quot; (Volker Griener, State Museum of Natural History Karlsruhe)." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21991-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21991-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Flexible exhibit with mounted specimens and labels with &quot;please don't touch&quot; (Volker Griener, State Museum of Natural History Karlsruhe)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>1 Table Overview of the four experimental conditions.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th&gt;Haptic exploration allowed ("touch")&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Haptic exploration not allowed ("no touch")&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Taxidermy&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Setup 1: Taxidermy, touching allowed&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Setup 2: Taxidermy, viewing only&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;No taxidermy&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Setup 3: Photo and fur piece, touching allowed&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Setup 4: Photo and fur piece, viewing only&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0188607211-11">Study 1</hd> <p>Study 1 examined the behavior of visitors during their interaction with the exhibit, being observed unobtrusively. Our aim was to find out whether the behavior at the exhibit and the duration of stay differed depending on the experimental condition.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-12">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607211-13">Participants</hd> <p>Within the observation period of 4 weeks, a total of <emph>N</emph> = 258 visitors were observed. Due to disturbances during the observation, 18 participants were excluded from the analyses. This resulted in a sample size of <emph>N</emph> = 240, equally distributed across all experimental conditions (<emph>n</emph> = 60). Based on physical appearance, 59% of the participants were identified as female. Ninety‐three percent of those observed were accompanied by at least one other person. More than half of the persons observed (54%) were accompanied by at least one child: Of these, one‐third (18%) were accompanied by one adult and two or more children; 18% were accompanied by one child and a further 18% were accompanied by one adult and one child.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-14">Materials</hd> <p>A standardized observation sheet was used. This included information on gender, age, and accompaniment, as well as behavior on the module. It was observed whether the texts and objects were examined and touched, whether one or more photos were taken, and whether a conversation with the companion took place. In addition, the observer noted the time spent at the module.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-15">Procedure</hd> <p>Data acquisition took place in February and March of 2020, before the first restrictions and closings due to the beginning Covid‐19 pandemic came into effect.</p> <p>Although an unobtrusive observation was conducted, a general notice about researchers conducting a scientific study on the respective day was shown at the museum entrance, without specifying the exact location but to nevertheless inform the visitors about the study. Furthermore, no data allowing for a retrospective identification of individuals were recorded. The observer was positioned at a table that is a regular part of the exhibition hall as a children's interaction station (but also regularly used by adults for short breaks) approximately 4 m next to the module. Every third visitor to the exhibit who newly arrived at the module and clearly stopped at it for at least 5 s was observed and documented using the observation sheet. The inspection of an object or text was considered if a person's head or body posture was clearly focused on the element for at least 5 s at a maximal distance of one step. The inspection time for the whole exhibit began with the first inspection of an element and ended when a person clearly turned away from the exhibit and moved at least two steps away from it.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-16">Data Analysis</hd> <p>If normal distribution was given, 2 × 2 factorial ANOVAs were run. If variables were not normally distributed, an ln‐transformation was done and checked for normal distribution. If normally distributed, the transformed data were analyzed by a 2 × 2 factorial ANOVA; otherwise a nonparametrical test was chosen.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-17">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607211-18">Time Spent</hd> <p>The time spent with the exhibit was analyzed in a 2 × 2 between‐subjects ANOVA with the factors touch allowed (yes vs. no) and type of object (mounted specimens vs. combination of a photo with a piece of fur). Because the data were not normally distributed, they were ln‐transformed. There was a significant main effect of touch, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib236" id="ref75">236</reflink>) = 31.211, <emph>p </emph>&lt; 0.001, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.12, with visitors spending more time in the touch conditions, <emph>M </emph>= 41.08 s, SD = 28.11 than in the no touch conditions, <emph>M </emph>= 25.98 s, SD = 19.89 (see Figure 5). Both effect of type of object, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib236" id="ref77">236</reflink>) = 3.342, <emph>p </emph>= 0.069, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.01 and interaction between both factors, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref78">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib236" id="ref79">236</reflink>) = 1.127, <emph>p </emph>= 0.290, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> &lt; 0.01 were found to be nonsignificant.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21991-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21991-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Time spent with exhibit (error bars depict standard error)." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607211-20">Number of Animals Inspected</hd> <p>21.7% of the observed visitors inspected none of the animals, while 26.3% inspected one animal, 21.7% inspected two animals, and 30.4% inspected all three animals. Given the non‐normal distribution, a Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted with the four conditions: mounted specimen—touch allowed, fur piece—touch allowed, mounted specimen—touch not allowed, fur piece—touch not allowed. The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed a significant effect of condition, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref80">3</reflink>) = 57.954, <emph>p </emph>&lt; 0.001. Post hoc Bonferroni–Holm test showed that visitors inspected more animals in the conditions with touch allowed (mounted specimen with touch allowed <emph>M </emph>= 1.98, SD = 1.00, fur piece with touch allowed <emph>M </emph>= 2.30, SD = 0.91) than in the conditions with touch not allowed (mounted specimen with touch not allowed <emph>M </emph>= 0.92, SD = 0.91, fur piece with touch not allowed <emph>M </emph>= 1.23, SD = 1.14; see Figure 6). Also, the number of animals inspected significantly correlated with dwell time, <emph>r </emph>= 0.529, <emph>p </emph>&lt; 0.001.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21991-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21991-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 Ratings of intensity of exploration for reading the introduction text, reading the object texts, visual exploration of the objects, and only in the haptic conditions, haptic exploration of the objects (error bars depict standard error)." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607211-22">Number of Texts Read</hd> <p>76.3% of the observed visitors read none of the object texts, while 17.9% read one text, 4.2% read two texts, and 1.7% read all three texts. Given the non‐normal distribution, a Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted with the four conditions: mounted specimen—touch allowed, fur piece—touch allowed, mounted specimen—touch not allowed, fur piece—touch not allowed. The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed a significant effect of condition, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref81">3</reflink>) = 11.124, <emph>p </emph>= 0.011, but according to post hoc Bonferroni–Holm tests none of the pairwise comparisons were significant. In addition, the introduction text was read by 12.5% of the visitors observed, with no differences between conditions according to a Kruskal–Wallis test, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref82">3</reflink>) = 2.268, <emph>p </emph>= 0.519.