Museums Galleries Review

8/9/2019 Museums Galleries Review

1/48

Learning with Digital Technologies inMuseums, Science Centres and Galleries

REPORT 9:

FUTURELAB SERIES

Roy Hawkey, Kings College, London


2/48

FOREWORD

In the last few years there has beenmassive growth in the use of digitaltechnologies for learning in museums,science centres and galleries both on-site in the form of digital interactives, andonline via the creation of ever-morepopular websites. As early as 2002 thenumber of virtual visitors to manymuseums websites had alreadyovertaken the number of physical visitorson-site. These developments, both withinthe walls of the institution and outside

them, provide a number of challengesfor educators and curators, at the heartof which lie the questions what isdistinctive about learning in museums,science centres and galleries, and howmight this change or evolve through theincreasing use of digital technologies?

These questions go to the heart ofsignificant debates in this sector howdoes learning in musems differ from orcomplement learning in schools? How

can museums fulfil their potential tosupport lifelong learning? Should effortand money be spent primarily on thevisitors who will enter the walls of theinstitution or those who will virtually

explore the site through the web? Whatis the role of objects in the process oflearning with digital technologies?How does the relationship betweenmuseum educator and learner changeas technologies are developed?

At a time when there are calls forcollaboration between schools and theinformal learning sector, when there isincreasing emphasis on lifelong learning,when there is significant debate over the

value and utility of digital resources, thisreview takes a step back and asks us toconsider the bigger picture the historyand role of learning in museums, sciencecentres and galleries, the theories thatcan help us to navigate the as yet unclearwaters of the future, and the major projectsand initiatives that are already providingindications of the routes we might take.

We look forward to hearing your views onthis review and welcome comments at

[email protected]

Keri FacerDirector of Learning ResearchFuturelab

1

CONTENTS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

SECTION 1INTRODUCTION AND

BACKGROUND 4

SECTION 2

LEARNING IN MUSEUMS:

THEORETICAL

PERSPECTIVES 11

SECTION 3

ON-SITE LEARNING 22

SECTION 4

ONLINE LEARNING 30

SECTION 5THE FUTURE: MORE OF

THE SAME OR SOMETHING

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT? 36

BIBLIOGRAPHY 40

Learning with Digital Technologies inMuseums, Science Centres and Galleries

REPORT 9:

FUTURELAB SERIES

Roy Hawkey, Kings College, London


3/48

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

As institutions for the general public,museums pre-date schools yet the popularassumption is that schools are for learning(and for preparation for the future) whilemuseums are for the preservation of thepast. The reality may well be, however,that it is museums that have embracednew technologies and approaches tolearning while schools focus on deliveringan outmoded curriculum.

Museums are a heterogeneous set of

institutions whose original twin functionsof scholarship and education, onceinseparable, but subsequently divorced,are being reunited by digital technologies.Such technologies also encompass a widevariety, including multimedia, simulationsand presentations as well as the internet.Not only do they facilitate and/oraccelerate long-established learningtasks, but, critically, they permit activitiesthat would otherwise be impossible.This includes new approaches tolearning by different audiences andfor different purposes.

Despite reservations about access with social class the major determinant digital technologies for learning areavailable to the majority of UK householdsand to almost all UK schoolchildren.Museums, galleries and (especially)science centres are among the mostenthusiastic providers of digital learningopportunities. Virtual visitors to museumwebsites already out-number physical

(on-site) visitors, and many of these areengaged in dedicated learning activities as even a cursory glance at the 24 Hour

Museum website will confirm. Indeed, sorapid and widespread has been the growth in both provision and uptake that theextensive survey of UK museum educationactivity in 1999 did not include websitesand conflated audio-visual guides withprinted materials.

2 LEARNING IN MUSEUMS

Museums have a number of philosophicaland practical considerations whenplanning learning opportunities, namely to:

engage in learning as constructivedialogue rather than as a passive

process of transmission

take on the role of privileged participantrather than that of expert

carefully evaluate the significance ofthe formal school curriculum (and itsassessment process)

facilitate lifelong learning by providinga free-choice learning environment thatpermits a plethora of pathways andpossibilities.

Museums have an important role to play infacilitating lifelong learning, in terms ofcreative, cultural and intellectual activitybeyond any merely vocational aspects.Lifelong learning, museums and digitaltechnologies share many of the sameattributes, with emphasis on learning fromobjects (rather than about objects) and onstrategies for discovering information(rather than the information itself). Such aview of learning as active engagement issupported by The Campaign for Learning

in Museums and Galleries (CLMG) and theMuseums, Libraries and Archives Council(MLA), who also celebrate the important(if different) outcomes of informal learning.

2

museums,galleries and

science centres

are amongthe most

enthusiasticproviders of

digital learningopportunities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


4/48

Many of the informal learning opportunitiesoffered by museums, through digitaltechnologies and in other ways, situncomfortably with the formal educationsystem. Indeed, far from reducing tensionsbetween the formal and informal learningsectors, the drive for learning objectsmay create further stresses.

3 ON-SITE LEARNING

Objects are the unique attribute ofmuseums and galleries, their USP, yetmany museums and science centresapparently seek the Holy Grail ofinteractivity. Most of the learning issues

are similar, whether interactives aremechanical or digital, on-site or online. Inany case, poor examples, of whatever type,do little to promote the learning potentialof interactives. While some authorsquestion the compatibility of objects andinteractives, there are key principlesemerging. Beyond the nave assumptionthat digital technologies are inevitablyinteractive, there are strident demandsfor clear learning objectives, for learnerchoice and initiative.

After interactivity, the goal of manymuseums is learner participation. Thismay involve simple feedback (often digitalvoting), digital storage of images and ideas(for subsequent remote retrieval) or evencontributing directly to the museumsown exhibits and interpretation.

Digital technologies facilitate many kindsof collaboration between museum andlearner, between different institutions

and among learners themselves. Excitingexamples include those between realand virtual learners and of learnerscreating their own associations withinand between collections.

In many ways the opposite ofcollaboration, digital technologies alsofacilitate personalisation. Freed fromthe constraints, both physical andinterpretative, of the curator and exhibitiondesigner, the learner can use appropriatetechnologies to provide a dedicated andpersonal mentor. Examples from a sciencecentre (the Exploratorium) and from anart gallery (Tate Modern) highlight thelearning potential of a versatile andmobile information source that is underthe control of the learner.

4 ONLINE LEARNING

Museum websites are possibly even morediverse than museums. Apart from obviousdifferences of content and design, theirunderlying philosophies and approachesto learning differ considerably, sometimes(but not consistently) reflecting the viewsof the museum itself. The extremes arerepresented by the interactive referencetype and by creative applications withlearner-created outcomes.

The accounts in the literature, although

largely descriptive, do give an indication ofthe types of learning made possible by thevariety of websites already on offer.Examples from the major nationalmuseums, heritage organisations andother institutions reflect the diversity ofapproaches, from encyclopaedias togames, but include innovative andimaginative products driven by underlyingtheory and some that actively encourageparticipation in knowledge creation.

Webcasts are seen as a way of introducingthe human dimension to the digital, as abridge between on site and online, andas a step from a deficit model of learningtowards greater dialogue.

3

the learner canuse appropriatetechnologies toprovide adedicated andpersonal mentor

REPORT 9

LEARNING WITH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MUSEUMS, SCIENCE CENTRES AND GALLERIES

ROY HAWKEY, KINGS COLLEGE, LONDON


5/48

5 THE FUTURE

Museums have already achieved many oftheir aims in developing digital exhibitions

and learning resources. In this limitedsense, the aspirations of A Netful ofJewels and Building the Digital Museumhave largely been exceeded.

A new set of relationships is emerging,between objects, learners and digitaltechnology, in which museums are, aboveall, places of exploration and discovery. Inthe museum of the future, distinctionsbetween real and virtual, already blurred,will matter even less as both museumsand learners better understand the

processes of inquiry and of learning itself.The real key to future development is likelyto be personalisation: of interpretation tosignificantly enhance social andintellectual inclusion; of technology to freeboth museums and learners from many ofthe current constraints; of learning tofinally facilitate an escape from the deficitmodels so prevalent in educationalinstitutions and release untold potential,as the individual learner is able to usetechnologies to exercise choice and to take

responsibility for his/her own learning.

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Does learning in museums have a realfuture or only a virtual one? Should a

museum spend its limited resources onproviding expensive exhibitions andhandling collections (together withappropriate staff) to reach only the limitednumber of people who are able to andwho choose to visit its galleries? Orshould it utilise the power of digitaltechnologies to reach out to communitieswell beyond its walls, who, for historical,geographical, or social reasons, will neverenter the hallowed halls?

