This article explores the utility of a particular view of learning in a particular kind of museum environment. The perspective is from applied cognitive developmental psychology - the application of knowledge about how thinking changes with development. Much of my 'applied' experience has been in the context of science teaching and learning of all ages in both formal and informal settings. The informal contexts have been researched during several years of collaborative evaluation studies with National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside as well as a close involvement with the Interactive Technology Centre movement nationally and internationally. Lest the 'arts' reader is in danger of losing interest at this point, I stress that the view of 'science' which informs this article is very broad; it is a view of science as being about understanding objects and phenomena in the world that we all inhabit. In a sense, such learning is not optional: it has adaptive value and is inescapable, for it is only through knowing enough about how the physical world works that each individual can survive. Experience of working with museum-based colleagues confirms that this broad view of learning is consonant with a great deal of museum activity in the cultural and historical domains.
This article also restricts its attention to a particular kind of museum setting: that concerned primarily with engaging the visiting public in actively exploring ideas (rather than passively receiving them). Various forms in the evolution of science museums have been discussed by Friedmann (2) and McManus (3). They describe 'ancestral' forms of museum that were symptomatic of an 'encyclopaedic' view of the world. In such settings, an exposition of 'how the world is' may be displayed to the visiting public according to a particular taxonomy. Such expositions reflect not only a particular ontology (a view of the nature of the physical world which we inhabit) but also a particular epistemology (a view of how knowledge is acquired). The way a museum is organised carries implicit assumptions about the manner in which visitors learn. It is not suggested that these ancestral museum forms currently prevail: simply that it is useful to consider the extent to which any learning environment is driven by a curator's (or teacher's) view of the structure of the subject, as contrasted with the needs of the learner.
The ancestral style of museum reflects a positivist view of the world as entirely ordered and rule-governed: experimentation and discovery reveal physical laws; the knowledge of the rules enables all possible outcomes to be extrapolated. In contrast, the constructivist view emphasises the active and imaginative dimensions of learning and discovery. Understanding the world is seen as an active reconstruction, whether it be by the most eminent thinkers of the age, or the most humble of learners in school or museum. Human intellectual engagement in learning involves people in the construction of mental representations of the world. What we know is relative and provisional. The contrast of these two views is between 'top-down' and 'bottom-up'.
Constructivism has a respectable philosophical lineage which can be traced in the development of European thinking; important (and more recent) contributions include George Kelly's (4) personal construct theory. Though his primary focus was psychotherapy, Kelly made a bold contribution by describing human thinking as intrinsically motivated to make sense of the world: Homo Sapiens as 'Man the Scientist' (in the less gender-sensitive language of his time). The issue of motivation which had dogged behaviourist learning theorists for years was thus, elegantly and convincingly, set aside by Kelly.
An enormous contribution to our understanding of the acquisition of knowledge was made by Jean Piaget. Piaget and his followers conducted research into the development of thinking; his Genevan institute has been publishing for several decades of the twentieth century. The developmental changes in the internal representations of the world constructed by children has been explored and described in many different content areas, but in particular, the logic of scientific and mathematical thinking. Piaget has described how the earliest internal representations ('schemata' is the term he uses) are sensor-motor in nature, 'knowing in action'. In the period of development known as 'concrete operational', thinking is dependent on the support of real objects. The capacity for more generalised, abstract thinking emerges, according to Piaget, during late adolescence.
Though Piaget's work remains highly influential in many respects, the stage model - the idea that the stages are developmentally invariant in sequence no matter what the experience or content area under consideration - has been found to be unnecessarily restrictive. Piaget's 'clinical method' research procedures - the technique of eliciting understanding in a non-directive manner which avoids 'leading' the respondent - remain exemplary in many respects, as does the lesson that communication and learning must be within the cognitive limits and modes of functioning of the learner. Hence the recognition in British education over recent decades of activity-based learning, as contrasted with rote methods and too early abstraction.
Museum evaluation experience confirms the manner in which children seem to prefer those interactive exhibits which offer opportunities for whole body involvement, and/or which focus on people and their attributes. The very expression 'hands-on', which is in current vogue, especially in the context of interactive centres, is tangible recognition of the power and importance of 'concrete operational' learning. That is, learning in which understanding is physically and perceptually supported by material experiences.