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-23">Haptic Exploration</hd> <p>In the conditions with the opportunity for haptic exploration, <emph>M </emph>= 2.02 (SD = 1.08) of the animals were touched by the visitors. According to a Mann–Whitney <emph>U</emph> test, more animals were touched in the fur piece condition (<emph>M </emph>= 2.25, SD = 1.00) than in the mounted specimen condition (<emph>M </emph>= 1.78, SD = 1.14), <emph>W </emph>= 2214, <emph>p </emph>= 0.020.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-24">Discussion</hd> <p>Study 1 aimed to investigate undisturbed visiting behavior in relation to four experimental conditions through an unobtrusive observation. In line with our hypotheses, we found that haptic exploration increases the exploration duration of the exhibit and the number of animals observed significantly. Surprisingly, more animals were touched when a piece of fur instead of the mounted specimen could be haptically explored. In general, visitors spent only a relatively short time at the exhibit and read only a few texts. These results fit in with other studies on the visiting behavior of museum visitors that show that the time spent at individual exhibits is relatively short and that only a few visitors engage intensively with the exhibition texts (Schwan et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref83">42</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref84">43</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-25">Study 2</hd> <p>Study 2 served to deepen the results from Study 1 and to supplement them with subjective impressions and a knowledge query. For this purpose, visitors were asked to complete a questionnaire and, after that, to take part in a semi‐structured interview.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-26">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607211-27">Participants</hd> <p>The visitors were asked whether they would like to participate in the study after it was observed that they had explored the exhibit. A total of <emph>N </emph>= 120 visitors agreed to take part in the study. Only a subset of <emph>N </emph>= 93 participants completed the questionnaire (<emph>n</emph><subs>tax spec + touch = 30</subs>, <emph>n</emph><subs>tax spec + no touch = 20</subs>, <emph>n</emph><subs>photo‐piece‐of‐fur + touch = 32</subs>, <emph>n</emph><subs>photo‐piece‐of‐fur + no touch = 11</subs>). They ranged in age between 18 and 70 years with an average age of <emph>M </emph>= 39.22 (SD = 12.27); 32 of them were female. The missing <emph>N </emph>= 27 visitors had to stop completing the questionnaire, as they were accompanied by children who had to be supervised. However, all <emph>N </emph>= 120 visitors agreed to take part in the semistructured interviews (<emph>n</emph><subs>tax spec + touch = 37</subs>, <emph>n</emph><subs>tax spec + no touch = 26</subs>, <emph>n</emph><subs>photo‐piece‐of‐fur + touch = 39</subs>, <emph>n</emph><subs>photo‐piece‐of‐fur + no touch = 18</subs>), as the interview situation allowed for the visitors to supervise their children easily. They ranged in age between 18 and 71 years with an average age of <emph>M </emph>= 38.68 (SD = 12.01); 48 were female.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-28">Materials</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607211-29">Intensity of Exploration</hd> <p>After visiting the experimental exhibition, we asked the participants to indicate for each animal on a 5‐point Likert‐type scale (0 <emph>not at all</emph> to 4 <emph>very</emph>) how extensively they had observed and touched the mounted specimen or the piece of fur and read the corresponding text. They were also asked to indicate how extensively they had read the introduction text (10 items). These ratings of intensity of exploration were analyzed separately for reading the introduction text, reading the object texts, and visually exploring the objects.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-30">Knowledge Test</hd> <p>Our knowledge test consisted of six self‐developed multiple‐choice questions with four answer options each and the category "Don't know." One point was given for each correct answer.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-31">Situational Interest</hd> <p>Situational interest can be described as a content‐related motivational quality that arises in a present learning situation and is mostly based on situational factors and interest in the learning content (Knogler et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref85">18</reflink>]; Renninger and Hidi [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref86">37</reflink>]). We used an adapted German scale for situational interest (Knogler et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref87">18</reflink>]) with 12 items, for example: "The exhibition contents captivated my attention." Average scores were calculated by the sum of all responses divided by the total number of items (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> = 0.79).</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-32">Epistemically Related Emotion Scale</hd> <p>To measure positive and negative emotions, we used the Epistemically Related Emotion Scale by Pekrun et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref88">31</reflink>]) with six items (three positive and three negative emotions). Two average scores (for positive and negative emotions) were calculated by the sum of all responses divided by the total number of items (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph><subs>positive</subs> = 0.65, Cronbach's <emph>α</emph><subs>negative</subs> = 0.82).</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-33">Semistructured Interview</hd> <p>All interviews were conducted by the same interviewer, using a standardized guideline. The guideline was divided into three parts: The first part was about the overall impression of the exhibit. After an introductory question ("How did you like the exhibition element?"), the participants, depending on their answer to the first question, were asked about their positive and negative impressions ("What did you like/dislike?") and the reasons for their assessment ("Why?"). The second part dealt with the thoughts and feelings that the interviewees had while exploring the exhibit, beginning with the question: "Do you remember what came to mind while you were exploring the exhibit?" Depending on the answer to these questions, the participants were asked to clarify their answers (e.g., "What were you thinking?" "What did you feel?" "Why?"). Finally, the third part dealt with possible effects of dealing with the exhibit, asking the participants about a possible change in attitude or behavior ("What do you personally take with you?"). The interviews were recorded as an audio track and then transcribed.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-34">Procedure</hd> <p>After observing that the visitors had explored the exhibit, the researcher asked them to participate in our study as they were leaving the exhibit. After giving consent, the participants were first asked if they would be willing to fill in the questionnaire with the scales on intensity of exploration, emotions, situational interest, knowledge, and sociodemographic data. Then the participants were asked if they would also be willing to participate in an interview and if it may be recorded. After consent, the semistructured interview was conducted, lasting about 2 min.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-35">Data Analysis</hd> <p>The quantitative data from the questionnaire were analyzed using the software R. If normal distribution was given, 2 × 2 factorial ANOVAs were run. If variables were not normally distributed, an ln‐transformation was done and checked for normal distribution. If normally distributed, the transformed data were analyzed by a 2 × 2 factorial ANOVA, otherwise a nonparametrical test was chosen. The interviews were analyzed qualitatively using the software MAXQDA. For the qualitative content analysis of the interviews, transcripts were divided into meaningful text segments, defined as text passages in which an impression, thought, or feeling was mentioned and explained. Only text segments having relevance to the research questions were included in the analysis. All text segments were first assigned to three predefined main categories corresponding to the main questions in the interview, namely <emph>overall impression of the exhibit, thoughts and feelings</emph>, and <emph>impulses caused by the exhibit</emph>. Text segments addressing aspects that belonged to one of these categories but were expressed in the course of the answer to a question that referred to another category were also assigned to the appropriate category. For example, if a feeling was expressed in the question about the <emph>overall impression of the exhibit</emph>, the corresponding text segment was assigned to the category <emph>thoughts and feelings</emph>.