This review aims to address these

questions by:

introducing theories of museumlearning and the way these havechanged in recent years

highlighting key trends in the adoptionof digital technologies for learningwithin and beyond the walls ofmuseums

providing pointers for potential futuredevelopments for curators and

developers of digital technologies formuseum learning.

Before addressing these overarchingquestions, it is useful first to remindourselves of the nature of museums,recent developments in museum educationand the potential impact of digitaltechnologies, and to gain some notion ofthe scope and scale of the three-wayinterface between museums, learning anddigital technologies.

4

does learningin museums

have a real

future or onlya virtual one?

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND


6/48

1.1 A BRIEF HISTORY

The British Museum recently celebratedthe 250th anniversary of its foundation in

1753. The three major national museumsin South Kensington of the physicalsciences and technology (ScienceMuseum), the life and earth sciences(The Natural History Museum) and of thedecorative arts (Victoria and AlbertMuseum) were established there in thelate 19th and early 20th centuries. It isworth noting in the context of this longhistory that it was only in the late Victorianperiod that school attendance becamecompulsory, primary in 1870 andsecondary in 1902, and that it is merely

a decade since UK museums firstestablished a presence on the worldwideweb. Our current understandings of botheducation and of learning with digitaltechnologies can therefore be seen to haveemerged long after the original conceptionof the museum in our society wasformulated, and these have had to beincorporated within complex structuresthat perhaps owe more to history thanto logic. This means that the variousfunctions of the museum, collections

management, exhibitions, education andwebsite, may well be the responsibility ofcompletely separate departments, withlittle inter-communication and, possibly,conflicting philosophies.

Once, all was straightforward. Museumscollected and conserved artefacts.They exhibited (behind glass) some ofthese (dusty) objects for the inspirationand edification of the visiting public,accompanied by text labels expressing theantediluvian opinions of expert curatorswritten in an obscure language. This maywell indeed remain the popular perceptionof a museum (Hawkey 2001). Museumeducators taught groups of (predominantly)

schoolchildren in a classroom spaceattached to the museum, occasionallyborrowing items from the museumsreserve collection or establishing theirown handling collection. The more daringmay have occasionally ventured to facilitatesome kind of practical learning activity inthe hallowed halls of the museum itself.

Eventually, exhibitions began to change.Visitors could not, after all, be expected tolearn for themselves, to see the worldfrom the curators perspective, withoutsupport and guidance. A new generation ofexhibits with the visitor in mind (Milesat al 1982) emerged, in which specialistinterpretative devices were utilised to

make clear the message that the visitorwas expected to heed. Objects becamesecondary to the message, especially inthose museums where concepts candominate museums of science, ofnatural history, of archaeology, of history,perhaps if not in art galleries. Withinterpretation predominant, the educatorsrole became one of compensation,reaching audiences for whom theexhibition offer was inappropriate, suchas children (whether in school parties or

family groups) or university students andadult education classes.

The widespread development of digitaltechnologies in all aspects of museumoperations during the latter part of the1990s coincided with the start of a differentperception of the museum educator. Aslifelong learning and access became keytargets, so the role of learning specialistsbegan to change. Their audience was seenas very much more than schoolchildren.They were increasingly invited toparticipate in exhibition development,and this included (often rather morereluctantly) exhibits and activities foundedupon digital technologies. In many ways,

5

as lifelonglearning andaccess became

key targets,so the roleof learningspecialistsbegan to change


7/48

1994 was a key transition year for digitallearning in museums, for there were twomajor developments, apparently independentand unrelated, but that were subsequentlyto converge. Within the museum, the audioguide, for many years a technologicalupstart attempting to make an impact,went digital (Proctor and Tellis 2003).And, on 4 July 1994, The Natural HistoryMuseum became the first UK museumwebsite to go live, even if the materialwas initially an online brochure ratherthan a learning resource (Shaw 1995).

Today, museums provide a plethora ofdifferent kinds of learning activities.Anderson (1999) carried out an extensive

survey and lists 23 categories, rangingfrom Services for children (most frequent)to Publications and resources for minoritycommunities (least frequent). It is anindication of the rapid pace of developmentthat, while approaches such asprinted/audio-visual information,publications and trails all feature inthe list, there is no specific reference toonline or other digital provision. However,it requires little more than a cursoryglance at the 24 Hour Museum site

(www.24hourmuseum.org.uk) or that of itsoffspring Show Me (www.show.me.uk), toappreciate how rapid and widespread thegrowth of museum learning opportunitiesonline has been in the early years of the21st century.

It is perhaps not surprising, but still ratherstartling, that the pace of developmentsince the mid-1990s has been so rapid. Aslittle as three years ago, the museumcommunity was still busy alerting itself tothe fact that it would be necessary to alterits documentation practices to engage andto address the pedagogic needs of diverseaudiences (Cameron 2001). The role of themuseum both in respect of education, and

in respect of its response to digitaltechnologies for learning, therefore, is onewhich should be seen as emerging within acomplex set of sometimes competingobjectives. The aim of this review is to stepback for a while from these debates and toask, after ten years of experience in thisarea, how digital technologies might bestbe used to support the learningopportunities that museums can offer.

1.2 SCOPE OF THE REVIEW

The focus of this review is on thoseaspects of learning provided by museumsand galleries through the use of digital

technologies (Fig 1.1). It does not considerother functions that digital technologiesfulfil in the museum sector, such aspublicity or administration, except wheredevelopments such as collectionsmanagement systems have a potentialimpact on opportunities for learning. It is,however, necessary to include someconsideration of the wide range of informallearning opportunities that are availablethrough other non-digital modes andmedia within the museum environment.

Similarly, it is not possible to completelyisolate learning in museums and galleriesfrom that in other informal situations.

6

today, museumsprovide a

plethora of

different kindsof learning

activities

Fig 1.1: Scope of the review

learning

museums& galleries

digitaltechnologies

Formal & informal

learning with ICT

online, in school,

home, workplace

Other formal &

informal learning

exhibitions, guides,

printed resources

etc

Collections management, record-keeping, digital exhibitions etc

SECTION 1



8/48

1.3 SOURCES

Literature reviews conventionallyconcentrate on material published in

books and peer-reviewed journals.However, while there is a body of work onlearning in museums (see, for example,Hein 1998; Falk and Dierking 2000;Moussouri 2000; Moussouri 2002; MLA2004) and a rapidly growing literature onthe wider use of digital technologies forlearning especially in classrooms there is little such work available at theintersect of all three domains. (The annualconference Museums and the Web(Bearman and Trant 1999 2004) doesincreasingly feature papers relating to

learning although the focus remainsprimarily technical rather than pedagogic.)Work cited in this review therefore includesa number of conference presentations andseveral online evaluation reports, as wellas material produced by museums andgalleries themselves and by governmentand other agencies.

1.4 DEFINITIONS

1.4.1 Museums and galleries

Of course, everybody knows what amuseum is. Dictionaries define it as aplace where objects important to art,history or science are studied, conservedand displayed. The International Councilof Museums concurs, and emphasisescollections. These definitions, however,rule out science and discovery centres,which dont have collections (except, it canbe argued, of exhibits). And the 24 Hour

Museum (www.24hourmuseum.org.uk),which has neither place nor objects. And agallery? A place where art is exhibited. Yetmuseums describe individual rooms as

galleries, whatever they display, while inscience centres theyre often halls orsimply rooms. And what should we makeof the concept of an interactive museum?Is it the case that museums or at leastindividual galleries within museums caneither display objects or be full of speciallybuilt interactive learning machines?

This is neither mere semantics norpedantry. It is a reminder that the museumis not a single, homogeneous entity, but adiverse range of institutions with a dualpurpose: the creation of new knowledge(research) and its dissemination(education). Once these were intimatelyintegrated, both functions were dependent

upon the collections. With the advent ofcompulsory education, however, learningwas seen as the preserve of schools andmuseums were seen as places merely forthe storage of existing (potentially ancient)knowledge (Arnold 1996). Only now inthe 21st century does digital technologypotentially permit the reunification ofthese roles.

In this review, the terms museum andgallery are interpreted widely, to include

any collection or display with publicaccess, and we use the term museumthroughout as shorthand. Although it doesnot specifically exclude them, there is littleemphasis on two particular types ofmuseum where digital technology andlearning would be expected to play asynergetic role as a search engine mightidentify. One group comprises thosemuseums dedicated principally to thedevelopment of computers themselves,eg Heinz Nixdorf in Paderborn(www.hnf.de) or the Computer Museumin Boston, now part of the Museum ofScience (www.mos.org/tcm/tcm.html) .The other group is of those museumsestablished within and on behalf of

7


9/48

educational establishments such asuniversities, rather than for the generalvisiting public, even though projects suchas LEMUR (Learning with MuseumResources, www.abdn.ac.uk/lemur) mayprove interesting.

