The “Museum Planer” blog is dedicated Board Members and stakeholders working in the field of start up science centers, children’s museums and visitor centers. Blog Topics include; business planning of new museums and centers, planning and development of interactive exhibitions and the project management of exhibitions.
In preparation for my trip to China, I was looking for information about the new Hong Kong Wetlands Park and came across this very interesting critique:
In the interest of full disclosure, I worked on the project for Academy Studios, who fabricated the artificial trees, plants and rock work. I am excited to give my critique after my visit
-Mark Walhimer
Over the next two weeks I will be in China for the “The Asia Tourism and Attraction Summit” at the Mandarin Oriental, Macau; the second conference “The IAAPA Asian Attractions Expo” is at the Venetian, Macau.
IAAPA Asia Attractions Expo
“Asian Attractions Expo is the one-stop event in Asia for the leisure and attractions industry. Visitors to the show have the opportunity to:
Asian Attractions Expo 2008 will be held in Macau S.A.R. on 16-18 July 2008. Macau is an exciting and beautiful island at the mouth of China’s Pearl River that boasts world-class entertainment, attractions, shopping and dining.”
Asia Tourism and Attraction Summit
“ Recent years have seen vast amounts of development in locally developed locations, world class attractions and international events that will bring more travellers to the East. In addition to this, Asian attraction growth is five times faster than that of Europe or America according to ERA with more theme parks that exceed half a million visitors per year than the USA. To anybody involved in location based entertainment, right now, there is no other place to focus your energy than Asia!
Over the last 4 years, the China Tourism and Attractions Summit (CTAS) held in Shanghai has brought developers, designers, attraction owners and operators as well as government officials together to discuss and share experiences of the vast opportunities that exist In Greater China. This year, the event moves to Macau to incorporate more and best practices and opportunities to make Asia a truly world class leisure destination.”
Great research on interactivity in Museums:
“Museums increasingly deploy new technologies to enhance visitors’ experience of their exhibitions. They primarily rely on touch-screen computer systems, PDAs and digital audio-guides. Tate Britain recently employed two innovative systems in one of their major exhibitions of John Constable’s work; a gestural interface and a touch-screen panel, both connected to large projection screens. This paper reports on the analysis of video-recordings and field observations of visitors’ action and interaction. It explores how people interact with and around the systems, how they configure the space around the installation and how they examine and discover their properties. It suggests that designers of interfaces and installations developed for museum exhibitions face particular challenges, such as the transparency of the relationship between people’s actions and the system’ response, the provision of opportunities for individual and collaborative experiences and the interweaving of technological and aesthetic experiences.”
We have brought our blog to wordpress, changed our theme and updating the posts. Check it out!
www.museumplanner.com
More than 20,000 people at Maker Faire, hope you made it. See post below from CNET
May 4, 2008 12:24 PM PDT
Maker Faire more popular than ever
Posted by Daniel Terdiman | 4 comments
There were huge crowds at Maker Faire 2008. While no attendance figures were known yet, there were rumors that the event’s ticket pre-sales had doubled over Maker Faire 2007’s. Regardless, it was clear that the event was attracting many more people than during the last two Maker Faires, in 2006 and 2007.
SAN MATEO, Calif.–If the hour-long traffic jam leading into Maker Faire wasn’t proof that the do-it-yourself festival being held here all weekend is bigger than ever, then maybe the huge crowds gathered around attraction after attraction was.
This is the third year that Maker Faire has packed the San Mateo Fairgrounds with the best and brightest of the burgeoning DIY community–mobile barcalougers, dueling Tesla coils, huge Burning Man art pieces, felt masterpieces, and on and on–and there can be little doubt the success of the previous two years’ iterations led to a bigger crowd this time around.
Click for gallery
In 2006, the first Maker Faire was a bit of an oddity, yet still attracted 20,000 people for the weekend. Last year, that number doubled and while I didn’t hear any attendance figures for this year, I did overhear someone saying that ticket pre-sales had doubled over last year’s total. All this is just the math behind the wall-to-wall people moving around the fairgrounds–most of them sporting ear-to-ear grins.
At Maker Faire 2008, there was a very large contingent of steampunk vehicles, structures and clothing. Here, a steampunk vehicle resembling a tractor powers its way across the pavement of the San Mateo Fairgrounds in San Mateo, Calif., where the do-it-yourself festival is being held all weekend.
For me, and many others who have been to the previous Maker Faires, this weekend’s version was more like a reunion than a showcase of new projects. To be sure, there was an endless supply of new makers on hand. How could there not be with hall after hall of creative people showing off the talents, skills, and wicked good humor that is the hallmark of events like this.