</p> <p>Within the first main category, <emph>overall impression of the exhibit</emph>, text segments were assigned to the predefined subcategories <emph>positive</emph>, <emph>negative</emph>, and <emph>indifferent</emph> with a further differentiation of the first two subcategories into <emph>content</emph>, <emph>presentation</emph>, <emph>(no) possibility for interaction</emph>, and <emph>in general</emph> (inductively developed). Within the categories <emph>thoughts and feelings</emph> and <emph>impulses caused by the exhibit</emph>, text segments of each category were structured inductively by developing subcategories for each of the main categories. The emerging pattern of categories was constantly enriched and specified during the process of analysis (Mayring [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref89">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>As a first step, 20 interviews (five randomly selected interviews from each condition) were analyzed by two independent coders, which included both the definition of the text segments as well as their assignment to the categories. The results were compared and—in cases of inconsistency—discussed, the more suitable option being chosen (Mayring [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref90">24</reflink>]). Then, another 20 randomly selected interviews were analyzed by the same two coders. As the intercoder agreement was 86% for the first two categories and the results for the inductively determined followed the same logic, the remaining 97 interviews were analyzed by just one of the two coders.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-36">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607211-37">Questionnaire</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607211-38">Intensity of Exploration</hd> <p>Subjective ratings of intensity of exploration were analyzed separately for reading the introduction text, reading the object texts, and visually exploring the objects. Given the non‐normal distribution, a Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted with the four conditions mounted specimen—touch allowed, fur piece—touch allowed, mounted specimen—touch not allowed, fur piece—touch not allowed.</p> <p>Overall, participants rated their intensity of reading the introduction text as low, <emph>M </emph>= 1.16, SD = 1.19. A Kruskal‐Wallis test revealed no significant effect of condition, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref91">3</reflink>) = 7.207, <emph>p </emph>= 0.066. Similarly, participants rated their intensity of reading the object texts as low, <emph>M </emph>= 0.99, SD = 1.04. A Kruskal–Wallis test revealed no significant effect of condition, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref92">3</reflink>) = 4.517, <emph>p </emph>= 0.211.</p> <p>In contrast, participants rated their intensity of visually exploring the objects as moderate, <emph>M </emph>= 2.69, SD = 0.89. A Kruskal–Wallis test revealed a significant effect of condition, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref93">3</reflink>) = 14.621, <emph>p </emph>= 0.002. Descriptively, objects were most intensively explored in the mounted specimen with touch condition, followed by the mounted specimen without touch condition, the fur piece with touch condition, and the fur piece without touch condition (see Figure 6). Adjusted pairwise Wilcoxon‐tests revealed significant differences between the mounted specimen with touch condition and both fur piece conditions. In addition, intensity of haptic exploration was analyzed for the two haptic conditions (mounted specimen vs. fur). Given the non‐normal distribution, a Wilcoxon test revealed a significant difference, <emph>p </emph>= 0.002, with intensity of touching mounted specimens (<emph>M </emph>= 2.78, SD = 1.31) being rated lower than intensity of touching fur pieces (<emph>M </emph>= 3.65, SD = 0.56).</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-39">Knowledge Test</hd> <p>The knowledge test scores were analyzed in a 2 × 2 between‐subjects ANOVA with the factors touch allowed (yes vs. no) and type of object (mounted specimen vs. fur piece). There were no main effects, both <emph>F</emph> &lt; 1, and no interaction, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref95">118</reflink>) = 1.424, <emph>p </emph>= 0.235, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.01. Overall, the mean knowledge score was 3.19 (SD = 1.27).</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-40">Situational Interest</hd> <p>Situational interest was analyzed in a 2 × 2 between‐subjects ANOVA with the factors touch allowed (yes vs. no) and type of object (mounted specimen vs. fur piece). Because the data were not normally distributed, they were ln‐transformed. There were neither main effects of touch <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref97">89</reflink>) = 2.965, <emph>p </emph>= 0.089, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.03, and object <emph>F </emph>&lt; 1, nor an interaction between both factors, <emph>F</emph> &lt; 1.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-41">Epistemically Related Emotion Scale</hd> <p>The positive subscale of the emotion scale was analyzed in a 2 × 2 between‐subjects ANOVA with the factors touch allowed (yes vs. no) and type of object (mounted specimen vs. fur piece). There was a significant main effect of touch, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref99">88</reflink>) = 8.174, <emph>p </emph>= 0.005, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.06, with visitors reporting a higher positive affect in the touch conditions, <emph>M </emph>= 3.54, SD = 0.78 than in the no touch conditions, <emph>M </emph>= 3.14, SD = 0.66, but no main effect of type of object, <emph>F </emph>&lt; 1, and no interaction, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref100">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref101">118</reflink>) = 1.140, <emph>p </emph>= 0.288, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.00. Regarding the negative subscale, the data were not normally distributed and therefore analyzed nonparametrically by a Kruskal–Wallis test, showing a significant effect, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref102">3</reflink>) = 12.047, <emph>p </emph>= 0.007. Adjusted pairwise, Wilcoxon‐tests revealed a significant difference between the mounted specimen with no touch condition (<emph>M </emph>= 1.11, SD = 0.24) and fur piece with no touch condition (<emph>M </emph>= 1.67, SD = 0.68).</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-42">Semistructured Interview</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607211-43">Overall Impression of the Exhibit</hd> <p>The majority of the visitors interviewed had a <emph>positive overall impression</emph> of the exhibit (106 times mentioned). Among them were 50 participants that referred to the <emph>content</emph> of the exhibit, 38 to the <emph>presentation</emph>, and 44 to <emph>the possibility to interact</emph> with respect to touching the objects on display. 20 participants emphasized the <emph>attractiveness especially for children</emph> and expressed a positive overall evaluation. According to a Fisher Exact test (<emph>p </emph>&lt; 0.001), there were more positive evaluations in the conditions with the possibility to touch the objects (mounted specimen with touch: 30 times mentioned; fur piece with touch: 32 times mentioned) than in the conditions without the possibility to touch the objects (mounted specimen without touch: 23 times mentioned; fur piece without touch: 21 times mentioned).</p> <p>A by far smaller proportion of the participants evaluated the exhibit elements <emph>negatively</emph> (35 times mentioned). In this context, four participants referred to the <emph>content</emph> of the elements, 12 to the <emph>presentation</emph>, and a large number, 20 participants, to the <emph>missing possibility to interact</emph> with respect to touching the objects. Two participants evaluated the elements <emph>negatively in general</emph>. Overall, according to a Fisher Exact test (<emph>p </emph>= 0.002), negative evaluations were more often in conditions without the opportunity to touch, mainly in the condition with the fur piece (mounted specimen without touch: 9 times mentioned; fur piece without touch: 17 times mentioned) than in conditions with the possibility to touch the objects (mounted specimen with touch: 6 times mentioned; fur piece with touch: 3 times mentioned). Overall, seven participants were indifferent and evaluated the elements neither positively nor negatively.