Eric Siegel wrote:

> it depends considerably on what is being taught, and how, by the
> exhibitions themselves. Are they hands-on? Are they "awesome"
> intrinsically (like dinosaurs), are they things the kids might never
> have seen, and need fundamental explanation?
>
> I certainly personally agree that when I talk to kids, its death to talk
> down to them, but I don't think that this anecdotal evidence is
> sufficient for designing new museum interpretation.

Eric makes some good points here.  I am very much in favor of making
learning fun.  In fact, I am pretty much convinced that any subject
matter can be made *fun* (well, at least interesting).  I was not trying
to design new museum interpretation.  But I *was* addressing the issue
of how to label exhibits for children - the words used.  One would have
to take into consideration what catches their attention (size, shape,
color, lights, push buttons, things to manipulate, etc.) in the label
design and the exhibit itself - without getting their attention, the
content of the label wouldn't matter would it?

BTW, Eric's point about the exhibit being something that kids might
never have seen before brings back a memory that might be relevant ....
When I was a teenager in Chicago many years ago (OK, this was about 33
years ago) I helped chaperone a group of *inner city* kids on a trip to
the zoo.  These kids, probably 5th or 6th grade students, had never seen
any domestic (farm) animals, let alone your typical zoo animal.  They
were as fascinated with a cow as with a tiger.

~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~o~

Ginny Cass