Learning in museums

Learning in museums

It seems clear to us that the focused use of a museum, in which a teacher helps pupils to learn by encouraging them to interact with exhibits in a structured and directed way, can provide a range of learning experiences that simply cannot be simulated accurately or meaningfully elsewhere. Indeed, Howard Gardner recommended that all children engage in museum learning, as it has considerable scope to stimulate their ‘multiple intelligences’ (Hawkey 2004). Museum learning also has the potential to break down some ideas about teaching and learning that are sometimes associated with schools by those who are not involved in education – namely, that learning must be constrained by a curriculum; that it is a simple acquisition of facts and skills; and that it involves transmission of knowledge from teacher to pupil. Museum educators – to some extent historically (sic) free from public scrutiny – have been at liberty to develop their ideas about learning and to engage in alternative approaches (Anderson 1999; MLA 2004). In so doing, many have been strongly influenced by the ideas set out below and drawn from Hawkey (2004).

Hawkey (2001) summarised how thinking about learning has been influential in enhancing museum learning opportunities. Bloom’s (1984) Taxonomy suggests that learning may occur in any or all of three domains: cognitive, psycho-motor or affective. The cognitive domain is divided into several levels, the lowest of which is factual recall. Appreciating the low level of simple fact presentation has provided museum educators with an impetus to diversify their approach to learning. Gammon (2001) sug- gested a taxonomy into which museum learning experiences in particular could fall: cognitive, affective, social, skills development and personal. Hooper-Greenhill et al. (2003) established a similar taxonomy including the following categories: (a) knowledge and understanding, (b) skills, (c) values and attitudes, (d) enjoyment, inspiration and creativity, and (e) activity, behaviour and progression. These two analyses bear some relation to Gardner’s multiple intelligences.

Wider definitions of learning and attempts to describe the learning pro- cess sequentially have also been useful. Sharples (2003) described learning as construction of understanding, relating new experiences to existing knowledge. Kolb (1984) attempted to develop such ideas by defining a model of experiential learning, which examines four components of a

NICK EASINGWOOD AND JOHN WILLIAMS

cycle of learning: immersion in concrete experience, observations and reflections, logical or inductive formation of abstract concepts and gener- alisations, and empirical testing of the implications of concepts in new situations. He suggested that learners often have strengths in particular components of this cycle, and defined learning styles (accommodator, assimilator, converger and diverger) accordingly. Serrell (1996) identified types of museum learning activities, and the outcomes to those activities, preferred and looked for respectively, by individuals with these learning styles. (Table 9.1)

Table 9.1 Learning styles and preferred activities and outcomes (Serrell 1996) Learning style

Preferred activities Outcome sought Accommodator

Imaginative Hidden meaning Trial and error

Assimilator Interpretation that provides Intellectual comprehension facts and sequential ideas

Converger Try out theories Solutions to problems Diverger

Interpretation that encourages Personal meaning social interaction

Given the increasing focus on classifying learning styles as visual, audi- tory and kinaesthetic (e.g. DfES 2003b), there appear to be intuitive and obvious ways in which museum experiences may target students with such styles. For example, the range of visual and ‘hands-on’ opportunities that could be offered within a museum would appear to appeal to pupils with kinaesthetic and visual styles (Stephenson and Sword 2004). It should be recognised that controversy exists about the applicability and reliability of the range of learning style models.

Another productive approach is to distinguish between theories of learning and theories of knowledge (Hein 1995, 1998), and to keep those

classifications in mind when designing learning opportunities:

• Views of knowledge exist on a continuum, the extremes of which are:

ⴰ knowledge is absolute truth ⴰ knowledge is the creation of the human mind.

• Views of learning exist on a continuum, the extremes of which are:

ⴰ learning is passive with museums’ purpose to pour learning into an

‘empty vessel’ of the mind ⴰ learning is actively assimilated into existing cognitive structures by

the learner. Table 9.2 shows the four ways in which these views of learning and know-

ledge can combine to yield four domains of learning.

USING ICT TO SUPPORT SCIENCE LEARNING

Table 9.2 Domains of knowledge and learning

Domain Knowledge Learning Didactic

Knowledge is absolute truth Learning is passive Heuristic

Knowledge is absolute truth Learning is constructed from ideas and experience

Constructivist Knowledge is constructed Learning is constructed from ideas and experience

Behaviourist Knowledge is constructed Learning is passive

To design museum learning opportunities that respond to the ideas above cannot be done using a ‘one size fits all’ model. Learning from, rather than about, objects, providing the opportunity for a variety of active and enquiry-based learning activities – and structuring and coordinating a range of meaningful learning choices within a particular context – are essential components for success (Hawkey 2004; Johnson and Quinn 2004). Provision of motivating learning experiences that are stimulating, enjoyable and relevant is essential. Embedding such experi- ences in the interdisciplinary approach facilitated by museums is also more likely to enable pupils to make links between areas of learning (Hawkey 2004).