More recently it has been realised in both formal and informal educational circles that providing opportunities for action is not enough. Richard Gregory (5) has emphasised the role of 'hands-on' in 'turning minds on'. In other words, 'hands-on' is not an end in itself, but a means to an end: activity and perception require the individual to apply interpretative frameworks in order to make sense of the experiences which museums provide. In formal educational circles, the potentially limiting orthodoxy of 'learning by doing' assumptions have also been challenged; there is an increasing realisation that this is not the only way of learning available to young children. It is emphasised that the efficacy of such methods is not in doubt, only their sufficiency. The so-called 'three wise men' courted inevitable controversy in their articulation of a public statement challenging this orthodox. Given that education policy has become a political issue in recent years, it was not surprising (though nonetheless regrettable) to find that a reasoned position was distorted into a crusade against any form of pupil-centred approach. The classic distortion of syllogistic reasoning seems to run:
Subsequently, educators (especially those guilty of 'sixties thinking) have been regarded as politically suspect. The safe way forward is to teach facts; to teach children how to think might be to subvert authority. Perhaps inevitably, political and educational ideologies become intertwined both at national and institutional levels. All the more reason to unpick the arguments rationally and analytically, so that a sound theory underlying practice may be determined.
Constructivism encompasses more than Piaget's epistemology; his interest was to research the development of understanding as it emerged through the individual's interactions with the physical environment. While Piaget offers insights into these processes invaluable to educators in formal and informal settings alike, the limits of this school of enquiry must be acknowledged. In particular, it has paid relatively scant attention to the social transmission of knowledge. The logical operations investigated by Piaget would necessarily be constructed by all children; understanding of the conservation of mass (that the amount of material stays the same, whatever the physical transformation of its shape) would be acquired whether through making mud pies in Calcutta or shaping piles of caviar in St Petersburg - independently of cultural context, it might be argued. Equally, a moment's reflection will confirm that much of what we come to know and understand is acquired not through generic direct experiences but as the result of the social transmission of knowledge and information. Information of this kind may be culturally and historically very precisely located. In other words, where you are and when, and with whom you come into contact, will have an important bearing on what you come to know and understand.
Vygotski (7) added a social dimension to the description of the acquisition of knowledge in recognition of the fact that much learning is culturally mediated. Vocabulary, for example, is culturally originated and transmitted; language is what humans characteristically use to represent inside our heads the things that happen outside our heads: it is an important representational system for the internalisation of external phenomena. A shared language (or indeed, any representational system such as mathematical or musical notation) offers the opportunity to extend the accumulation of knowledge beyond the direct experience that was Piaget's focus. We share language during child rearing; we are exposed to secondary sources of information via books, newspapers, television cinema and various electronic media, and not least, museums.
Museum education is a subtle affair. The ideas expressed above carry many implications for action. It seems reasonable to describe some of the principles which might guide museum education activity, albeit within the limited space available. Not to do so would be fainthearted, despite the inherent risk of principles turning out looking like a recipe in the process of contraction. In order to keep the suggestions open (rather than appearing like quotes from the Little Red Book of Learning in Museums), I attach questions to the points made. If they work, these questions may provoke reflection, debate, observation of visitors' behaviour or even some research in your own institution.
The scattering of implications and questions described above is not exhaustive. If they provoke some reflection and debate, they will have served their purpose. A further point not touched upon above is the importance of context to museum visits. Some sites are dissociated from everyday life and experience. The context is very important to the way in which people make sense of the world and the 'drop-in' visit does not help visitors to contextualise and accommodate the new experiences to pre-existing ideas. Adequate preparation and follow-up and a purposeful structure to the visit is essential if the museum is to provide a learning experience rather than a day out. A current project based in Liverpool is exploring the production of support materials, for pre and post-visit use in schools and for helping to structure the visit itself.
Dr Terry Russell is director of the Centre for Research in Primary Science and Technology at the University of Liverpool. He is a psychologist by training and has published extensively in the areas of research into childrens' conceptual development, curriculum development, evaluation and assessment. His interests include learning in both formal and non-formal settings.
This article was published in JEM 15, the Journal of Education in Museums No.15 1994
© Group for Education in Museums (GEM)