簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 莊琇涵
Chuang, Hsiu-Han
論文名稱： 針對青少年之當代策展學習模式發展：以意義建構理論為視角
Developing a Contemporary Curating Learning Approach for Adolescents: A perspective of Sensemaking Theory
指導教授： 楊佳翰
Yang, Chia-Han
陳明惠
Turner, Ming
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 規劃與設計學院 - 創意產業設計研究所
Institute of Creative Industries Design
論文出版年： 2026
畢業學年度： 114
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 186
中文關鍵詞： 當代策展學習 、青少年 、意義建構理論 、表達能⼒
外文關鍵詞： Contemporary Curatorial Learning, Adolescents, Sensemaking Theory, Expressive Ability
相關次數： 點閱：2  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 本研究旨在運用意義建構理論，發展一套聚焦於知識學習與敘事表達的青少年當代策展學習模式。在臺灣成果導向的教育體制下，美感教育長期被邊緣化，常流於以技術訓練與套版活動為主的教學方式，忽略學生的個人表達與意義建構。
    意義建構理論強調透過覺察線索、情境架構與反覆詮釋來建構意義，而當代策展實踐亦包含研究、選擇、組織與敘事等歷程，兩者具有高度契合性。然而，目前研究尚少探討如何將策展方法與意義建構理論結合，以作為支持青少年意義建構之教學架構。 本研究採三階段質性研究設計：(1)辨識青少年在正式教育中表達個人意義所面臨的挑戰、(2)探究意義建構如何引導學生連結知識學習與表達表現、(3)發展並評估「當代策展學習模式」（CCLA）。該模式已於生活科技課程中實施，研究對象為55位13–15歲的國中學生。研究結果顯示，學生的學習表現從表層任務執行逐漸轉向較深入的概念詮釋與個人故事敘述。本研究證實策展學習能有效縮短知識獲取與個人意義建構之間的落差，並提升學生表達的自主性與深度。同時，本研究亦指出「物件—意義轉譯」為美感學習脈絡中重要的意義建構歷程，擴展了意義建構理論在教育領域的應用。

    The purpose of this research is to apply sensemaking theory to develop a contemporary curatorial learning approach for adolescents, focusing on knowledge learning and narrative. In Taiwan’s outcome-oriented education system, aesthetic education has long been marginalized, often reduced to template-based activities that emphasize technique over personal expression and meaning-making. Sensemaking theory, which highlights noticing cues, framing experiences, and iterative interpretation, aligns closely with contemporary curatorial practice through processes of researching, selecting, organizing, and narrating. Yet, few studies have examined how curatorial methods can integrate sensemaking theory and serve as a pedagogical structure to support adolescents’ sensemaking in schools.
    This research adopted a three-phase qualitative design to: (1) identify challenges adolescents face in expressing personal meaning within formal education, (2) explore how sensemaking can guide learning processes that connect knowledge and expression, and (3) develop and evaluate a Contemporary Curatorial Learning Approach (CCLA). The CCLA was implemented with 55 students aged 13–15 in a Living Technology course. Findings show that students progressed from surface-level task completion to deeper conceptual interpretation and personal storytelling. This study demonstrates how curatorial learning can bridge the gap between academic learning and personal meaning-making, while extending sensemaking theory by highlighting object-to-meaning translation as essential in aesthetic learning contexts.

