Museum Learning

Theory and Research as Tools for Enhancing Practice

Jill Hohenstein, Theano Moussouri

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138901124
• eBook ISBN: 9781317445944
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Archaeology
• Index: Social Sciences

As museums are increasingly asked to demonstrate not only their cultural, but also their educational and social significance, the means to understand how museum visitors learn becomes ever more important. And yet, learning can be conceptualised and investigated in many ways. Coming to terms with how theories about learning interact with one another and how they relate to 'evidence-based learning' can be confusing at best.

Museum Learning attempts to make sense of multiple learning theories whilst focusing on a set of core learning topics in museums. Importantly, learning is considered not just as a cognitive characteristic, as some perspectives propose, but also as affective, taking into consideration interests, attitudes, and emotions; and as a social practice situated in cultural contexts. This book draws attention to the development of theory and its practical applications in museum situations such as aquariums, zoos, botanical gardens and historical re-enactment sites, among others.

This volume will be of interest to museum studies students, practitioners and researchers working in informal learning contexts, and will help them to reflect on what it means to learn in museums and create more effective environments for learning.

1Introduction

Theory can be seen as a lens through which research is filtered. As a result, the ideas that are seen to be important for use in developing evidence-based practice are all influenced by particular perspectives about learning, about research, and about museums. This is not always done in a conscious way in museum practice. As practically minded people, museum professionals are often drawn to empirical research and models that are developed in order to address pertinent questions for museum practice. We argue that, although there is nothing inherently wrong with these approaches, issues of theory-evidence gap, methodology and theoretical assumptions require attention. Similarly, models developed with practitioners in mind need to be mindful of and address these issues. This is an area where academic researchers and museum professionals can work together to develop theoretically sound and practice-relevant frameworks, through research-practice collaborations.

This book represents the culmination of multiple years of work on the part of us, and many others in the worlds of both museums and learning theory. We have been aware for some time, through literature, work experiences, and conversations with various stakeholders, that it has been difficult to formulate a way to coherently discuss theories about learning in museum contexts in a manner that is accessible but also represents theories as they are seen in the world of academia. That is, the divide between academia and practice seems to grow rather than shrink in many ways, despite the attempts to bridge gaps. We hope this book helps to provide a useful window between theory and research on the one hand and practice on the other. In this introductory chapter there are several topics we will highlight: definitions of learning, what we refer to as a museum, the purpose of considering learning theory in museums as we see it, as well as the outline of the chapters that follow.

Though on the surface it might seem rather obvious, there are many different institutions that could count as a ‘museum’. The Museums Association in the UK states that ‘Museums enable people to explore collections for inspiration, learning and enjoyment. They are institutions that collect, safeguard and make accessible artefacts and specimens, which they hold in trust for society’ (Museums Association, n.d.). This definition purposely includes art galleries and historical collections. We are using the term museum rather more broadly here to include both these traditional museums, containing objects of value (however that is defined), which offer a public the opportunity to see these objects so they may experience them in an authentic way. But we are also referring to science centres in which there may be very few ‘objects’ of value, but rather there are hands-on experiences of phenomena that the scientific community has discovered. In addition, zoos and botanical gardens which both contain living ‘objects’ can be thought of in ways that are similar to museums. Furthermore, heritage and archaeological sites constitute other forms of what can be thought of as open-air museums. There are also historical houses and other buildings of interest that qualify as museums in this view. Finally, newer ways of interacting with publics through dialogue events, re-enactments, and demonstrations can be considered within the auspices of museums. Gurian (2002) categorised museums into five types: object-centred, housing objects of value; narrative, including those that interpret the story of particular groups (e.g., United States Holocaust Memorial Museum); client-centred, including children’s museums and science centres, many of which do not have collections but instead provide experiences and afford visitors opportunities to witness phenomena; community-centred, being of – and for – the community in which they are based; and national, which tend to attempt to represent the interests of a whole country. Though each type of museum may have specific needs and details with respect to the consideration of learning, there are undoubtedly many things that are shared by these institutional types.

Though much of the research that we present has been carried out in more ‘traditional’ object-centred and client-centred museums, it is important to consider the ways that other contexts may have similar or different relations to the findings of research and be able to utilise the guidance that various theories might put forth. Of course, the studies reviewed here take a specific view of museums, although this is not always explicit. Museums are often seen as social institutions for personal, social, dialogical, collective or emancipatory learning, with various degrees of reference to the ideological process of education or learning policy and mission. At the same time, we acknowledge that there is a growing use of digital technologies in museums for presentation of exhibit material as well as interactive guided tours, amongst other uses. Although we refer to studies involving digital technologies in museum learning in several places throughout the book, including a section in Chapter 6 on authenticity, we do not devote a great deal of space specifically to how learning can be enhanced (or indeed inhibited) by the use of digital technology. This may be an omission on our part. However, it was necessary to make choices about what we were able to include, due to space limitations.