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-44">Thoughts and Feelings</hd> <p>Responses to the question about thoughts and feelings in front of the exhibit could be divided into the categories, <emph>positive emotions</emph>, <emph>negative emotions</emph>, <emph>cognitive experiences</emph>, and <emph>no expressed thoughts and feelings</emph>. Table 2 gives an overview of these categories and their related codes.</p> <p>2 Table Thoughts and feelings (with the number of interviewees who had mentioned them in parentheses).</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th&gt;Category&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Code&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Example&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Positive emotions (53)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Surprise/Aha&amp;#8208;experience (20)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;I was very surprised by how soft the fur is because it was really unusually soft. Especially that one of the mole. It doesn't have any direction. And that makes it just really very soft. (A18&amp;#95;19: 20&amp;#8211;21)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Fascination (15)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes. Exciting! Hedgehogs and moles are very fascinating animals. (D18: 16&amp;#8211;17)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Special experience (15)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;So, in any case, it was exciting because, of course, you never get to touch a hedgehog or a mole. So, you've certainly never been able to touch a fur like that. (C2: 24&amp;#8211;25)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Pleasure (8)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;"Somehow I'm really happy that there are such diverse animals." (A32: 13&amp;#8211;14)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Well&amp;#8208;being (4)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;A special feeling of well&amp;#8208;being&amp;#8212;especially when you touch the muskrat. It's so nice and light! (A10&amp;#95;11: 12&amp;#8211;13)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Connection (2)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes, I think it's important to touch many animals here. Because you also get a bit of a relationship with the animal. (A35&amp;#95;36: 19)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Negative emotions (11)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Disgust (6)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Well, I think it's a little creepy with the stuffed animals. (D28: 13&amp;#8211;14)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Sadness (5)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;In fact, a bit sad about all the stuffed animals. (C12: 16&amp;#8211;17)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Cognitive experiences (34)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Memories of experiences with nature (13)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;I have a garden. There we also have hedgehogs and moles and also molehills. We see them sometimes running at night. That makes me happy. Nice to see. (A15: 8&amp;#8211;9)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Increase in knowledge (11)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;That was interesting that one could see it from a scientific perspective. Not only in the zoo or in the movies but with background information around it. (D26: 10&amp;#8211;11)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Curiosity (9)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes, that's why it aroused my curiosity. And when I saw the headline here, with the hairy thing, I was curious because I hadn't thought about it that way, what kind of effects fur has on the way mammals live. (B4&amp;#8208;2: 8&amp;#8211;9)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Associations (3)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;It surprised me that other fur types are offered as skins. Then coats are made of it or caps or whatever. And that one of the mole is simply too small. But it was surprisingly fluffy, and nothing is made out of it. Because people use everything that is so fluffy." (A26&amp;#95;27: 34&amp;#8211;35)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Knowledge gaps (3)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;I just passed and noticed, however, that I am already overstrained with these simple questions. (...) I'll take that with me. Educational gap. (D7: 19&amp;#8211;22)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Positive emotions</emph> were expressed most often (53 times mentioned). Many participants described that they were <emph>positively surprised</emph> or that they had an, <emph>aha effect</emph> (20 times mentioned). Others were <emph>fascinated</emph> (15 times mentioned) or said that the interaction with an exhibit element was a <emph>special experience</emph> (15 times mentioned). Also expressed was a feeling of <emph>pleasure</emph> (8 times mentioned) or <emph>well‐being</emph> (4 times mentioned) in front of an exhibit element. Two participants reported that they could feel a certain connection with the objects on display. Overall, according to a Fisher Exact test (<emph>p </emph>= 0.003), more positive emotions were reported in conditions with the possibility to touch (mounted specimen with touch: 11 times mentioned; fur piece with touch: 8 times mentioned) than in conditions without the possibility to touch (mounted specimen: 1 time mentioned; fur piece: no times mentioned).</p> <p> <emph>Negative emotions</emph> were reported less frequently (11 times mentioned). Participants expressed a feeling of either <emph>disgust</emph> (6 times mentioned) or <emph>sadness</emph> (5 times mentioned), mostly evoked by the dead animal (fur) that once was alive. No differences were found between conditions with or without the possibility to touch (<emph>p </emph>&gt; 0.05, Fisher's Exact test).</p> <p> <emph>Cognitive experiences</emph> were reported by 34 participants. Many of them described <emph>memories of experiences with nature</emph> evoked by the objects on display (13 times mentioned). Others reported an <emph>increase in knowledge</emph> (11 times mentioned) or curiosity (9 times mentioned) caused by the exhibit elements. With some people an exhibit element elicited associations (3 times mentioned) or made knowledge gaps visible (3 times mentioned). No differences were found between conditions with or without the opportunity to touch (<emph>p </emph>&gt; 0.05, Fisher's Exact test). Also, 14 participants reported neither feelings nor thoughts.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-45">Impulses Caused by the Exhibit Elements</hd> <p>The question about the effects of the participants' interaction with the exhibit elements on their future life turned out to be difficult to answer for the majority of the participants. Accordingly, 40 participants could not describe any impulses or motivations caused by an exhibit element, with a higher number of participants in the condition without the possibility to touch (26 times mentioned) than in the condition with the possibility to touch (14 times mentioned), (<emph>p </emph>= 0.038, Fisher's Exact Test).</p> <p>However, many of those who could deal with that question reported that they would have a <emph>better mental image</emph> of the animals in the future, often caused by the haptic experience (28 times mentioned). According to a Fisher Exact Test (<emph>p </emph>&lt; 0.001), this effect occurred more often in conditions with the possibility to touch (24 times mentioned) than in conditions without the possibility to touch (4 times mentioned).</p> <p>Also often described was the <emph>increase in knowledge</emph> that would be advantageous in the future (23 times mentioned), an <emph>increased motivation</emph> to deal with the topic of the exhibit (16 times mentioned), <emph>increased respect</emph> (14 times mentioned), or a <emph>positive attitude</emph> (5 times mentioned) regarding the animals on display. Regarding these categories, Fisher Exact Tests did not reveal any significant differences between conditions with or without the opportunity to touch (all <emph>p</emph>'s &gt; 0.05). Table 3 gives an overview of these categories and their related codes.</p> <p>3 Table Impulses caused by the exhibit (with the number of interviewees who had mentioned them in parentheses).