But, there was also a lot on display that had been at previous Maker Faires–and other events, too, like Burning Man, Yuri’s Night, Coachella, and so forth. These days, a lot of big interactive art pieces are making the rounds of such festivals and events and some of the artists behind them, people like Michael Christian, Dan Das Mann and Karen Cusolito, Mark Perez, and others, are becoming known beyond the relatively insular communities they began in.
But, let’s be honest: None of that matters when what you see when wandering around Maker Faire is excited kids, happy parents and young, attractive men and women dressed to the nines in period costumery.
One of the first things that one would see when entering Maker Fair was Kevin Mathieu’s LegoJEEP. The car was meant for covering with Lego bricks, and it was a huge hit with kids. However, Maker Faire security was not too happy to see children climbing on top of the vehicle, but in the spirit of the event, after security voiced its concerns, Mathieu restricted kids to standing on the ground or on the bumper. The car and the resolution to security’s issues with it, were emblematic of the do-it-yourself ethos and the desire of its participants to solve problems themselves.
And that is really the message that Maker Faire sends: That there are delights for everyone, whether you’re a robotics fanatic, a Lego fan, a crafting devotee, a fire artist, a 9-year-old, or all of the above.
Those of us who live in the Bay Area might be tempted to think that this is the only place on Earth where you could find such an eclectic combination of people. Yet, as the very successful Maker Faire Austin last fall demonstrated, there are such folks in many places. What’s really needed to bring them out of the woodwork is an event that champions their creativity, glee, and interest that people of all kinds get from hours and hours of playing around with the kinds of things that Maker Faire offers.
So, indeed, what does Maker Faire 2008 have to offer?
I could go on and on and on and on. But in the interest of your time and mine, I’ll only go on and on.
Colin Fahrion poses for a picture wearing a whimsical steampunk-esque bunny mask and ears. The outfit was emblematic of a popular aesthetic at Maker Faire this year.
One wonderful project was the Buscycle, a fully pedal-powered bus of sorts. You’d see it rolling by all over the fairgrounds, a happy collection of children and adults thrashing their feet, driving it forward. I had seen it sitting idly on Thursday when I visited the fairgrounds for Maker Day–a day for the makers to meet each other and get a bit of a taste for the event before they had to entertain the multitudes–and I’d wondered if it would be special. Question answered: Yes.
Another terrific–and very popular–attraction was the remote-control scale battleship naval wars that were being put on by members of the Western Warship Combat Club. In front of hundreds of people lined up four-deep or standing up on bleachers, these folks ran their little warships around a makeshift pool, firing BBs from ship to ship, trying to sink them. Little ships would get damaged, and then, showing no mercy, those running much bigger vessels would ram their craft into the smaller ones, all to the gasps and “Oohhhs” of the crowd.
There were hourly demonstrations of dueling Tesla coils that, with dimmed lights for full dramatic effect, would build up to a crescendo of commingled lightning bolts crackling away in front of an audience lucky enough to have wandered by at the right time.
In one outdoor area, the Neverwas Haul was attracting a long line of people wanting to climb inside a fully steam-powered, mobile, Victorian house. If that’s a concept that boggles the mind, don’t let it: A mobile Victorian house is exactly the kind of disconnect that Maker Faire is all about.
That’s why, for example, Mark Perez’s gigantic, Life-Size Mousetrap was a massive hit this weekend, with hundreds of people lining up to watch and see if a bowling ball could make it all the way around a long path of levels, pulleys, ramps, baskets, ladders, and the like. I never actually managed to see it running because the crowds were too deep. But when I’ve seen it in place previously, at Maker Faires here and in Austin, and at Burning Man, it’s been a thrill to watch it in action.
A fire art project called 2piR tasked people standing on a platform in the middle of a circle of propane-fueled jets to move around and set the jets off with large plumes of fire. The more they moved, the faster the jets would shoot.
What else? Well, no story could do the event full justice. But the sublime 2piR was well worth highlighting. This is a fire art piece in which a large circle of propane tanks connected to jets shoots out plumes of fire in time with the movements of people standing on a platform in the middle. The more you move, the more the jets of fire erupt on the perimeter. As the day grew cold Saturday, many people huddled on the outside of that perimeter, hoping that the players in the middle would cause the plumes to erupt near them and warm them up. Sadly for me and my friends, the propane fueling the jet nearest us was empty.
Several people were on hand at Maker Faire demonstrating what’s possible with aerial kite photography, a technique in which a digital camera is harnessed and hung from a kite and then raised to shoot pictures of the ground below.
Earlier in the day, I had wandered through the various halls and came across a terrific exhibit of aerial kite photography. An artist named Ben Peoples explained that a small camera suspended from a harness under a kite can be controlled with precise movements and with some practice, can be used to take excellent photos from high above the ground. And indeed, there was a series of the photos on display, and you would never know from looking at them that they weren’t taken by a professional with a camera in hand, maybe inside a helicopter or a plane.