1.4.2 Digital technologies

Digital technologies encompass awide range of systems and devices,characterised by, but not limited to, thecomputer. Synonyms abound, such asICT (=information and communicationtechnology: note the singular) used in

the National Curriculum for England &Wales (DfEE/QCA 2000). Some applicationssuch as databases and search enginesmake more accessible and more rapidtasks that were hitherto slow and tedious.Many replace previous earlier alternativeor analogue versions animation, audio,film, graphics, photography, television,video etc. Others facilitate essentiallynew activities that would otherwise beimpossible; this is especially true ofapplications that create material ondemand. Table 1.1 presents a summaryin relation to learning within themuseums/galleries sector.

8

Table 1.1 Uses of digital technologies for learning in museums/galleries(adapted from glossary in Littlejohn and Higgison 2003)

The world wide web provides access to arange of digital resources includingonline libraries, journals, databases, anddatasets, through the internet. Manymuseums incorporate some type ofintranet within exhibitions, to provide adedicated and limited resource that isfunctionally similar.

Multimedia materials may includegraphics, pictures, photographs,

animations, film, video, and sound inaddition to text and can potentiallysupport a variety of learning styles.

Computer mediated conferencing(CMC), including e-mail, discussionboards, bulletin boards and chat rooms,used to support many types of discursiveor collaborative activities.

Presentation technologies, includingdigital projectors, and may be fully

interactive or exclusively unidirectional.

Simulations and models allowinteraction with and manipulation of realworld environments. They permit fieldtrips, experiments and other activitiesassociated with a museums collectionand research that are otherwiseimpracticable for reasons of time,locality, safety or expense.

Microworlds and games provide anextension of the simulation by incorporating

a case study scenario. In these kinds ofgames, the learner participates directlyas a virtual persona (an avatar) ratherthan as a mere observer.

Streaming digital audio and videodelivered via the web can give accessto real-life situations.

Visualisation tools can representcomplex sets of data in a visual way.

SECTION 1



10/48

1.4.3 Learning

The definitions of learning that will beused in this review are discussed in

detail in section 2, as in and of itself, thequestion of how we interpret learning andeducation is key to developing anunderstanding of the potential role ofdigital technologies in the museum sector.For the purposes of defining the scopeof this review, however, it suffices to saythat a focus on learning in museumsrequires a wide interpretation of the termand is not confined to the achievementof formal curricular objectives butencompasses the encouragement ofa wide range of behaviours, skills,

dispositions and experiences.

1.5 ACCESS AND USE: SOMESTATISTICS ON MUSEUMS, DIGITALTECHNOLOGIES AND LEARNING

1.5.1 Museums and their visitors

The rationale for collecting data, themeans of collection and the categoriesused for reporting tend to differ considerablyfrom one museum to another, and even inthe same museum over time. Because ofthis it is not particularly productive to try todraw significant conclusions from thelearner numbers across museums andgalleries, nor even for different types ofactivities within museums. However, some

trends are evident and tentative inferencescan be drawn.

9

the question ofhow we interpretlearning is key to

developing anunderstanding ofthe potential roleof digitaltechnologies

Website Page Visitor Mean visitimpressions sessions duration, min

24 Hour Museum 4 040 131 775 457 6.49

Fitzwilliam Museum 1 055 152 210 603 5.18

Imperial War Museum 7 427 122 1 688 396 8.09

National Maritime Museum 6 500 000 1 600 000 9

National Portrait Gallery 5 932 883 1 295 389 6Natural History Museum 22 344 957 5 790 771 9.02

National Museum ofScience & Industry * 9 843 548 2 670 585 7

Tate 32 982 581 4 799 605 6.52

* Science Museum / National Railway Museum / National Museum of Photography, Film & TV

Table 1.2 Museum website visits, 2002 (After 24 Hour Museum 2003)


11/48

Some pertinent data are available,principally in the museums own annualreports increasingly available online and, in the case of website visitors, fromthe 24 Hour Museum. Of these the mostuseful appear at face value to be those forvirtual visitors, but all such data are proneto error, according to what is actuallycounted as a visit or a visitor. What isevident is that as early as 2002 (the lastyear for which comprehensive data arereadily available) the number of virtualvisitors to many museums websites hadalready overtaken the number of physicalvisitors on-site.

Discerning the same relationship betweenphysical and virtual learners is much moredifficult. Some museums include as virtuallearners only those using specificallydesigned websites, others count virtuallyevery visitor as a learner, while yet othersmake no distinction between on-site andonline learners. Similarly, while many

museums report separate figures forschools, for children (other than in schoolparties) and for adults, the criteria usedvary widely. What is clear, however, is that

for some museums (and, especially forscience and discovery centres) a largeproportion of visitors (60% plus) come fromthe formal education sector in schoolparties whereas for others (especially thelargest, national museums) this isrelatively small (perhaps 5 10%), althoughstill highly significant in absolute numbers.

1.5.2 ICT and learning

Given the increasingly digital offering oflearning resources via websites, we needalso to attempt to understand the levels ofaccess and use of ICTs outside museums.Again, this is problematic as reliability andcurrency of figures in this area are hard todetermine. However, some statisticalstudies offer an indication and, certainly,identify trends in computer and internetaccess. For example, the survey YoungPeople and ICT 2002 (NFO System Three2003) found that households with access tothe internet at home rose from 64% in2001 to 68% in 2002. 84% of young people(ages 5-18) used the internet at home, at

10

the number ofvirtual visitors

has alreadyovertaken the

number ofphysical visitors

on-site

Museum Physical Virtual Physical Virtualvisitors visitors visitors visitors

24 Hour Museum n/a 775 457 n/a no data

British Museum 4 813 000 4 491 000 245 000 3 234 000Imperial War Museum 1 604 353 1 688 396 350 000 included

National Maritime Museum 1 004 604 1 600 000 129 921 no data

National Portrait Gallery 1 484 331 1 295 389

Natural History Museum 2 196 416 5 790 771 343 877 157 972

Science Museum 1 710 000 1 640 000 554 000 no data

Tate 5 100 000 4 799 605

Table 1.3 Physical/local and virtual/remote learners 2002(Data from 24 Hour Museum 2003 and museums own annual reports)

SECTION 1



12/48

school or elsewhere, compared with 73%in 2001, with computers generally beingused for a wide range of activities.

It is worth noting Resnicks (2002)optimistic view that, The declining cost ofcomputation will make digital technologiesaccessible to nearly everyone in all parts ofthe world, from inner-city neighborhoodsin the US to rural villages in developingnations. Despite this suggesting thatlevels of ownership and use will increaseacross all sections of society, social classremains the single most significant factorin availability and usage.

1.6 SUMMARY

Despite their current diversity and themultitude of changes, especially inresponse to the introduction of digitaltechnologies, museums and relatedheritage institutions share enormouspotential as learning facilitators. For whileeducation was once seen as a peripheralactivity and technologies as a threat totheir very existence, both have nowbecome central to the mission of 21st

century museums, both on-site andonline. The multidimensional and trulymultimedia nature of museums investsthem with significant advantages overother learning providers, both formal andinformal. How they respond to thechallenge depends to a considerableextent upon their perceptions of their rolein relation to visitors and to learning itself.

2 LEARNING IN MUSEUMS:THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

There are a number of key tensions or,

at least, questions of balance evidentin the provision of learning opportunitiesin museums.

The first tension is between differentlearning philosophies: should museumsoffer delivery or engagement; should theunderpinning rationale be apassive/transmission view or anactive/constructivist view?

Second is the question of the audience how should museums cater for formaleducational needs and/or for informallearning by the general public? Manysmaller museums, together with manyscience and discovery centres are highlydependent upon the formal educationsector school parties for theiraudiences (and, critically) for their income.In contrast, the larger museums,especially the national museums inLondon, cater for significant numbers ofthe general public, children and adults,from the UK and beyond.

The third balance is effectively aboutresources and impact and concerns thebalance to be struck between effortexpended upon the physical, on-sitegalleries and the virtual, online offer.

This section considers the first two ofthese questions, focusing on the verynature of learning, its variousmanifestations in museums, withcomputers and other digital technologies,

as lifelong learning and the recentmovement towards learning objects.The third question is discussed in sections3 and 4.