</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th&gt;Category&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Example&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Better mental image of the animals on display (28)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Regarding the hedgehog, I now know how it really feels in real life, and with the mole I can now also really imagine its size. (A31: 26&amp;#8211;27)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Increased knowledge (23)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;What I really learned was that with the mole and the fur can lie in either direction. I didn't know that at all before. And I found that very interesting. And it also made me think, because I'm also a bit involved with technology professionally. (A18&amp;#95;19: 26&amp;#8211;27)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Increased motivation to deal with the subject of the exhibit (16)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Yes, that one conveys a better understanding of hedgehogs to the children even more intensively. When I was a child, it was natural, but I think our children have rarely seen a hedgehog. (B25: 22&amp;#8211;23)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Increased respect regarding the animals on display (14)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;I have more respect for the animal now. (C2: 34&amp;#8211;35)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Positive attitude regarding the animals on display (5)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;It's really nice that they exist. (C3: 45&amp;#8211;46)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0188607211-46">Discussion</hd> <p>This study showed that the exhibit was rated particularly positively when haptic exploration was possible. In addition, haptic exploration appears to have a positive effect on an emotional level and does not provide a distraction for other behaviors (e.g., reading texts or looking at objects). It is interesting to note that the mounted specimens were probably explored more visually, but haptic exploration was more intensive for the fur piece.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-47">General Discussion</hd> <p>Due to their authentic, natural, and realistic characteristics, animal taxidermy is considered particularly valuable for learning about natural science topics, especially in natural history museums. It gives the recipient the opportunity to study features of animals in detail. The visual sense obviously plays a role here, but the haptic exploration of certain elements can also be conducive to learning. Nevertheless, for conservation reasons, the haptic exploration of real exhibits in museums does not always meet with the approval of exhibition designers, conservators, and curators, as the concern that something will be damaged outweighs the benefits that haptic exploration could bring (de Kluis et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref103">10</reflink>]). For this reason, the majority of exhibits in the museum are displayed in glass cases—so close to the visitor, but still out of reach. But would direct contact with the objects not add value to the visitor experience and learning in the museum?</p> <p>Building on this question, the two studies presented here were intended to investigate the extent to which haptic exploration is used and appreciated by visitors and whether it is beneficial in terms of prolonged attention to the exhibit, increased situational interest, positive emotions, and an increase in knowledge. Furthermore, we investigated the question of whether a combination of a piece of fur and a photo would be a good, less conservation‐sensitive alternative for mounted specimens. To answer this question, a flexible exhibit was designed and systematically and extensively examined in two studies. By combining an observational study and a mixed‐method study using a questionnaire and a semi‐structured interview, it was possible to generate a comprehensive picture of how visitors used, evaluated, and benefitted from the exhibit. It is interesting to see how the quantitative and qualitative results of the two studies complement each other and overlap.</p> <p>Although Study 1 shows that visitors only spent a relatively short time at the exhibit, the possibility of haptic exploration led them to spend more time with the objects. Spending only a few seconds with exhibits has been shown in a number of studies on attention hold, ranging from art galleries (Smith et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref104">46</reflink>]) and science museums (Schwan et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref105">42</reflink>]) to documentation centers (Schwan et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref106">43</reflink>]), reflecting that visitors try to maximize their knowledge gains by distributing their attentional resources over a large range of different exhibits (Rounds [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref107">39</reflink>]). However, the fact that the possibility of touch increased attention holding time is in line with Bitgood's ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref108">4</reflink>]) assumption that simple hands‐on exhibits, such as touchable pieces of fur, increase visitors' attention on the objects. This is partly supported by the findings of Study 2. Descriptively, as another proxy for visitors' attention, situational interest was higher in both touch conditions but did not reach significance.</p> <p>In addition, Study 2 indicates that visitors used the possibility of haptic exploration for a deeper examination of the exhibit. This was independent of whether the mounted specimen or the combination of a photo and a piece of fur was presented. Regardless of the condition, only a few of the available texts were read. This is consistent with previous studies that show that visitors usually read just a few exhibition texts (Novak and Schwan [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref109">29</reflink>]). In theories of multimedia learning, reading text has been shown to be an important factor for knowledge acquisition (Moreno and Mayer [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref110">25</reflink>]). Accordingly, in the present studies, we did not find any differences between the conditions regarding the knowledge test, as this mainly related to the content of the exhibition texts. However, the interviews suggest that engaging with the exhibit initiated thought processes, supported engagement with the topic, provided knowledge, and promoted a better mental image of the animals on display.</p> <p>In both studies, it is noticeable that although the mounted specimen was examined visually more intensively, the photo‐fur combinations were explored with a more haptic engagement. This suggests that the visitors may have been more hesitant to touch the mounted specimens. This could, for example, be because the association with a dead animal is too strong, because touching mounted specimens is accompanied by feelings of disgust, or because the visitors were afraid of damaging the mounted specimen.</p> <p>Although the time spent at the exhibit was relatively short, it was rated very positively overall. Positive evaluations tended to occur more frequently in the conditions in which touching was permitted. This result goes hand in hand with the result that the negative evaluations were more frequent in the conditions without haptic experience and that the lack of opportunity for interacting with the exhibit was often criticized in these conditions.</p> <p>Both the interview and the questionnaire show furthermore that engaging with the exhibit leads to high positive emotions and that this effect is greater when haptic exploration is possible. At the same time, very low amounts of negative emotions can be observed overall. These occur—if at all—primarily in the condition in which this combination of photo and piece of fur was shown and touching was not permitted. The findings are in line with Bitgood's ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref111">4</reflink>]) assumption that simple hands‐on exhibits stimulate affective processes. As visitors in the touch conditions reported more thought processes, more engagement with the topic, and better mental images, the findings also support the assumptions of CATML that affective processes and learning are closely intertwined.