Another project I liked was Michael Yates’ “Camp Rehab Chevy,” a collaborative effort to rebuild a very worn down 1948 Chevy truck and bring it back to life. As I found it, it was still pretty beat up and sad, but a group of people were tinkering around in the engine and inside the cab, and I had no doubt that by weekend’s end, this might well be a functional truck.
The point of all this is that Maker Faire is a place where there is almost literally no end of wondrous attractions and terrific little finds. Tucked away in a corner of a hall, you might find some little delight that you’d never think you’d find: someone with a series of LEDs being spun around in seemingly random circles, making gorgeous patterns in the air, like Carl Pisaturo’s “Rotating Amusement Device,” or Tim Giugni’s “Shadow Dome,” a terrific exhibit which projected a shadow castle on the wall of a canvas room with a spotlight inside.
It’s not likely that if you’re reading this story that you’d be able to hop in the car and make it to the fairgrounds before Maker Faire closes Sunday–at 6 p.m.–but if what you’re reading here piques your interest and you’ve never been before, mark the first weekend of May 2009 on your calendar and make a point of coming down next year. You will not be disappointed.
For full article CNET
Museum Planning is the creation of documents to describe a new museum’s vision, the visitor experience and an organizational plan for the new institution.
Museum plans include:
Plans are created by a museum planning team, that include; museum staff and volunteers, members of the board of directors, a museum planner and representatives of city and state planning agencies.
The objective of a Museum Plan is to create a clear and concise “road map” for the creation of new institution and a sustainable long term museum vision.
Museumplanner.org is a museum-related blog.
The site was developed by Walhimer Associates a museum consulting firm. For more inforamtion about us Walhimer Associates Website
This site does not accept advertising
For more information,
contact us
Museums in the United States are 501(c)(3) organizations. Section 501(c)(3) is a tax law provision granting exemption from the federal income tax to non-profit organizations, such as museums . Nolo press has an excellent online reference as well as book covering how to apply for 501(c)(3) status.
Modern interactive learning in science centers and children’s museums is based on Constructivist Learning Theory. Below is an excerpt from Wikepedia:
“Formalization of the theory of constructivism is generally attributed to Jean Paiget, who articulated mechanisms by which knowledge is internalized by learners. He suggested that through processes of accommodation and assimilation, individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences. When individuals assimilate, they incorporate the new experience into an already existing framework without changing that framework. This may occur when individuals’ experiences are aligned with their internal representations of the world, but may also occur as a failure to change a faulty understanding; for example, they may not notice events, may misunderstand input from others, or may decide that an event is a fluke and is therefore unimportant as information about the world. In contrast, when individuals’ experiences contradict their internal representations, they may change their perceptions of the experiences to fit their internal representations. According to the theory, accommodation is the process of reframing one’s mental representation of the external world to fit new experiences. Accommodation can be understood as the mechanism by which failure leads to learning: when we act on the expectation that the world operates in one way and it violates our expectations, we often fail, but by accommodating this new experience and reframing our model of the way the world works, we learn from the experience of failure, or others’ failure.
It is important to note that constructivism itself does not suggest one particular pedagogy. In fact, constructivism describes how learning should happen, regardless of whether learners are using their experiences to understand a lecture or attempting to design a model airplane. In both cases, the theory of constructivism suggests that learners construct knowledge. Constructivism as a description of human cognition is often associated with pedagogic approaches that promote active learning by doing.
The learner as a unique individual
Social constructivism views each learner as a unique individual with unique needs and backgrounds. The learner is also seen as complex and multidimensional. Social constructivism not only acknowledges the uniqueness and complexity of the learner, but actually encourages, utilises and rewards it as an integral part of the learning process (Wertsch 1997).
The importance of the background and culture of the learner
Social constructivism encourages the learner to arrive at his or her own version of the truth, influenced by his or her background, culture or embedded worldview. Historical developments and symbol systems, such as language, logic, and mathematical systems, are inherited by the learner as a member of a particular culture and these are learned throughout the learner’s life. This also stresses the importance of the nature of the learner’s social interaction with knowledgeable members of the society. Without the social interaction with other more knowledgeable people, it is impossible to acquire social meaning of important symbol systems and learn how to utilize them. Young children develop their thinking abilities by interacting with other children, adults and the physical world. From the social constructivist viewpoint, it is thus important to take into account the background and culture of the learner throughout the learning process, as this background also helps to shape the knowledge and truth that the learner creates, discovers and attains in the learning process (Wertsch 1997).