11

museums andrelated heritageinstitutions share

enormouspotential aslearningfacilitators

SECTION 2

LEARNING IN MUSEUMS:THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES


13/48

2.1 A MUSEUM OF LEARNING?

Suppose that we were commissioned tocreate a museum of learning... Thus

begins Howard Gardners recent polemicon what is known about learning andwhat remains as yet unknown (Gardner2004). He concludes that there would bemuch of interest on display, but that therewould be several empty rooms. He mightwell have added that the digital equivalent,the virtual museum of learning, wouldfrustratingly balance myriads offascinating hyperlinks with numerouserror messages and unavailable pages.And, as Falk and Dierking (2002) havecogently observed, most of what is known

about learning is based on studies fromeither classrooms or psychologylaboratories and so may be inappropriateas a basis for considering learning outsideof these settings. Much has been done inthis area, but much remains to be explored,particularly in non-school settings.

2.2 FORMAL/INFORMAL LEARNING

In the museum domain, learning is used

with a considerable range of meanings.For some it may simply mean access toand acquisition of knowledge. For othersits principal focus is the provision ofresources intended for schools. Theapproaches to learning may differ. Thesubject matter may vary. The audiencemay have a different composition. Butwhether science centre, art gallery, naturalhistory museum, local/regional museumor whatever, every museum has anapparent desire to put learning high on

its agenda.

In recent years it has been seen asimportant to distinguish between formal

education often perceived as beingequivalent to schools and the curriculum and informal learning as befits adultsand others not tied to the classroom(many museums renamed their Head ofEducation as Director of Learning). Yet it isfar too simplistic to assume that learningis either formal or informal. At the veryleast, both learner affiliations andteaching/learning activities may each bedivided into formal and informal, providinga two-by-two matrix. One example of eachof the four categories is shown in Table 2.1.

There has certainly been much debateabout the relationships between theinformal and formal learning domains.The US National Science Foundation hasfunded the establishment of the Centrefor Informal Learning and Schools, acollaboration between the Exploratorium,the University of California Santa Cruz andKings College, London. Others, such asFalk and Dierking (2002) arguepassionately for the use of free-choicelearning to describe the kinds ofapproaches to learning that occur inmuseums and elsewhere outside theschool and college system.

12

SECTION 2


Table 2.1 Simple analysis offormal/informal learning in museums

formal

informal

formal

Lecturesfor groupsof students

Adulteducationcourses

informal

Free-choiceexplorationof exhibits

Interactionswith gallerycharacters

Activity

Affiliation


14/48

At the very least, this increased attentionto and valuing of informal learning helps tochallenge a number of narrow perceptionsabout the location, nature and purpose oflearning in general:

that learning is principally an activityconfined to schools

that learning, while worthy, isessentially dull

that learning requires a definedcurriculum

that learning requires the acquisition ofa body of factual knowledge, of whichlearning names is a primary objective

that learning involves the transmissionof knowledge from teacher to learner.

At the same time as there is increasingattention paid to informal learning,however, it is important to acknowledgethat the meaning, forms and purposesof formal learning are also themselvesundergoing revision, as Resnick(2002) argues:

We need to transform curricula so thatthey focus less on things to know and

more on strategies for learning the thingsyou dont know. As new technologiescontinue to quicken the pace of change inall parts of our lives, learning to become abetter learner is far more important thanlearning to multiply fractions ormemorising the capitals of the world.

Or, he might have added, knowing thenames of objects in a museum display

The recent initiative by the Museums,

Archives and Libraries Council has focusedon the ways in which museums canattempt to measure the learning that takes

place within their galleries and on theirwebsites. The essence is that museumsand galleries should not be limited in theirwork by their relationship with formallearning, but should celebrate informallearning outcomes as being important intheir own right (MLA 2004).

While the state of play of knowledge aboutlearning may be far from complete, what isclear is that the present period ischaracterised by a re-evaluation of thescope, nature, location and purposes oflearning, much of which is triggered bythe opportunities or challenges offeredby digital technologies, and by a renewedinterest in learning across institutions,

rather than simply confined to schools.

For example, in recent years we havewitnessed the emergence of the debateon the role of museums in supportinglifelong learning. In the UK the politicalestablishment has increasingly advocateda wide-ranging agenda for lifelonglearning, much of it linked to employment-related issues, and to the development ofspecific vocational skills, principally foreconomic motives. Museums can clearly

engage learners in creative and culturalpursuits as well as more vocationalaspects of learning and certainly wellbeyond improving schoolchildrensperformances in examinations. Much ofthe focus of many lifelong learninginitiatives is on ICT, and this provides anadditional opportunity for museums andgalleries to fully commit themselves to thelearning enterprise, for, as Resnik (2002)reminds us:

In the digital age, learning can and mustbecome a daylong and lifelong experience.National education initiatives should aim toimprove learning opportunities not only in

13

museums andgalleries shouldcelebrate

informal learningoutcomes asbeing importantin their own right


15/48

schools, but also in homes, communitycenters, museums, and workplaces.

2.3 THEORIES OF LEARNINGIN MUSEUMS

2.3.1 Beyond factual recall

There are many theories of learning, someapparently more applicable to informallearning in general and to museums inparticular, some seemingly more relevantto the use of digital technologies. Manyof the best-known models provide usefulinsights, at least into identifying issues

worthy of consideration. In recent yearsmuseum learning has been the subjectof considerable attention: reports(eg Anderson 1999), initiatives (egResource 2001; MLA 2004), books(eg Hein 1998; Falk and Dierking, 2000)and research studies (eg Moussouri2002; Hooper-Greenhill et al 2003).Although the motives, perspectivesand terminology may differ, the broadconclusions are surprisingly similar.

It is almost half a century since Bloom andhis colleagues published taxonomies ofeducational objectives. Learning, theysuggested, can occur in any or all of threedomains: cognitive, psycho-motor andaffective. (The formal sector, we mightobserve, traditionally emphasises theformer while museums and galleries havesignificant potential for the latter.)Furthermore, within the cognitive domain,factual recall (including technicalterminology) is the lowest of six levels. It isworth observing that despite this, and fifty

years on, school league tables are basedprimarily on the outcomes of standardassessment tasks, universities arecriticised for too much emphasis on

factual recall, knowledge quiz gamesfeature heavily on radio and TV, whilemuseums and galleries continue totransmit the knowledge of expert curatorsto their passive visitors (Hawkey 2001).

Beyond Bloom, Gammon (2001) hassuggested a five-category taxonomy ofmuseum learning experiences: cognitive,affective, social, skills development andpersonal. Recent work at the University ofLeicester (Hooper-Greenhill et al 2003) hasgenerated a similar set of five areas:

knowledge and understanding skills values and attitudes

enjoyment, inspiration and creativity activity, behaviour and progression.

These analyses share much with Gardnerstheory of multiple intelligences. His seventypes are:

logico-mathematical linguistic spatial musical kinaesthetic

intra-personal inter-personal.

Less well known is Gardners advocacythat all schoolchildren should experiencemuseum learning in addition to or, even,in place of classroom learning. Therichness of the museum experience, hecontends, is that it can stimulate most ofthe different types of intelligence, whiletraditional classroom learning tends toconcentrate heavily on a more limitedrange, principally linguistic (Gardner 1991).(Note that MLAs Inspiring Learning for Allwebsite www.inspiringlearningforall.gov.uk carries a quiz based on Gardners theory.)

14

the museumexperience canstimulate mostof the different

types ofintelligence

SECTION 2



16/48

A somewhat different, but interestingapproach is found in Perrys (2002) analysisof informal learning (defined asintrinsically motivated, non-linear andself- directed.) She highlights four typesof learning, the majority of which liebroadly in the affective domain:

sparking an interest delayed learning visceral learning wrap-around learning.

Although the terminology may be different,these categories echo much recent workon free-choice learning in museums andelsewhere (Falk and Dierking 2002).

All of these considerations fit well with themuch wider and richer definition oflearning adopted by the Campaign forLearning. The essential elements of thisdefinition are its breadth of scope and itsproposition that learning is an active

process that results in changes in thelearners cognitive structures:

Learning is a process of activeengagement with experience. It is whatpeople do when they want to make senseof the world. It may involve thedevelopment or deepening of skills,knowledge, understanding, awareness,values, ideas and feelings, or an increasein the capacity to reflect. Effective learningleads to change, development and thedesire to learn more. (CLMG 2000)

This active process is characterised bySharples (2003) as construction, conver-sation and control, in his 3 Cs of effective

learning. Effective learning, he argues,

involves constructing an understanding,relating new experiences to existingknowledge. Central to this is conversation,with teachers, with other learners, withourselves as we question our concepts,

15

learning is aprocess of activeengagement with

experience

Accommodator Assimilator Converger Diverger

Learning style

Component

Concrete experience:

Observation and

reflection

Concept formation /

generalisation

Testing concepts in

new situations

In museum Prefer

exhibitions

(Serrell 1996)

Look for

imaginative interpretation to try out interpretationtrial and error that provides theories that encour

facts and ages socialsequential ideas interaction

hidden meaning intellectual solutions to personalcomprehension problems meaning

Table 2.2 A summary of learning styles arising from Kolbs learning cycle


17/48

and with the world as we carry outexperiments and explorations and interpretthe results. And we become empowered aslearners when we are in control of theprocess, actively pursuing knowledgerather than passively consuming it.