    ABSTRACTi 摘要ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Research Background 1 1.1.1 The Challenges on Learning for Adolescents 1 1.1.2 The Influence of Current Formal Education in Taiwan 4 1.1.3 The Emergence of Extracurriculum 7 1.2 Research Motivation 9 1.2.1 Personal Perspective 9 1.2.2 Practical Perspective 10 1.2.3 Academic Perspective 11 1.3 Research Objectives and Questions 13 1.4 Key Terminology 14 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 16 2.1 Concept and Development of Adolescents’ Education 16 2.1.1 The Development and Learning of Adolescents 16 2.1.2 Educational Policies and Classroom Realities 17 2.1.3 Educational Approaches Emphasizing Interpretation and Expression 19 2.2 Theoretical Lens of Sensemaking 21 2.2.1 Evolving Definition of Sensemaking Theory 21 2.2.2 The Role of Sensemaking in Structured Learning Frameworks 25 2.2.3 The Value of Sensemaking for Adolescents’ Learning 28 2.2.4 Implications of Sensemaking in Teaching Scenario 30 2.3 Contemporary Curating in Educational Implications 32 2.3.1 Educational Value of Contemporary Curating. 32 2.3.2 Contemporary Curating Development and the Role of the Curator 35 2.3.3 Narrative Competency in Contemporary Curating Practice 36 2.3.4 Model of Contemporary Curating Process 37 2.4 Summary 39 2.4.1 Alignment Between Curatorial Practice and Sensemaking 39 2.4.2 Responding to Adolescent Learning Needs 41 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHOD 43 3.1 Research Scope 43 3.2 Research Design 44 3.3 Research Methods 48 3.3.1 Semi-structure In-depth Interview 49 3.3.2 Participant Observation 50 3.4 Data Collection 52 3.4.1 Interviewee Selection Criteria 52 3.4.2 Sampling Criteria for Participant Observation 53 3.4.3 Sampling Criteria for Student Participants 55 3.5 Data Analysis 56 3.5.1 Thematic analysis 56 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 58 4.1 Source of Data 58 4.1.1 Participants in Semi-structured Interviews 58 4.1.2 Data Sources and Background of Participant Observation 59 4.1.3 Data Sources and Background of Field Testing 61 4.2 Adolescents’ Learning Challenges 62 4.2.1 Students’ Learning Motivation and Sense of Purpose 63 4.2.2 Expression Safety and Classroom Contexts 64 4.2.3 Difficulties in Organizing and Articulating Ideas 65 4.2.4 Time and Teaching Resource Constraints 67 4.2.5 Policy-Driven and Outcome-Oriented Pressures 68 4.2.6 Summary 70 4.3 Design of Contemporary Curatorial Learning Approach 71 4.3.1 Design and Rationale of Five Curatorial Process in the CCLA 74 4.3.2 Phase 1 Theme Awareness — Design and Rationale 77 4.3.3 Phase 2 Selection & Interpretation — Design and Rationale 79 4.3.4 Phase 3 Narrative Synthesis — Design Rationale 82 4.3.5 Phase 4: Exhibition Planning — Design and Rationale 85 4.3.6 Phase5 Public Presentation — Design and Rationale 88 4.4 Implementation and Analysis of the Curatorial Learning Approach 91 4.4.1 Lesson 1: What Is an Exhibition? 92 4.4.2 Lesson 2: How to Tell an Exhibition Story? 93 4.4.3 Lesson 3: Constructing Themes for Exhibitions 94 4.4.4 Lesson 4: Planning the Exhibition 95 4.4.5 Lesson 5: Exhibition, Reflection, and Feedback 96 4.5 Analysis of Curatorial Learning Outcomes 98 4.5.1 Phase 1 Outcomes Analysis: Theme Awareness 98 4.5.2 Phase 2 Outcomes Analysis: Selection & Interpretation 99 4.5.3 Phase 3 Outcomes Analysis: Narrative Synthesis 100 4.5.4 Phase 4 Outcomes Analysis: Exhibition Planning 101 4.5.5 Phase 5 Outcomes Analysis: Public Presentation 102 4.5.6 Cross-Phase Patterns and Synthesis 103 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 106 5.1 Interpretation of Findings 106 5.1.1 Addressing Adolescents' Learning Challenges Through CCLA 106 5.1.2 Sensemaking Behaviors in the Curatorial Learning Process 107 5.1.3 Objects as Anchors for Thinking and Meaning-Making in Curatorial Learning 110 5.2 Pedagogical Implications for Teacher Instruction in CCLA 2.0 112 5.3 Implications for Theory 118 5.3.1 Clarifying the Relationship Between Sensemaking and Contemporary Curatorial Education 118 5.3.2 Reframing Delivery as a Structured Process of Externalizing Understanding 119 5.4 Implications for Practice 121 5.4.1 Reframing the Teacher’s Role in Adolescent Learning 121 5.4.2 A Transferable Framework for Education 124 5.4.3 Applying CCLA Across Formal and Extracurricular Learning Contexts 125 5.5 Research Limitations 128 5.5.1 Audience Engagement and Iterative Reflection 128 5.5.2 Methodological and Contextual Limitations 129 5.6 Future Study 130 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION 133 REFERENCES 137 APPENDIX A REFFERENCE OF 2025 “HSINCHU LITTLE CURATORS SUMMER CAMP” 146 一、2025「新竹市小小策展人培力夏令營」招生簡章 146 二、2025「新竹市小小策展人培力夏令營」活動流程 150 APPENDIX B FIELD NOTE OF THE PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION 151 APPENDIX C ACTIVITY RECORDS OF THE "YOU AND ME" WORKSHOP 162 APPENDIX D FIELD TESTING NOTE 165 APPENDIX E INTERVIEW ANALYSIS EXTRACTS 173