We want to clarify from the outset that we think of learning as something that is cognitive, affective and psychomotor (Bloom, 1956). Whereas a very traditional view of learning would perhaps suggest that priority should to be given to the cognitive aspects of learning (e.g., knowledge for facts and ‘understanding’ how or why things have occurred in the way they have), we also hold dear the notion that learning is much broader than just cognitive gains. That is, learning is also emotional, attitudinal and aspirational, but bodily, too. This means that people develop and change in the ways they feel about various ideas and concepts such as impressionist art, biomedical technologies, changes in positions of power across the globe, etc. They also can sometimes become highly skilled at an activity, such as driving a car, without being able to think about or talk about the details involved in carrying out that activity. So, though there is still an emphasis on cognitive learning in various educational institutions, including museums, we think is it important to recognise the non-cognitive in learning theory and research. That being said, much of the research in museums does tend to take a cognitive focus. We try to present work in this book that goes beyond the cognitive but we are also limited by the research that has been carried out.

It is important to point out that whereas thinking of learning as memory for facts is perhaps conventional, it might not be the most useful way to capture the types of learning experiences occurring in museums. There are numerous reasons to reject mere factual learning as the standard upon which to judge museum learning. Thinking about learning as only a cognitive outcome will result in missing issues to do with conceptual development as opposed to ‘information’ as important elements of learning. But adding the affective and motoric types of learning to the mix will bolster arguments as to why a focus on facts as items to be learned will miss out on valuable opportunities in museums that would not count as learning facts. Moreover, whilst some theoretical perspectives about learning prioritise a notion of learning that exists within people’s heads (e.g., constructivism, information processing), there are alternative views that would suggest learning and conceptual development are processes that occur in the interactional space in relationships between people (e.g., sociocultural theory). These latter types of perspectives tend to cut across cognitive and affective, or even motor, learning. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that factual (and conceptual) cognitive learning can be connected to affective and even bodily learning (Martin & Briggs, 1986). But even this type of finding suggests that cognitive learning is somehow more important than attitudinal or emotional learning. We feel that Falk and Dierking (1997) were right, twenty years ago, to have highlighted the need to go beyond thinking about learning as memory for facts and have attempted to address this in multiple ways throughout the book.

Learning can be defined as a relatively permanent change in thought or behaviour, which might include cognition, opinions, skills or mindset as indicated above. These changes could be in areas that are of less obvious relevance to learning in museums, like firing patterns in particular neurons in the brain. But they can also appear in more observable actions, such as answers on a ‘test’ of knowledge. And they might also be in less tangible areas such as a vague sense of belonging to a group or feelings of being drawn to certain forms of art but not others. Illeris (2007) has pointed out that learning can be viewed as an outcome: this change in thought or behaviour mentioned above. But he notes that one could also see learning in terms of a process or even an interaction. The process of learning could be closely tied to the outcomes. That is, certain mental and emotional mechanisms might be necessary to bring about the learning outcomes that are seen. On the other hand, learning as an interaction implies that it is not an individual process, but rather involves at least two actors. The exchange between these actors can lead to different outcomes or even processes. The way one chooses to think about learning (outcome, process, or interaction) could affect the choices that are made in considering theory and research as valuable, but also how to apply the ideas from theory and research in practical settings.

It is sometimes difficult to make sense of the myriad research outcomes about a given topic. One only has to consider the news reports about the so-called benefits to our health of fats versus carbohydrates versus protein versus sugar, among other potential nutrients, to see how research does not always provide easy to follow guidelines or practical advice to the everyday consumer. We aim in this book to try to unpick some of the reasons that research findings can be at odds with one another. We think that one important element of such differences can be due to differences in theoretical perspective. Theoretical perspectives about learning (or other types of theory) are not always compatible with one another. If one buys into a particular type of learning as more important (e.g., outcome or cognitive), and this is more consistent with a particular theoretical perspective about learning, there is a good chance that the approach to research will differ from the approach taken by a different researcher with a different understanding of what learning should be seen as (e.g., interaction or affective). As covered in the next chapter on theory, sometimes theories can be built up in a way that reinforces biases about the fundamental constructs they cover, such as learning. These biases will undoubtedly influence the research that is based on these theories and any resulting guidance for practice. This may be one reason that findings from two different studies about the same topic can appear to come to varying conclusions. As such, consideration ought to be given to the theory that drove the research before trying to derive practical implications from studies.