Another model that has been used tosupport the design of museum exhibitionsfor active learning is that of learning styles.Kolbs experiential learning modeldescribes four dimensions in a learningcycle: immersion in concrete experience,followed by observations and reflections,then logical or inductive formation ofabstract concepts and generalisations,and, finally, empirical testing of the

implications of concepts in new situations.Learners, it is suggested, favour two ofthese, each pair identified as one of fourfundamental learning strategies. Table 2.2summarises these and their possibleimplications for learning in the museum.Recent exhibitions at the V&A SilverGalleries and the British Galleries havedrawn on such approaches (Hinton 1999;Durbin 2002).

2.3.2 Knowledge, objects andfree choice learning: the USPs

of museums

KnowledgeHowever important the affective and socialdimensions of learning may be, it isnevertheless important not to overlook thecognitive. After all, museums have a longtradition as repositories, not just ofobjects, but of the knowledge associatedwith those objects. George Hein (1995,

1998) has helpfully distinguished betweentheories of knowledge and theories oflearning in the museum context; both arepertinent. An extreme view of knowledge

sees it as absolute, as revealed truth. Thecontrasting epistemological view regardsknowledge as the creation of the humanmind and therefore transitory (Kuhnscurrent paradigm). Similarly, theories oflearning show a simple dichotomybetween, on the one hand, the view thatlearning is simply added to a passivetabula rasa (clean slate or empty vessel)and, on the other, the view that newlearning is actively assimilated intoexisting structures by the learner. Thesecontradictory perspectives therefore offerconflicting views of the status of theknowledge held by the museum, andcompeting ways for learners to engagewith that knowledge.

Heins analysis offers a distinction betweenthe two types of constructivism knowledge and learning to produce fourdomains (see Fig 2.1). Examples can becited of museum exhibitions, both real andvirtual, where these domains are inevidence, whether by deliberate intent orby chance. For example, analysing thewebsite of the Natural History Museumthrough Heins model enablesidentification of clear representations of

each of these types, including the

16

we becomeempowered as

learners whenwe are in control

of the processFigure 2.1 2D model of knowledgeand learning (Hein 1995, 1998)

Con

structivist

Learning is

passive and

incremental

Learning is

constructed from

ideas and

experiences

Heu

ristic

Beh

avio

urist

Didactic

Knowledge is

independent

Knowledge is

constructed

SECTION 2



18/48

behaviourist Science Casebook, theheuristic Earth Lab and the constructivistQuest (Hawkey 2002). (See section 4 fora more detailed look at Quest.)

ObjectsIt is the objects themselves, however, thatprovide the unique learning potential ofany museum, to foster active inquiry-basedlearning learning from objects ratherthan simply learning about them. Activitiesbased on objects: artefacts, works of art,scientific specimens, documents etc allowthe learner to explore the many stories andinterpretations that they offer.

Free choice and motivationMuseums also provide a free-choicelearning experience, so motivation is key ineffective learning; experiences should bestimulating, enjoyable, relevant andappropriate for the visitor. Interdisciplinaryapproaches are more likely to access theprior knowledge necessary for newlearning to become established as newlinks are created and new understandingsconstructed. Intellectual progressionshould be provided within particular

programmes and within the museumcontext as a whole, such that visitors arechallenged, stimulated and can develop.Within a theory of learning in which the

learner is viewed as actively constructingknowledge, the social, personal andcultural context of learning becomesincreasingly significant, as Falk andDierkings (2002) analysis (Table 2.3)summarises.

To facilitate the richness of the experience,the task for museums is to create acontext for the learner, to structure andcoordinate a range of meaningful choices,through appropriate orientation,signposting and navigation in order toprovide the essential elements of museumlearning: access to knowledge, enjoyment,awe and wonder a cultural and social

context in which to appreciate the valueof the real and unique (Resource 2001).

Appreciation of the learning strategiesand needs of the wide variety ofmuseum learners means that therecannot be a single, simple approach.Johnson and Quins (2004) checklist ofrecommendations for exhibitionsrecognises this:

have many entry points, and no

specific path, start, or end employ a wide range of active

learning media

present a variety of perspectives

17

Personal Social/cultural Physical

self-motivating, emotionally knowledge is shared learning is situatedsatisfying, personally rewarding within communities

meaningful, choice and control, learning is distributed all learning is influencedappropriate level meaning-making by awareness of place

learning is not just cognitive narrative is powerful

new learning builds upon existingneeds context / framework

Table 2.3 Contexts applicable to museum learning (after Falk and Dierking 2000)


19/48

enable visitors to engage with objects(and ideas) through a range of activitiesand experiences

provide experiences and materials that

stimulate participants to experiment,conjecture and draw conclusions.

2.4 ICT AND MUSEUM LEARNING

The limitations of computer-assistedlearning lie in our ability to understand thelearning process, and not in the ability todevelop the technology appropriate to anylearning situation. (Tawney 1979)

The accelerating development andinfluence of ICT has generated within theeducation community three distinctperspectives on e-learning. One isconcerned almost exclusively withtechnical issues. The second sees ICTpredominantly as a means of deliveringconventional content, effectivelyunchanged, more quickly, more efficientlyand to a much wider audience. The thirdtakes a more radical stance and regardsadvances in ICT with its powerfulpotential for democracy and differentiation

as a catalyst for a fundamentalreappraisal of the whole enterprise ofeducation.

Many myths persist about the role of ICT inlearning (Hawkey 2001), and these can beas powerful in museums and galleries asthey are in schools. Real progress will belimited until learning is widely regarded asmuch more than the acquisition of a bodyof knowledge. Even in the informallearning sector the notion of a necessarily

prescribed curriculum remains strong,with learning seen as the transfer ofknowledge from expert to novice, withICT as a vehicle for state-of-the-art

information delivery. The final myth isthat assessment requires but a simplemeasure of the knowledge deficit Whynot, enquired a government minister of amuseums Head of Learning, test visitorsknowledge on entry and then test themagain when they leave?

The online museum offers a tantalising,seductive prospect for learning. Withina few years, suggests Anderson (1999),museum learning could becomeubiquitous, reaching every home,workplace and educational institution.Learners can choose where and when theylearn, both individually and socially. Newkinds of learning not necessarily better

or worse, but certainly different, becomepossible. Moreover, learners can bestimulated to enhance their virtualexperiences with a visit to the real thing,to engage directly with authentic objects.But, for all the talk of innovation andexcitement, caution is counselled. Afterall, much digital learning material isimpoverished imaginatively, aesthetically,symbolically and educationally (Anderson1999). And there are more fundamentalissues.

Knell (2003) highlights a number ofquestions concerning the relationshipbetween museums and digitaltechnologies. Firstly, he is anxious thatdevelopments such as those evident inDigiCULT (European Commission 2002) arebeing led primarily by technologists, ratherthan by museologists. (Nor, we might add,are they necessarily influenced byeducationalists.) Secondly, and morefundamentally, he questions whether adigital exhibit, however much it can bemanipulated, can ever offer anythingapproaching the real museum experience:The emotive experience of seeing the real

18

real progresswill be limited

until learning is

widely regardedas much more

than theacquisition of a

body ofknowledge

SECTION 2



20/48

requires the real and no surrogate will do.A virtual visitor may understand the thingbetter and be better prepared to interpretit when they see it but they may receivethose peculiar attributes of real things onlythrough real world engagement (Knell2003). That haptic technologies 3D virtualreality may one day give a sense oftangible reality he dismisses, at least forthe time being, as simply an illusion.More credence is attributed to wirelesstechnology and the handheld PDA, inpotentially turning museums into inclusivespaces. Some examples, including the TateModerns successful foray into thisdomain, are considered in some detaillater (section 3).

Learning is, of course, both process andproduct. Historically society has paid moreattention to the product and, especially, toits assessment. One of the anticipatedconsequences of e-learning is a shift inemphasis towards process (Resnik 1999;Hepple 2000). It is, therefore, important thatattention is paid to the learning process,rather than solely to the technical aspectsof computer-based exhibits: did it work?was it robust? For example, while theScience Museums guidance for developerspoints out that the major differencebetween general multimedia developmentand developing a computer exhibit lies inevaluation, it makes no specific referenceto learning (Science Museum 2003).