</p> <p>Overall, the two studies provide important information on both a theoretical and practical level. On a theoretical level, it can be stated that the additional inclusion of the haptic sense has a positive effect on the reception of exhibition content. Although this does not necessarily have an impact on performance in a knowledge test, it does have a positive effect on the overall evaluation of the exhibit, the stimulation of thought processes, and the emotions experienced. This is also reflected in other studies that have found a positive influence of haptics on a motivational‐emotional level and on the experience of autonomy (Novak et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref112">28</reflink>]). It was also shown that it does not play a significant role whether the mounted specimen itself or a combination of photo and fur was presented. This provides initial evidence that the three‐dimensional authentic object is not necessarily superior to the two‐dimensional representation. This needs to be investigated in further studies.</p> <p>The studies therefore contribute to a growing number of studies that address the role of simple hands‐on exhibits (Bunce [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref113">6</reflink>]; Koran et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref114">19</reflink>]; Novak and Schwan [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref115">29</reflink>]; Sweetman and Hadfield [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref116">49</reflink>]), extending them by not only comparing touch to no‐touch conditions, but also distinguishing between different types of exhibits to touch, namely taxidermy specimens and combinations of pieces of fur and a photograph of the animal. In addition, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that has combined unobtrusive observation of visitors' behavior with in‐depth interviews in a gallery context. The findings support both theories of visitor behavior in museums (Bitgood [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref117">4</reflink>]; Rounds [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref118">39</reflink>]) and models of multisensory learning (Moreno and Mayer [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref119">25</reflink>]) by showing that visitors' use of touching opportunities results in a close interplay of attentional, affective, and higher order cognitive processes.</p> <p>Important conclusions can also be drawn for practical applications. The results of these studies suggest that visitors to a natural history museum want to have opportunities to interact with the exhibition content. They appreciate and make use of these opportunities if they are available. When designing exhibitions, exhibition designers and curators should therefore ensure that such opportunities are available to a sufficient extent. An important finding, particularly with regard to the preservation of original objects or real mounted specimens, is that it is apparently not necessary, for example, for haptic exploration to take place directly on these sometimes sensitive original objects. Apparently, it is sufficient if there are tactile objects to complement the exhibits. Here, for example, pieces of fur as in the present study are conceivable, or models, or footprints.</p> <p>The studies are accompanied by limitations and strengths. There are certain methodological limitations. For example, the sample size varies from group to group. This is due to the fact that field studies are sometimes exposed to unpredictable influences. As the two studies were conducted by two research assistants, it was not possible to match the results from the qualitative and the quantitative study. In addition, data acquisition in a museum is far less controlled than, for example, in a laboratory. At the same time, this is of course also a strength of the studies, as they achieve a high level of ecological validity. At the same time, we tried to maximize internal validity by controlling possible confounds as far as possible. For example, in all experimental conditions, the mounted specimens and pieces of fur were presented out in the open. While this increases the study's internal validity, it differs from usual presentation modes in museums. Therefore, the message not to touch may have been seen as overly restrictive by the visitors. To shed some light on this issue, future research should include a behind‐glass condition in the experimental design. On the positive side, it should also be emphasized that the studies provide a comprehensive picture of the use and evaluation of the exhibit thanks to their variety of methods. The two studies thus offered the special opportunity to examine an exhibit from different perspectives and to evaluate it comprehensively. In future studies, it would be interesting to investigate if and how the results can be transferred into a bigger exhibition space.</p> <p>Overall, these studies provide an exciting insight into how the possibility of haptic exploration can be used in museums and how it is used and appreciated by its visitors. Further studies should deal with the question of how exactly opportunities to touch can be designed in a way that they also support the visitors' learning and not only the visiting experience. Furthermore, it should be investigated whether the results of the present studies can be transferred to a general comparison between 2D and 3D learning materials.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-48">Author Contributions</hd> <p> <bold>Constanze Hampp:</bold> Conceptualization (equal); Resources (equal); Project Administration (equal); Supervision (equal); Formal Analysis ‐ Qualitative (equal); Writing ‐ Original Draft Preparation (equal); Writing ‐ Review &amp; Editing (equal). <bold>Magdalena Novak:</bold> Conceptualization (equal); Formal Analysis ‐ Quantitative (equal); Writing ‐ Original Draft Preparation (equal); Writing ‐ Review &amp; Editing (equal). <bold>Astrid Lange:</bold> Conceptualization (equal); Resources (equal); Formal Analysis ‐ Qualitative (equal); Project Administration (equal); Supervision (equal); Writing ‐ Original Draft Preparation (equal); Writing ‐ Review &amp; Editing (equal). <bold>Stephan Schwan:</bold> Conceptualization (equal); Formal Analysis ‐ Quantitative (equal); Writing ‐ Original Draft Preparation (equal); Writing ‐ Review &amp; Editing (equal).</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-49">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank the project partners from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Science Communication—Philipp Schrögel, Mareike Seethaler, Celine Haas—for the collaboration and their support with the data collection. We also thank Dr. Albrecht Manegold from the Natural History Museum Karlsruhe for his support in the development of the exhibition module.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-50">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0188607211-51">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0188607211-52"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref14" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Agostinho, S., S. Tindall‐Ford, P. Ginns, S. J. Howard, W. Leahy, and F. Paas. 2015. " Giving Learning a Helping Hand: Finger Tracing of Temperature Graphs on an iPad." Educational Psychology Review 27, no. 3 : 427 – 443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9315-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref15" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, S. 2004. " Designs for Learning: Studying Science Museum Exhibits That Do More Than Entertain." Supplement, Science Education 88, no. S1 : S17 – S33. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref7" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anantharaman, D., and K. Innamorato. 2016. Stuffed Animals: A Modern Guide to Taxidermy. Countryman Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref24" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bitgood, S. 1991. " Suggested Guidelines for Designing Interactive Exhibits." Visitor Behaviour 6, no. 4 : 4 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref9" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bunce, L. 2016. " Dead Ringer? Visitors' Understanding of Taxidermy as Authentic and Educational Museum Exhibits." Visitor Studies 19 : 178 – 192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2016.1220189.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref18" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bunce, L. 2019. " Still Life? Children's Understanding of the Reality Status of Museum Taxidermy." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 177 : 197 – 210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.08.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref64" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Casselman, M. D., J. F. Eichler, and K. Atit. 2021. " Advancing Multimedia Learning for Science: Comparing the Effect of Virtual Versus Physical Models on Student Learning about Stereochemistry." Science Education 105, no. 6 : 1285 – 1314. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21675.