    EdYouth 臺灣一滴優教育協會. (2024). 2024 Annual Report on Observations of the 108 Curriculum Guidelines. https://www.edyouth.org/108report
    何瑞萍. (2014). Dervin與Weick意義建構理論之分析與比較. 大學圖書館, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.6146/univj.18-1.05
    兒童福利聯盟. (2023). 2023年臺灣兒少學習狀況調查報告 [2023 Taiwan Children's Learning Status Survey Report]. Retrieved from https://www.children.org.tw/publication_research/research_report/2544
    范育綺、曾冠球（2025）。〈理想與現實：108 課綱高中公民與社會科課程改革之執行評估〉。《教育研究與發展期刊》，21（1），39–68。https://doi.org/10.6925/SCJ.202503_21(1).0002
    洪詠善. (2021). 成果報告-十二年國教課綱高中自主學習之實踐探究(第2年). 國家教育研究院課程及教學研究中心, MOST 108-2410-H-656-007-MY2.
    張郁蔚、李宜珍. (2020). Dervin意義建構論起源文獻之研究影響力探討. 教育資料與圖書館學, 57(2). https://doi.org/10.6120/JoEMLS.202007_57(2).0013.RS.AM
    張碩宇（2020）。何謂美感教育？美感教育的方式？《臺灣教育評論月刊》，9（11），7–10。
    黃祺惠。（2022）。從生活美學實踐家的實踐智慧探究國民中學美感素養導向課程與教學的取徑。教育研究與發展期刊，18(4)，41–78。https://doi.org/10.6925/SCJ.202212_18(4).0002
    蔡明君Tsai, M.-J. (2022, May 5). 檢視台灣當代策展方式－五位NCAF資助策展人觀察Looking at contemporary curatorial methods in Taiwan—Observations on five NCAF-funded curators. National Culture and Arts Foundation. https://archive.ncafroc.org.tw/curation/paper?id=bd9eba067fd05c60017fd511a7560558&lang=en
    廖沛怡、林玄良（2024）。〈淺談美感教育融入國中生活科技課程之現況及對策〉。《臺灣教育評論月刊》，13（2），103–109。
    Abraham, A., Petre, M., & Sharp, H. (2008). Information Seeking: Sensemaking and Interactions.
    Adair, J. G. (1984). The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.334
    Aflaki, I., Narbutaitė, I., & Lindh, M. (2023). Empowering first-line managers as change leaders towards co-creation culture: The role of facilitated sensemaking. Public Money & Management, 43(5), 502–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2021.2007636
    Alam, N. B. (2023). Types of questions teachers ask to engage students in making sense of a student contribution (Master’s thesis, Michigan Technological University). Michigan Technological University Digital Commons. https://doi.org/10.37099/mtu.dc.etdr/1616
    Ancona, D. (2012). Sensemaking: Framing and acting in the unknown. In The handbook for teaching leadership: knowing, doing, and being.
    Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Weate, P. (2019). Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research. In B. Smith & A. C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise (pp. 191–205). Routledge.
    Brighouse, H., Ladd, H., Loeb, S., & Swift, A. (2018). Good education policy making: Data-informed but values-driven. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(4), 36–39.
    Brown, A. D., Colville, I., & Pye, A. (2015). Making Sense of Sensemaking in Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 36(2), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614559259
    Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. HarperCollins.
    Butcher, K., & Sumner, T. (2011). Self-Directed Learning and the Sensemaking Paradox. Human-Computer Interaction, 26(1), 123–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2011.556552
    Cachia, A. (2017). Curating new openings: Rethinking diversity in the gallery. Art Journal, 76(3/4), 48–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/45142666
    Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2018). Using thematic analysis in counselling and psychotherapy research: A critical reflection. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 18(2), 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12162
    Christensen, C. R., Garvin, D. A., & Sweet, A. (Eds.). (1992).Education for Judgment: The Artistry of Discussion Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
    Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
    Conlin, L. D. (2013). Three views of an Aha! moment: Comparing tutorial groups' affective responses to a moment of sudden conceptual insight. Poster Presentation at 2013 Physics Education Research Conference, Portland, OR.