19

Figure 2.2: Quantum leaps in educational technology (Giorgini and Cardinali 2003)

Educational

Objectives

Change ofpersonalattitudes &social models

Growth ofabilities &knowledge

Transfer ofdata/facts/procedures

Educational Models

Techno

logyI

nnovati

on

60s: BehaviourismPavlov, Skinner, Thorndike

70s-80s: CognitivismNovak, Ausubel, Gowin

90s-00s: ConstructivismNorman, Jonassen

Quantum Leaps:

Fundamental & DisruptiveJump Shifts Forwardin levels of

- interactivity

- collaboration

- personalisation

brought to education bynew technologies & media

80s:PersonalComputing

90s:InternetTechnology

New Millenium:Learning ObjectsXML and DistributedWeb ServicesStandard DigitalContent & ServicesMobile BBCommunication &Ambient Intelligence(interrelation of content,context & communities)

Mainframe Computing


21/48

Geser (2003) is rather dismissive ofmuseums attempts to foster e-learning:

As part of their mission, heritageinstitutions usually have the goal ofsupporting educational activities throughproviding access to their resources.However, these resources are most oftenpresented only as collection objects,deemed to be useful for informal learningin some way or other (ie usually notfurther specified).

The need, he argues, is for high-quality,standardized learning objects and this willonly be achieved by a strong collaborationbetween the heritage and e-learning

sectors. This will enable institutions tounlock the richness and diversity ofEuropes cultural and scientific heritagefor e-learning (Geser 2003). While Geserfocuses largely upon the technical aspectsof learning objects, Giorgini and Cardinali(2003) consider the educationalimplications. Their summary ofdevelopments quantum leaps ineducational technology (Fig 2.2) isparticularly interesting.

However, Giorgini and Cardinalissuggestions for the components of virtuallearning environments (VLEs) seem toresonate much more closely with formaleducation systems than with the kindsof informal learning that occur inmuseums. Their emphasis is principally onorganisation and management: curriculummapping, tracking students, assessmentand recording against pre-fixed objectives.Such elements do not immediately appearto fit well either with the kinds of free-choice learning offered by museumsnor with the aspiration of differentiationby learner choice afforded by digitaltechnologies. However, rather than

accept a mis-match, the assertion isthat heritage institutions must adapt, byadopting narrow learning objectives andassessment mechanisms. One might askwhether this is really appropriate.

From a theoretical perspective, however,there are a number of ways in whichlearning with ICTs could and should maponto the educational agenda of museums.Sharples, for example (2000) has identifiedthe correspondence between features oflifelong learning and those of digitaltechnologies, as shown in Table 2.4.Hawkey (2001) has suggested ways inwhich learning with ICT is much closer toinformal learning than to formal (school)

learning, in that motivation is intrinsic andthat much of the decision-making (content,

location, timing, learning style) is in thecontrol of the learner. Hilda Heinsobservation about the advantages ofmuseums over schools could equally beapplied to learning with computers:

In contrast to classroom routines or filmor television programs, museums offer thelearner the opportunity to stop at will, toloiter and repeat, to ignore what doesnot stimulate, and to share what seemsinteresting. (Hein 1990)

20

Table 2.4 The match of digital technologyto lifelong learning (Sharples 2000)

Lifelong learning New technology

individualised personallearner-centred user-centredsituated mobilecollaborative networkedubiquitous ubiquitouslifelong durable

SECTION 2



22/48

At the same time, several authors havepointed out that e-learning opportunitiesare severely restricted in the formaleducation sector:

A dilemma at the heart of networkedlearning is that learners can command anincreasingly sophisticated set of

communication and computing devices,which they are forbidden to use withinformal education because they disruptlessons and lectures. Meanwhile,schools, colleges and universities arestarved of IT resources, and in many casesare failing to make best use of thoseresources they have. (Sharples 2003)

Others have warned that schools may beusing tomorrows technology to deliveryesterdays curriculum (Hepple 2001). It

is therefore not beyond the realms of theimagination to envisage a situationwhere schools become heritage sites(transmitting a fossilised curriculum),

while museums present innovativealternatives using digital technologies(Miller and Clay 1999).

Although museums are conventionallyrather conservative and have varied intheir willingness and ability to adoptnew approaches, there have already been

many rapid advances. Fig 2.3 indicatessomething of the diversity of ways in whichdigital technologies are already being usedfor learning in museums, galleries andscience centres.

2.5 SUMMARY

There is increasing recognition thatlearning should not be conceptualisedas the transmission of a fixed body of

knowledge to a passive recipient. Instead,learning is conceived as an active processin which learners, through conversation,

21

Figure 2.3: Taxonomy of museum learning opportunities with digital technologies

participationexhibit

on-site

website

online

operand interactiveautomaton

mobile fixed

interpretation

audio multimedia

handheldwearable

stand-alone

activities

downloadsoff-site

digitalimages

website

feedback

activities

creative

further study

exhibitrelated

activities

exhibits

informationwebcasts games

visit preparation/follow-up


23/48

communication and control, appropriateknowledge, understanding and changes ofperspective within their existing structures.This suggests a need to pay attention bothto what learners bring to the situation, andto the contexts within which they learn.

At the same time, research into informal(or free choice) learning has identified theimportance of learning that has nothitherto been recognised within formaleducation, encouraging emphasis onmultiple intelligences and on skills andattitudes rather than simply cognition. Therenewed attention on learning as lifelongand as occurring outside as well as withinthe walls of the school, offers an

opportunity for museums to revise anddevelop new approaches to learning thatare not wholly focused on a formal set ofchanging curriculum objectives.

The recent emergence of learning objectsas a focus for the development of digitaleducational resources by museums raisessome concerns, given its focus onachieving the goals of formal education.Equally, the inconsistent quality of digitallearning resources to date, and their

reliance on delivery and deficit models alsoraises concerns. Research in both themuseums sector and in educationaltechnology, however, would suggest thatthere is a synergy between the goals of afree-choice active learning environmentand the characteristics of digitaltechnologies that should see museumswell placed to take advantage of thesenew technologies in achieving theireducational objectives.

3 ON-SITE LEARNING

The future of education in museums: willit be real? asked a recent international

conference. Does the way ahead lie withmuseums unique position in holding anddisplaying real objects or in reachingnewer and larger audiences through theprovision of electronic access? Not so longago many museum staff feared that digitaltechnologies would replace objects, asinteractive exhibits provided possibilitiesfor display and for learning notpreviously available. This section, focusingon digital resources within the walls of themuseum, will discuss how, rather thanreplacing objects, digital resources have

come to be used to facilitate more thaninteraction, enabling participation,collaboration and, most excitingly, theprovision of personal and individual mobilelearning experiences.

3.1 OBJECTS AND INTERACTIVES:USP OR ISP?

If objects, and the knowledge associatedwith them, are the unique selling points of

museums, then why are many museumsso committed to digital technologies thatthey barely stop short of becoming internetservice providers? (Several do, indeed,operate an effective on-site intranet.) Whyhas there been an apparently relentlesssearch for the supposed Holy Grail ofinteractivity? Can it really be the case that,both interactive and virtual havebecome so embedded that there is littledebate over their value or utility(Hemmings et al 2001)?

There are three fundamental questionsto consider. Is there a conflict betweenobjects and interactives? What does

22

rather thanreplacing

objects, digitalresources have

come to be usedo facilitate morehan interaction

SECTION 3

ON-SITE LEARNING


24/48

interactive mean in the museum context?Are the learning issues that arise frommechanical, hands-on exhibits inmuseums and in science centres the sameas those emanating from interactivesincorporating digital technologies?

For some, interactivity and objects appearmutually exclusive. Boon (2000) is adamantthat the two realms are distinct and shouldremain so:

placing a computer screen in the midstof an artefactual display can be highlydistorting of visitor experience, as doingthe interactives can tend to overwhelm theslower, more complex, less controllable,

forms of interaction which occur withvisitors informed, or simply curious, mentalinteraction with artefacts and display.

Such a perspective seems rathersimplistic, even primitive, in its inherentassumptions about visitors and theirlearning strategies. In their seminal work,Miles et al (1982) classified exhibits asstatic or dynamic, the latter subdivided intothree categories: automaton; operand;[truly] interactive. Truly interactive exhibits,

they argue, require some kind of decision-making by the visitor, compared withthose, however technologicallysophisticated, that require little or novisitor input beyond start/stop. This crucialrequirement of user engagement echoeswith Gregorys (1989) demand that sciencecentre exhibits be minds-on as well ashands-on. Such a requirement would limitHalls (2004) criticism of the kind ofinteractive exhibit where the visitor doeslittle more than watch video clips or readtext. Not that choice and decision-makingare by themselves any guarantee of alearning opportunity, for, as Knell (2003)asserts, there may be, no logical point to

the interaction and no relationshipbetween action and outcome.