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref28" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Christidou, D., and P. Pierroux. 2019. " Art, Touch and Meaning Making: An Analysis of Multisensory Interpretation in the Museum." Museum Management and Curatorship 34, no. 1 : 96 – 115. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2018.1516561.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref20" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Classen, C. 2007. " Museum Manners: The Sensory Life of the Early Museum." Journal of Social History 40 : 895 – 914.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Kluis, T., S. Romp, and A. M. Land‐Zandstra. 2024. " Science Museum Educators' Views on Object‐Based Learning: The Perceived Importance of Authenticity and Touch." Public Understanding of Science 33, no. 3 : 325 – 342. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231202617.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Di Franco, P. D. G., C. Camporesi, F. Galeazzi, and M. Kallmann. 2015. " 3D Printing and Immersive Visualization for Improved Perception of Ancient Artifacts." Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 24, no. 3 : 243 – 264. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geary, D. C. 2008. " An Evolutionarily Informed Education Science." Educational Psychologist 43, no. 4 : 179 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ginns, P., F. T. Hu, E. Byrne, and J. Bobis. 2016. " Learning by Tracing Worked Examples." Applied Cognitive Psychology 30, no. 2 : 160 – 169. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ginns, P., and A. Kydd. 2019. " Learning Human Physiology by Pointing and Tracing." In Advances in Cognitive Load Theory: Rethinking Teaching, edited by S. Tindall‐Ford, S. Agostinho, and J. Sweller. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, M. A., R. F. Peck, S. Colton, J. Morris, E. Chaibub Neto, and J. Kallio. 2019. " A Combination of Hand‐Held Models and Computer Imaging Programs Helps Students Answer Oral Questions about Molecular Structure and Function: A Controlled Investigation of Student Learning." CBE—Life Sciences Education 8, no. 1 : 29 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-07-0039.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hooper‐Greenhill, E. 2004. " Measuring Learning Outcomes in Museums, Archives and Libraries: The Learning Impact Research Project (LIRP)." International Journal of Heritage Studies 10, no. 2 : 151 – 174.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howes, D. 2014. " Introduction to Sensory Museology." Senses and Society 9, no. 3 : 259 – 267. https://doi.org/10.2752/174589314X14023847039917.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knogler, M., J. M. Harackiewicz, A. Gegenfurtner, and D. Lewalter. 2015. " How Situational is Situational Interest? Investigating the Longitudinal Structure of Situational Interest." Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 : 39 – 50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koran, J. J., L. Morrison, J. R. Lehman, M. L. Koran, and L. Gandara. 1984. " Attention and Curiosity in Museums." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 21, no. 4 : 357 – 363. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leahy, H. R. 2016. Museum Bodies: The Politics and Practices of Visiting and viewing. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lederman, S. J., and R. L. Klatzky. 1987. " Hand Movements: A Window Into Haptic Object Recognition." Cognitive Psychology 19, no. 3 : 342 – 368. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(87)90008-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lederman, S. J., and R. L. Klatzky. 2009. " Haptic Perception: A Tutorial." Attention, Perception, &amp; Psychophysics 71, no. 7 : 1439 – 1459. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.7.1439.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewalter, D., A. Gegenfurtner, and K. A. Renninger. 2021. " Out‐of‐School Programs and Interest: Design Considerations Based on a Meta‐Analysis." Educational Research Review 34 : 100406.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayring, P. 2010. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moreno, R., and R. Mayer. 2007. " Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments." Educational Psychology Review 19, no. 3 : 309 – 326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mujtaba, T., M. Lawrence, M. Oliver, and M. J. Reiss. 2018. " Learning and Engagement Through Natural History Museums." Studies in Science Education 54 : 41 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2018.1442820.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Biological Collections: Ensuring Critical Research and Education for the 21st Century. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25592.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Novak, M., S. Phelan, D. Lewalter, and S. Schwan. 2020. " There Is More to Touch Than Meets the Eye: Haptic Exploration in a Science Museum." International Journal of Science Education 42, no. 18 : 3026 – 3048. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1849855.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Novak, M., and S. Schwan. 2021. " Does Touching Real Objects Affect Learning?." Educational Psychology Review 33, no. 2 : 637 – 665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09551-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paas, F., and J. Sweller. 2012. " An Evolutionary Upgrade of Cognitive Load Theory: Using the Human Motor System and Collaboration to Support the Learning of Complex Cognitive Tasks." Educational Psychology Review 24, no. 1 : 27 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekrun, R., E. Vogl, K. R. Muis, and G. M. Sinatra. 2017. " Measuring Emotions During Epistemic Activities: The Epistemically‐Related Emotion Scales." Cognition &amp; Emotion 31, no. 6 : 1268 – 1276.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfeiffer, V. D. I., S. Gemballa, and B. Bizer, et al. 2008. " Enhancing Students' Knowledge of Biodiversity in a Situated Mobile Learning Scenario: Using Static and Dynamic Visualizations in Field Trips." In International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Cre8ing a learning world. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences ‐ ICLS 2008, edited by P. A. Kirschner, F. Prins, V. Jonker, and G. Kanselaar, 204 – 212. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. (ISLS).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polte, S., and M. Wilde. 2021. " Wissenserwerb mit Originalobjekten im Naturkundemuseum—Eine Pilotstudie [Knowledge Acquisition With Original Objects in Museums]." Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Biologie 25 : 78 – 86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pouw, W. T. J. L., T. van Gog, and F. Paas. 2014. " An Embedded and Embodied Cognition Review of Instructional Manipulatives." Educational Psychology Review 26, no. 1 : 51 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9255-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prokop, P., M. Prokop, S. D. Tunnicliffe, and C. Diran. 2007. " Children's Ideas of Animals' Internal Structures." Journal of Biological Education 41, no. 2 : 62 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiss, M. J., and S. U. E. D. Tunnicliffe. 2011. " Dioramas as Depictions of Reality and Opportunities for Learning in." Biology 54, no. 4 : 447 – 459.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renninger, K. A., and S. E. Hidi. 2016. The Power of Interest for Motivation and Engagement. Routledge/Taylor &amp; Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, J. R., E. Hagedorn, P. Dillenburg, M. Patrick, and T. Herman. 2005. " Physical Models Enhance Molecular Three‐Dimensional Literacy in an Introductory Biochemistry Course." Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 33, no. 2 : 105 – 110. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2005.494033022426.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rounds, J. 2004. " Strategies for the Curiosity‐Driven Museum Visitor." Curator: The Museum Journal 47, no. 4 : 389 – 412.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanders, D., and J. Hohenstein. 2015. " Death on Display:" Reflections on Taxidermy and Children's Understanding of Life and Death." Curator: The Museum Journal 58, no. 3 : 251 – 262.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheersoi, A. and Tunnicliffe, S. D., ed. 2018. Natural History Dioramas–Traditional Exhibits for Current Educational Themes: Socio‐Cultural Aspects. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwan, S., D. Bauer, L. Kampschulte, and C. Hampp. 2017. " Representation Equals Presentation?." Journal of Media Psychology 29, no. 4 : 176 – 187. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000166.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwan, S., M. Gussmann, P. Gerjets, A. Drecoll, and A. Feiber. 2020. " Distribution of Attention in a Gallery Segment on the National Socialists' Führer Cult: Diving Deeper into Visitors' Cognitive Exhibition Experiences Using Mobile Eye Tracking." Museum Management and Curatorship 35, no. 1 : 71 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2019.1666422.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Serrell, B. 1997. " Paying Attention: The Duration and Allocation of Visitors' Time in Museum Exhibitions." Curator: The Museum Journal 40 : 108 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1997.tb01292.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, D. P. 2016. " Active Learning in the Lecture Theatre Using 3D Printed Objects." F1000Research 5 : 61. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7632.2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, L. F., J. K. Smith, and P. P. L. Tinio. 2017. " Time Spent Viewing Art and Reading Labels." Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 11, no. 1 : 77 – 85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stull, A. T., M. J. Gainer, and M. Hegarty. 2018. " Learning by Enacting: The Role of Embodiment in Chemistry Education." Learning and Instruction 55 : 80 – 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.09.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweetman, R., A. Hadfield, and A. O'Connor. 2020. " Material Culture, Museums, and Memory: Experiments in Visitor Recall and Memory." Visitor Studies 23, no. 1 : 18 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2020.1731671.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweetman, R. J., and A. L. Hadfield. 2018. " Artefact or Art? Perceiving Objects via Object‐Viewing, Object‐Handling, and Virtual Reality." University Museums and Collections Journal 10 : 46 – 66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tam, C.‐O. 2015. " Three Cases of Using Object‐Based Learning With University Students: A Comparison of their Rationales, Impact and Effectiveness." In Engaging the Senses: Object‐Based Learning in Higher Education. edited by H. J. Chatterjee and L. Hannan, 117 – 123. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tang, M., P. Ginns, and M. J. Jacobson. 2019. " Tracing Enhances Recall and Transfer of Knowledge of the Water Cycle." Educational Psychology Review 31, no. 2 : 439 – 455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09466-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tunnicliffe, S. D., and M. J. Reiss. 2000. " What Sense Do Children Make of Three‐Dimensional Life‐Sized "Representations" of Animals?." School Science and Mathematics 100 : 128 – 138.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vogl, E., R. Pekrun, K. Murayama, and K. Loderer. 2020. " Surprised–Curious–Confused: Epistemic Emotions and Knowledge Exploration." Emotion (Washington, D.C.) 20, no. 4 : 625 – 641.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, P. F., J. Stott, J. M. Warnett, A. Attridge, M. P. Smith, and M. A. Williams. 2017. " Evaluation of Touchable 3D‐Printed Replicas in Museums." Curator: The Museum Journal 60, no. 4 : 445 – 465. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12244.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yalowitz, S. S., and K. Bronnenkant. 2009. " Timing and Tracking: Unlocking Visitor Behavior." Visitor Studies 12 : 47 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645570902769134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yammine, K., and C. Violato. 2016. " The Effectiveness of Physical Models in Teaching Anatomy: A Meta‐Analysis of Comparative Studies." Advances in Health Sciences Education 21 : 883 – 895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9644-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yannier, N., K. Crowley, Y. Do, S. E. Hudson, and K. R. Koedinger. 2022. " Intelligent Science Exhibits: Transforming Hands‐on Exhibits Into Mixed‐Reality Learning Experiences." Journal of the Learning Sciences 31, no. 3 : 335 – 368. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2032071.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Constanze Hampp; Magdalena Novak; Astrid Lange and Stephan Schwan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib236" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref112"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1486671 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Please Touch the Hedgehog: Haptic Exploration of Mounted Specimens Increases Inspection Time and Positive Evaluation of an Exhibit – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Constanze+Hampp%22">Constanze Hampp</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0889-204X">0009-0003-0889-204X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Magdalena+Novak%22">Magdalena Novak</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0676-9000">0000-0002-0676-9000</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Astrid+Lange%22">Astrid Lange</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stephan+Schwan%22">Stephan Schwan</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Science+Education%22"><i>Science Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 109(6):1701-1715. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 15 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Museums%22">Museums</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Biodiversity%22">Biodiversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sensory+Experience%22">Sensory Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Modalities%22">Learning Modalities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tactual+Perception%22">Tactual Perception</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attention%22">Attention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/sce.21991 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0036-8326<br />1098-237X – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Natural history museums with their huge collections and exhibits seem to be particularly well suited to create an understanding and awareness of biodiversity. Mounted specimens are typical learning objects in natural history museums. The visual sense obviously plays a role here, but the haptic exploration of certain elements can also be conducive to learning. By combining an observational study and a mixed-method study using a questionnaire and a semistructured interview, we analyzed how visitors use, evaluate, and benefit from the haptic exploration of mounted specimens. We also investigated whether a combination of a fur piece and a photo would be a less conservation-sensitive alternative for mounted specimens. Although both studies indicate that visitors only spent a relatively short time at the exhibit, the possibility of haptic exploration led them to engage with more objects and to spend more time with them. This was independent of whether the mounted specimens or the combination of a photo and a piece of fur was presented. In addition, positive evaluations tended to occur more frequently in the conditions in which touching was permitted, whereas negative evaluations were more frequent in the conditions without haptic experience and the lack of opportunity for interaction was often criticized in these conditions. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1486671 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1486671 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/sce.21991 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 15 StartPage: 1701 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Museums Type: general – SubjectFull: Biodiversity Type: general – SubjectFull: Sensory Experience Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning Modalities Type: general – SubjectFull: Tactual Perception Type: general – SubjectFull: Attention Type: general – SubjectFull: Interaction Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Please Touch the Hedgehog: Haptic Exploration of Mounted Specimens Increases Inspection Time and Positive Evaluation of an Exhibit Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Constanze Hampp – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Magdalena Novak – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Astrid Lange – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Stephan Schwan IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 11 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0036-8326 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1098-237X Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 109 – Type: issue Value: 6 Titles: – TitleFull: Science Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