To complicate matters, there are also disciplinary boundaries that can serve to both help and hinder understandings in the field of museum learning. For example, we draw from literature in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy and anthropology as ‘primary’ disciplines in this book. However, there are interdisciplinary fields that are also useful in the consideration of theories to do with learning, particularly as relevant to museums. These fields include education, women’s studies, museum studies, cultural studies, tourism and leisure studies, and heritage studies, among others. Sometimes theories in two different disciplines can sound very similar to one another, and are developed in parallel to each other but only very rarely refer to each other in a cross-disciplinary way. For example, both the theory of Figured Worlds (Holland, Skinner, Lachiotte, & Cain, 2001) and the concept of ‘scripts’ (Schank & Abelson, 1977) relate to the ways that people come to understand expectations about how to act in particular situations. However, scripts tend to approach the idea from a very cognitive point of view, providing a way for people to act efficiently in their everyday lives; whereas Figured Worlds uses the idea about expectations as a fuzzier set of guidance, which helps people act in ways that are appropriate to their identities.

Some researchers coming from disparate fields tend to pick and choose aspects of psychological and learning science theories that suit them (or they have easy access to). This approach often results in reducing quite complex theories, constructs and principles to rather simplistic interpretations of what are, in effect, umbrella theories. One problem with this situation is that these researchers may only focus in on a small number of studies, representing particular interpretations of these theoretical perspectives whilst ignoring the complexities developed within the academic discipline by the original authors of the theories. As a result, this may lead to ignorance of what these disciplinary perspectives have to offer, which can mean that whole fields of study can miss out on meaningful dialogues. On the other hand, other researchers have made efforts to marry up different disciplinary perspectives and create more sophisticated and overarching theoretical perspectives. Beyond the theoretical level, the interaction of different disciplinary perspectives can also be useful at a methodological level. Where we have encountered potential dialogues in and between disciplines and fields, we try to point them out for the reader to help make sense of the vast array of theoretical perspectives that exist.

We feel it is important to declare our own backgrounds here in order to honestly acknowledge any biases we have. We have attempted to be inclusive in this book. But inevitably we are unable to make space for everything. We are undoubtedly influenced by our own perspectives about what is important. Given our statements about theory forming a lens with which to view research and practice, disclosure of our perspectives seems essential. One of us is a developmental psychologist who researches cognitive development and language. Hohenstein’s primary theoretical perspectives stem from Piagetian, social constructivist, information processing and sociocultural backgrounds. At the same time, her research has tended to utilise quantitative methods, both observational and experimental. This research has been conducted primarily in museums and other sites of non-formal learning, like the home. Moussouri’s view of learning in museums has been influenced by social constructivist and sociocultural perspectives. Having completed her first degree in education, one of the first things she noticed when working in museums was how few of the learning theories developed with formal learning settings in mind can be applied in museum settings. This shaped her approach to research, which is driven by research questions related to the value and relevance of museums in people’s lives and grounded in museum practice. Her research is exploratory and qualitative in nature.

Related to the above disclosures, we are both empirical social scientists. As such, we tend to rely on empirical, rather than theoretical, research in our presentations of theory and research in this book (see Chapter 3 for more information on empirical methods). This means that our background leads us to favour studies that involve collecting data from relevant individuals or sources as opposed to those that start with an intellectual question and present analyses of exhibitions and experiences solely from the theoretical perspective of the author. We are aware that work from heritage studies often uses this technique in academic writing. As a result, we tend to draw less from that field than perhaps we could have.

This book begins with a chapter that discusses the importance of theory for both research and practice. We present the ways that theory develops over time, and how it can be difficult to change a discipline’s dogmatic reliance on particular theoretical perspectives. But we also highlight the mediational role theory plays in the influence of research on practice: if theory has influenced research and research is used for evidence-based practice, then logically, theory also influences practice. At the same time, it can be difficult to make sense of the various theories about learning in museums. We emphasise the need to pay attention to what researchers mean when they align themselves with a particular theoretical perspective. Moreover, researchers might not even explicitly talk about theory in their studies, which can also introduce confusion to the issues of theory, research, and practice.

Following from this discussion of theory, Chapter 3 presents some very brief notes about methods and methodology. We think it is important to consider not just the theoretical perspectives about learning, but also the approaches that are taken to conducting empirical study. As such, we have attempted to outline some of the nuts and bolts to social science research, with a complete awareness of our inability (both due to space limitations and lack of expertise) to provide either a how-to manual for conducting research or a more thorough consideration of all of the available methods. We hope that this cursory coverage of methods and methodology will, if nothing else, help by indicating further references to follow for those who would like them.

Because we have tried in this book to ground the presentation of research and theory, we introduce our ‘topic’ chapters, 4–10, with a scenario that was contributed by practitioners from a number of museums around the world. The use of scenarios counterbalances the abstract nature of the theoretical discussions by grounding them in current museum practice and thinking. Hence, each topic chapter is a form of dialogue between theory, research and practice. The ensuing discussion presents our interpretations of how the practice-based scenarios relate to a variety of domain-specific theories. This is followed by the presentation of a number of either ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Theory and museum practice
• 3 The importance of methods and methodology for museum practice
• Topic chapters
• Glossary
• Index