As Heath and vom Lehn (2002) point out,the term interactive is misleading,managing to encompass,

an extraordinary range of tools,technologies and techniques, objects andartefacts that are designed to createinteractivity in museums and galleries.It includes sophisticated informationsystems that prescribe complex formsof interaction between the user and theexhibit through to low-tech artefactsdesigned to enhance visitorsunderstanding of particular objects.

Different interactives engender verydifferent forms of interaction and providehighly variable opportunities for co-participation and collaboration. As yetwe know little of the conduct andcollaboration that different interactivesafford, still less of the ways in which theymight contribute to learning.

So, how are we to identify interactiveexhibits? Caulton (1998) gives a definitionof interactive that provides a useful

starting point:

A hands-on or interactive museumexhibit has clear educational objectiveswhich encourage individuals or groupsof people working together to understandreal objects or phenomena throughphysical exploration which involveschoice and initiative.

This, with appropriate modification toremove the requirement for real andphysical, will serve well as a definition inthe digital realm. Although primarilyconcerned with mechanical devices, thereare features of their analysis that, when

23


25/48

applied to digital technologies, can remindus of key issues. (It certainly eliminates themere act of pushing buttons or of clickinga mouse, that some museums havemistaken for interactivity.) Although, asidentified earlier, there may be worthwhilelearning outcomes other thanunderstanding, the emphases on cleareducational objectives, on choice andinitiative and on the social dimensionsare especially welcome.

The critical role of the social dimensions ofinteractivity is highlighted by Heath andvom Lehn (2002). For them, it is thelearners who are interactive rather thanthe exhibit. Their Wellcome Trust-funded

study of interactives in science museumshighlights many of the false assumptionsinherent in many interactive galleries.Museum visitors, they observe, rarelybehave in ways that exhibition designersanticipate; they follow neither thesequence nor the pace intended.

This leads us to consider the nature andcontext of interactive exhibits. Bradburne(2001) distinguishes forcefully between anexhibition and an informal learning

environment. The former, he contends, isdesigned to broadcast facts, the latter tosupport action (or, better, interaction).If learning is associated with sustainedengagement then exhibits would structureand sustain interaction between users,rather than attempt to demonstrateprinciples. Such an approach conflictswith that of Gilbert and Stocklmayer(2001). While recognising the need forentertainment and for opportunitiesfor learners to build upon pre-existingunderstanding, their focus is primarilyupon the exhibit as a (more or less)effective way of conveying scientificprinciples.

Taking an apparently similar perspective,in that the sessions that they describe aredesigned to lead to the acquisition of asingle right answer and its acceptedexplanation, Hemmings et al (2001) reportan ethnographic study of the MagiciansRoad gallery at the National RailwayMuseum. The exhibition itself, a mlangeof apparatus, representation, texts andphysical artefacts is taken to be ananalogue of a digital, hypertext websiteand leads them to conclude that, in termsof providing pathways throughinformation, the problems posed bydeveloping an interactive museum galleryare similar to those encountered in thevirtual realm. This may well be the case.

However, the nature and focus of theinteractives they chose may provide littleinsight into more open-ended or enquiry-based learning whether in or beyond themuseum setting.

This is where the real conflict lies,between fundamentally differentphilosophies of the relationship betweenmuseum and visitor. How are learnerstreated? Are they seen merely as passiverecipients of the expert knowledge and

opinions of the curator? Is there emphasison transmitting knowledge or on fosteringinquiry skills? On providing answers oron promoting questions? Is there activeengagement with objects or othermaterials? Is there real learner choice?

3.2 PARTICIPATION

Resources that enable visitor participationhave the potential to offer a more complex

version of interactivity. In museums thiscan vary from what is essentially a simpleyes/no vote eg Antenna in the WellcomeWing of the Science Museum to creating

24

the problemsposed by

developing an

interactivemuseum gallery

are similarto those

encountered inhe virtual realm

SECTION 3

ON-SITE LEARNING


26/48

a digital record of oneself for subsequentretrieval. The museums In touch siteallows the visitor to make his or her ownweb page and to access this after the visit.(Such is the popularity of this interactiveactivity that by 1 April 2004, over 200, 000personal web sites had been created.)This is also a feature of At-Bristols GetConnected (www.at-bristol.org.uk/explore/connected.htm), where visitors cancompare their ideas on a variety of topicsfrom cloning endangered species to usingrobot cleaners.

In many museums of science andtechnology and, certainly, in sciencecentres the axis of learning has shifted

from the deficit model to one of dialogue.Learner participation is central to thischange of emphasis. An example,which also highlights pan-Europeancollaboration, is Bionet (www.bionetonline.com), in which both At-Bristol and theScience Museum are partners. Accessibleonline in nine languages through thewebsites of eight museums and sciencecentres, Bionet facilitates exploration anddebate about current developments inbiotechnology. Fundamental to the

approach is the incorporation of ethicaland legal aspects in addition to thescience, but it is the capacity for users toexpress opinions and to argue with eachother as well as with experts that makesthe project distinctive.

The Victoria and Albert Museum hasexperimented with a number of projects inwhich family learners were encouraged toengage with exhibits by creating their owndigital images. Key to the success of theCanon event was visitors appreciationthat, through learning new skills, theycould themselves create their ownmasterpieces to stand at least, virtually

alongside those in the exhibition. Photo-montage and collage techniques wereapplied to the digital images from aroundthe museum, displaying themes and inter-relationships chosen by the visitors aslearners rather than by the curators asexperts. Wish.you.were.here was a similarproject in which visitors learned to use adigital camera and graphical editingsoftware. The work appeared as digitalpostcards, e-mailed to friends and familyor subsequently accessed on themuseums website.

Durbin (2004) suggests going much furtherthan mere participation. You dont have tosweat it out over all your content if you

are prepared to allow visitors to generateit for you, she asserts. She cautionsagainst the tendency for museum curatorsto communicate in one direction only, butaffirms that the V&A is keen to ensure thesite works in both directions and that itdraws on the expertise and enthusiasm ofvisitors as well. In this way, visitors to thewebsite will feel they can contribute tothe work of the museum while developingtheir own creativity.

3.3 COLLABORATION

One of the powerful features of digitaltechnology is the relative ease with whichcollaboration becomes possible. Learnersbenefit from seamless access to resourcesand ideas from other areas, bothgeographical and conceptual and toother learners.

The collaborative aspects of learning are

generally high on the agenda in themuseum context. Galani and Chalmers(2002) report an innovative study involvinga three-way collaboration between real

25

in manymuseums of

science andtechnology, theaxis of learninghas shifted fromthe deficit modelto one ofdialogue


27/48

learners (actually present in an exhibition),virtual learners (online) and a third groupin a 3D virtual reality environment. Theirwork explores the social context oflearning in a way that bridges or blurs theboundaries between visitors who are localand remote, and between digital andphysical. The intention is that learners willbe able to create associations within amuseum collection and betweencollections, and that those associationswill form a resource not only forsubsequent visits, but also for the visitsof others.

The STEM project (www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/education/stem) encourages

visitors to the physical museum or to itswebsite to share their ideas on theeducational use of the National Museumsof Science and Industry, which arepublished on the web (Bazley 1998). Forstudents it is a way of promoting deeperreflection on the visit than might otherwisetake place, and many of the sites createdare superb educational resources in theirown right. Teachers can produce valuableguides and resources for other teachersusing the museums, including one for the

Magicians Road gallery, referred to above.Further collaborations with US teachersand the Franklin Institute in Philadelphiaindicate the potential for crossingboundaries in work of this type. Elinich(2004) describes the Franklin Institutesproject Keystone Online, in whichresearch-based activity kits andprofessional development opportunitiescombine with a dedicated website tofacilitate inquiry-based science teaching.

3.4 PERSONALISATIONAND MOBILITY

Learning in museums and galleries has

been supported by electronic technologiesfor over forty years, since the first audioguides were developed firstly reel-to-reeltape, then cassette and, now, digitalsystems (Proctor and Tellis 2003).The introduction of digital technologiesrepresents not simply a furtherenhancement in sound quality, nor merelythe additional possibilities of multimedia.The key factor is the offer of a totally newlearning experience, based uponapparently unlimited choice and freedom.Flexibility is crucial, enabling learners toselect their own pathways and pacing.

Underlying museums use of suchapproaches are both practical andphilosophical perspectives. Sharples (2000)has developed a theory of lifelonglearning mediated by handheld andwearable technology, consideringhardware, software, communications andinterface design. Devices must be:

highly portable, so that they can

be available wherever the user needsto learn

individual, adapting to the learnersabilities, knowledge and learning stylesand designed to support personallearning, rather than general office work

unobtrusive, so that the learner cancapture situations and retrieveknowledge without the technologyobtruding on the situation

available anywhere, to enable

communication with teachers,experts and peers

adaptable to the learners evolvingskills and knowledge

26

SECTION 3

ON-SITE LEARNING


28/48

persistent, to manage learningthroughout a lifetime, so that thelearners personal accumulation ofresources and knowledge will beimmediately accessible despitechanges in technology

useful, suited to everyday needsfor communication, reference, workand learning

intuitive to use by people with noprevious experience of the technology.