    Costello, E. J., Copeland, W., & Angold, A. (2011). Trends in psychopathology across the adolescent years: What changes when children become adolescents, and when adolescents become adults. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 1015–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02446.x
    Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002
    Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474293884.ch-004
    Dahl, R. E. (2004). Adolescent brain development: A period of vulnerabilities and opportunities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021(1), 1–22.
    Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119–128.
    Davies, S. M. (2010). The co-Production of Temporary Museum Exhibitions. Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(3), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2010.498988
    Davis, J. L. (2017). Curation: A theoretical treatment. Information, Communication & Society, 20(5), 770–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1203972
    Dervin, B. (1998). Sense-making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673279810249369
    DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2002). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. AltaMira Press.
    Dunkel, C. S., & Harbke, C. (2017). A Review of Measures of Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development: Evidence for a General Factor. Journal of Adult Development, 24(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-016-9247-4
    Eaton, M. M., & Moore, R. (2002). Aesthetic experience: Its revival and its relevance to aesthetic education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 36(2), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/3333635
    Efland, A. D. (1992). Ralph Smith’s concept of aesthetic experience and its curriculum implications. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 26(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.2307/3333127
    Ferguson, B. W., Greenberg, R., & Nairne, S. (Eds.). (1996). Thinking about exhibitions. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203991534
    Fung, D. (2023). The synergy of peer collaboration and mind mapping in cultivating primary students’ science understanding: an integrative pedagogy to enhance science concept acquisition. International Journal of Science Education, 46(2), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2222549
    Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117
    Google for Education, & Canvas8. (2019). Future of the classroom: Emerging trends in K-12 education (Global Edition). https://www.google.com/edu/future-of-the-classroom/
    Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., & McDonald, D. (2011). Conducting an in-depth interview. University of Florida IFAS Extension.
    Guyer, A. E., Silk, J. S., & Nelson, E. E. (2016). The neurobiology of the emotional adolescent: From the inside out. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 70, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.037
    Ha, H., Chen, Y., & Park, J. (2024). Teacher strategies to support student navigation of uncertainty: Considering the dynamic nature of scientific uncertainty throughout phases of sensemaking. Science Education, 108(3), 890–928. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21857
    Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
    Haverly, C., Calabrese Barton, A., Schwarz, C. V., & Braaten, M. (2020). “Making space”: How novice teachers create opportunities for equitable sense-making in elementary science. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118800706
    Hohnen, B., Gilmour, J., & Murphy, T. (2019). The incredible teenage brain: Everything you need to know to unlock your teen's potential. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
    Hohnen, B., & Murphy, T. (2016). The optimum context for learning; Drawing on neuroscience to inform best practice in the classroom. Educational and Child Psychology, 33, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2016.33.1.75
    Hope (2018). Curating the early years: Young children, museums, and role-play. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(2), 328–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12163
    Jia, L., Jalaludin, N. A., & Rasul, S. (2023). Design Thinking and Project-Based Learning (DT-PBL): A Review of the Literature. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(8), 376–390. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.8.20
    Karpicke, J. D. (2012). Retrieval-Based Learning: Active Retrieval Promotes Meaningful Learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412443552
    Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2).
    Kleibeuker, S. W., Stevenson, C. E., van der Aar, L., Overgaauw, S., van Duijvenvoorde, A. C., & Crone, E. A. (2017). Training in the adolescent brain: An fMRI training study on divergent thinking. Developmental Psychology, 53, 353–365.
    Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: The Drivers of Design Synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15
    Krist, C., & Shim, S. (2024). Which ideas, when, and why? An experienced teacher’s in-the-moment pedagogical reasoning about facilitating student sense-making discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 61(2), 255–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21908
    Kupp, M., Anderson, J., & Reckhenrich, J. (2017). Why Design Thinking in Business Needs a Rethink. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(1), 42–44.
    Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage.