Two approaches in current use arehandhelds and wearables. Both offer thepotential of an individualised approach tolearning, differentiated at least to some

extent by learner choice. Indeed thedifferences between the two systems arelargely ergonomic rather than conceptual,relating principally to portability and visualdisplay. Either can carry data in on-boardmemory or by accessing a virtual network;both can be triggered by the learner and/orby sensor systems in the museumsexhibits. As Hepple (2000) reminds us,within months (rather than years) themajority of those who enter the physicalspace of a museum will be carrying theirown digital communications device.Wireless networks are already in place inmany public spaces. Educators have begun perhaps a little tentatively to embracethe technology, rather than to deny itsexistence or to prohibit its use.

Sparacino (2002) describes a study with awearable/heads-up display at the MITMuseum, in the exhibition Robots andBeyond. The system is intended tounderstand the use and to produce anoutput based on the interpretation of the

users intention in context. This, however,is inevitably based on behaviour timespent in particular places, objects viewed

(an advantage of the heads-up system),information requested etc rather thanon the analysis of any learning per se.

The Electronic Guidebook project at theExploratorium in San Francisco makeseffective use of handhelds (Semper andSpasojevic 2002). As with Sparacinoswork, many of the lessons learned relateto visitor behaviour and to practicalmatters. Seen as a highly positive feature,the ability to bookmark material forsubsequent retrieval was identified asinstrumental in facilitating playing with theexhibits, central to the Exploratoriumsphilosophy, where the right answer is aquestion (Klages 1995). In contrast, there

was a tendency for reduced interaction,both with the exhibits themselves and withother visitors. This negative aspectappeared to have both mechanical andcognitive dimensions: the need to hold thedevice reduced hands-on activity while thereading demands inhibited conversation.

Hsi (2003) follows up this work with afurther study. She concentrates rathermore on learning issues, on what sheterms nomadic inquiry. Learners can

manipulate information and conductinvestigations while moving between thephysical exhibit, the virtual realm of thehandheld and other experiences. However,while positive about the potential of thesystem, she again highlights the two majorconcerns previously identified: the dangerof replacing hands-on interaction mediated by conversations with others andcognitively challenging with a heads-down one-way transmission of information.Avoiding this requires careful instructionaldesign; learners can then benefit fromtheir mobility within the physical contextof objects and exhibits without feelingsocially or physically isolated.

27

within monthsthe majority ofthose who enterthe physicalspace of amuseum will becarrying their

own digitalcommunicationsdevice


29/48

Combatting social and physical isolation issomething towards which museums strive,particularly in relation to visitors withdisabilities. The MUSEpad project isdesigning, developing, and evaluating amobile computing tool that will enablevisitors with disabilities to customise andoptimise their learning and leisureexperiences in museums through theemerging technology of WorldBoard (Kirk2001). As with other schemes referred tohere, WorldBoard utilises wirelessconnectivity and positioning technologiesto extend the capabilities of the web byvirtually attaching information and tools tospecified locations. As is often the case inthe development of learning materials for

learners with special educational needs,ones response here is to ask, Why only forvisitors with disabilities? Should notemerging technologies be used to enableall visitors to optimise their learning?

Although special attention is paid tolearners with disabilities (eg a tour inBritish Sign Language) The Tate ModernsMultimedia Tour programme also includestwo other different types of handheldtours: a Multimedia Highlights Tour and a

Collections Tour. All of these relate toother gallery activities and fulfil manyeducational aims. Quantitative andqualitative evaluation has generatedvaluable knowledge about visitorsthoughts on handheld tours in museums.

Proctor and Burton (2003) report on thepilot of Tate Moderns handheld scheme.As with the Exploratorium, the Tate uses alocation-sensitive wireless network. Thewireless network provided informationfrom a central server (rather than beingstored in the memory of the handhelddevice) which meant that practicallylimitless content could be provided and

could easily be kept up-to-date. Locationsensitivity meant that visitors no longerneeded to spend time searching themultimedia tour to find the relevantinformation for a room, because thenetwork pinpointed their exact location inthe gallery and fed the correct informationto them at the right time. The latteradvantage proved, however, to also be adisadvantage, in that it was found to takeattention away from other objects in thegallery which are not on the tour.

Both video and still images, as well as text,about the works on display were providedfor visitors in a variety of different mediaon a portable screen-based device

a handheld PC. The system offeredadditional context for the works ondisplay, with experts talking about detailsof a work, while the details weresimultaneously highlighted on the screen.Interactive screens encouraged visitors torespond to the art on view, for instance byanswering questions or by layering acollection of sound clips to create theirown soundtrack for a work. Some visitorswanted more text; others less. Many foundthe dynamic presentation valuable; others

a distraction. In many ways the materialpresented in audio format proved to be thebest complement to the physical exhibit,acting like a friend. Contrary to someexpectations, visitors coped well withthe multiple media object, screen,soundtrack even when the presentationwas not perfectly synchronous. They didnot seem to find multi-tasking and multi-tracking of different media (eg switchingattention between screen and artwork)to be a problem, as long as the messagewas well designed and the device wasfunctioning properly. The multimedia tourclearly had the effect of making the visitorlook longer at an object than he or she

28

SECTION 3

ON-SITE LEARNING


30/48

would have otherwise, even though thescreen was also commanding attention.Table 3.1 summarises the positive andnegative features identified by the firsttrial, while further user feedback includesopinions on interactive content such astexting and games, artists contributions,links between audio and visual, use of filmclips, and provision of text-basedinformation (Wilson 2004).

The project received a BAFTA award for2002, but has continued to move on. Fourkey areas were identified for furtherdevelopment and several of these seemlikely to have a real impact on the learningpotential of the technology:

direct communication (real time?)with staff

peer-to-peer communication (alreadyimplemented: see Wilson 2004)

access to online databases while

on-site in the gallery faster processing and more

sophisticated location sensitivity.

3.5 SUMMARY

These examples illustrate some of thereasons why any debate asking objects or

interactives? is already significantly out ofdate. Learning in museums is concernedwith objects but also essentially withpeople. One of the paradoxes of theapplication of digital technologies is thatthey can simultaneously provide apersonal, individualised experience andyet at the same time offer unprecedentedopportunities for the kinds of wider socialinteraction that can enrich learning. In the21st century museum, too, questions ofreal or virtual also have far less meaningeven than four or five years ago, as

sensitive and appropriate use oftechnology is seen to enrich theexperience of learning from objects andexhibits, rather than competing with them.

29

learning inmuseums isconcerned with

objects but alsoessentially withpeople

Table 3.1 Positive and negative aspectsof the Tate Moderns multimedia tour pilot(after Proctor and Burton 2003)

Positive Negative

strong link between longaudio and visual messages

interactivity, requesting blank screen

a responseaudio (including textnavigation)

video absence ofhelp menu

intuitive interface


31/48

4 ONLINE LEARNING

Want to find out what the world waslike a century ago? Visit a museum.

Want to find out what computer-basedlearning was like a decade ago? Visita museum website!

Was this speaker at a recent Museums andthe Web conference being cruelly satiricalor provocatively inaccurate? Possibly both,for a look at museum websites revealsalmost every possibility from the tediouslydull and trivial to the imaginative andinnovative. This section of the review willdescribe some of the major web resourcescurrently available, and begin to explore

how web resources can reflect underlyingtheories of learning.

4.1 EVALUATING ONLINE LEARNING

There is little understanding of whatmakes a successful museum website interms of learning potential (MDA 2001).There are few formally developedmeasures for evaluating educationalwebsites in general, let alone museum

sites:

While it is clear that museum resourcescan have a distinctive contribution to makein terms of the learning that they cangenerate, it is not clear whether thisdistinctiveness is appreciable in classroomuse of websites or whether there aredifferent expectations and different criteriainvolved in judging educational webresources generated by museums.(MDA 2001)

In an attempt to provide evaluation criteria,Schaller et al (2002) conducted a study oflearners preferences for different types of

web-based educational activities. From avariety of museums websites theyidentified six distinct types of activity:

creative play guided tour interactive reference puzzle/mystery role-play/stories simulation.

They found significant differences in thepreferences of adults and children, whichthey attribute to differences in motivation.Adults, they contend, know what theywant to learn and they want to learn it inthe most direct way. Children, by contrast,

respond positively to the opportunity forinteraction and choice within a goal-basedenv

Museums Galleries Review

Documents

Transcript of Museums Galleries Review