    Lake-Hammond, A., & Waite, N. (2010). Exhibition Design: Bridging the Knowledge gap. The Design Journal, 13(1), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069210X12580336766400
    Lee, P.-C. (2024, June 22). Student’s view on 108 curriculum. Taipei Times. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2024/06/22/2003819707
    Lieto, A., Striani, M., Gena, C., Dolza, E., Marras, A. M., Pozzato, G. L., & Damiano, R. (2023). A sensemaking system for grouping and suggesting stories from multiple affective viewpoints in museums. http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14117
    Lindgaard, K., & Wesselius, H. (2017). Once More, with Feeling: Design Thinking and Embodied Cognition. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(2), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.05.004
    Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In N. Clifford, M. Cope, T. Gillespie, & S. French (Eds.), Key methods in geography (pp. 143–156). Sage.
    Micheli, P., Wilner, S. J. S., Bhatti, S. H., Mura, M., & Beverland, M. B. (2019). Doing Design Thinking: Conceptual Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12466
    Müller, S., & Pietzner, V. (2020). Comparative Study of Divergent Thinking among Participants in a German Science Competition and Pupils in a Control Group. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(10), em1883. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8408
    Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Mestre, J. P. (2013). Toward a model of transfer as sense-making. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 184–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.807556
    O’Neill, P. (2007). The curatorial turn: From practice to discourse. In Issues in curating contemporary art and performance (pp. 13–28). Intellect Books. https://mnuai.ro/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/null-THE-CURATORIAL-TURN-FROM-PRACTICE-TO.pdf
    Odden, T. O. B., & Russ, R. S. (2019). Defining sensemaking: Bringing clarity to a fragmented theoretical construct. Science Education, 103(1), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21452
    OECD. (2024). From data to insights. In PISA 2022 Results (Volume III): Creative Minds, Creative Schools. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b734ae7f-en
    Popoli, Z., & Derda, I. (2021). Developing experiences: Creative process behind the design and production of immersive exhibitions. Museum Management and Curatorship, 36(4), 384–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2021.1909491
    Raja, B. (2024). Sensemaking strategies in design thinking education: A pedagogical perspective. International Journal of Current Science, 14(2), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25075.13607
    Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2018). 讓天賦發光 [Creative Schools] (卓妙容, Trans.). 天下文化. (Original work published 2015)
    Russell, D. M., Koesten, L., Kittur, A., Goyal, N., & Liu, M. X. (2024). Sensemaking: What is it today? In Extended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 487:1–487:5). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3636322
    Rylander Eklund, A., Navarro Aguiar, U., & Amacker, A. (2022). Design thinking as sensemaking: Developing a pragmatist theory of practice to (re)introduce sensibility. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12604
    Schensul, S. L., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic research. AltaMira Press.
    Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Museum 2.0.
    Sitzia, E. (2016). Narrative theories and learning in contemporary art museums: A theoretical exploration. Stedelijk Studies, (4). https://stedelijkstudies.com/journal/narrative-theories-learning-contemporary-art-museums-theoretical-exploration/
    Smith, A. (2024, May 7). Tate Modern review: Yoko Ono. Ten Thousand Hours Photography. https://www.photography10kh.com/tate-modern-review-yoko-ono/
    Smith, Z. R., Flax, M., Becker, S. P., & Langberg, J. (2023). Academic motivation decreases across adolescence for youth with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Effects of motivation on academic success. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 64(9), 1303–1313. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13815
    Spelt, E. J. H., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z
    Szcześniak, M., Mazur, P., Rodzeń, W., & Szpunar, K. (2021). Influence of Life Satisfaction on Self-Esteem Among Young Adults: The Mediating Role of Self-Presentation. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 1473–1482. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S322788
    Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology (pp. 17–37). SAGE Publications.
    Theriault, C. E. (2023, June 18). Unraveling contemporary art narratives in a post-truth world. Modern Contemporary Art Trends. https://www.moderncontemporaryartworktrends.com/unraveling-contemporary-art-narratives-in-a-post-truth-world/
    Ventzislavov, R. (2014). Idle Arts: Reconsidering the Curator: Idle Arts. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 72(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jaac.12058
    Vu, T., Ferns, S., Ananthram, S., & Bennett, D. (2024). Preparing for work placements: Sensemaking among international health science students. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(6), 1431–1447. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2307941
    Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage.
    Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.
    Wolff, A., & Mulholland, P. (2013). Curation, curation, curation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Narrative and Hypertext Workshop (pp. 1–5). https://doi.org/10.1145/2462216.2462217

    QR CODE