The responsibility for learning
Furthermore, it is argued that the responsibility of learning should reside increasingly with the learner (Von Glasersfeld 1989). Social constructivism thus emphasizes the importance of the learner being actively involved in the learning process, unlike previous educational viewpoints where the responsibility rested with the instructor to teach and where the learner played a passive, receptive role. Von Glasersfeld (1989) emphasizes that learners construct their own understanding and that they do not simply mirror and reflect what they read. Learners look for meaning and will try to find regularity and order in the events of the world even in the absence of full or complete information.
The motivation for learning
Another crucial assumption regarding the nature of the learner, concerns the level and source of motivation for learning. According to Von Glasersfeld (1989) sustaining motivation to learn is strongly dependent on the learner’s confidence in his or her potential for learning. These feelings of competence and belief in potential to solve new problems, are derived from first-hand experience of mastery of problems in the past and are much more powerful than any external acknowledgement and motivation (Prawat and Floden 1994). This links up with Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky 1978) where learners are challenged within close proximity to, yet slightly above, their current level of development. By experiencing the successful completion of challenging tasks, learners gain confidence and motivation to embark on more complex challenges.
The role of the instructor
According to the social constructivist approach, instructors have to adapt to the role of facilitators and not teachers (Bauersfeld, 1995). Where a teacher gives a didactic lecture which covers the subject matter, a facilitator helps the learner to get to his or her own understanding of the content. In the former scenario the learner plays a passive role and in the latter scenario the learner plays an active role in the learning process. The emphasis thus turns away from the instructor and the content, and towards the learner (Gamoran, Secada, & Marrett, 1998). This dramatic change of role implies that a facilitator needs to display a totally different set of skills than a teacher (Brownstein 2001). A teacher tells, a facilitator asks; a teacher lectures from the front, a facilitator supports from the back; a teacher gives answers according to a set curriculum, a facilitator provides guidelines and creates the environment for the learner to arrive at his or her own conclusions; a teacher mostly gives a monologue, a facilitator is in continuous dialogue with the learners (Rhodes and Bellamy, 1999). A facilitator should also be able to adapt the learning experience ‘in mid-air’ by using his or her own initiative in order to steer the learning experience to where the learners want to create value.
The learning environment should also be designed to support and challenge the learner’s thinking (Di Vesta, 1987). While it is advocated to give the learner ownership of the problem and solution process, it is not the case that any activity or any solution is adequate. The critical goal is to support the learner in becoming an effective thinker. This can be achieved by assuming multiple roles, such as consultant and coach.
The nature of the learning process
Social constructivist scholars view learning as an active process where learners should learn to discover principles, concepts and facts for themselves, hence the importance of encouraging guesswork and intutive thinking in learners (Brown et al.1989; Ackerman 1996). In fact, for the social constructivist, reality is not something that we can discover because it does not pre-exist prior to our social invention of it. Kukla (2000) argues that reality is constructed by our own activities and that people, together as members of a society, invent the properties of the world.
Other constructivist scholars agree with this and emphasize that individuals make meanings through the interactions with each other and with the environment they live in. Knowledge is thus a product of humans and is socially and culturally constructed (Ernest 1991; Prawat and Floden 1994). McMahon (1997) agrees that learning is a social process. He further states that learning is not a process that only takes place inside our minds, nor is it a passive development of our behaviours that is shaped by external forces and that meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social activities.
Vygotsky (1978) also highlighted the convergence of the social and practical elements in learning by saying that the most significant moment in the course of intellectual development occurs when speech and practical activity, two previously completely independent lines of development, converge. Through practical activity a child constructs meaning on an intrapersonal level, while speech connects this meaning with the interpersonal world shared by the child and her/his culture.
Dynamic interaction between task, instructor and learner
A further characteristic of the role of the facilitator in the social constructivist viewpoint, is that the instructor and the learners are equally involved in learning from each other as well (Holt and Willard-Holt 2000). This means that the learning experience is both subjective and objective and requires that the instructor’s culture, values and background become an essential part of the interplay between learners and tasks in the shaping of meaning. Learners compare their version of the truth with that of the instructor and fellow learners in order to get to a new, socially tested version of truth (Kukla 2000). The task or problem is thus the interface between the instructor and the learner (McMahon 1997). This creates a dynamic interaction between task, instructor and learner. This entails that learners and instructors should develop an awareness of each other’s viewpoints and then look to own beliefs, standards and values, thus being both subjective and objective at the same time (Savery 1994).
Some studies argue for the importance of mentoring in the process of learning (Archee and Duin 1995; Brown et al. 1989). The social constructivist model thus emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the student and the instructor in the learning process.
Some learning approaches that could harbour this interactive learning include reciprocal teaching, peer collaboration, cognitive apprenticeship, problem-based instruction, web quests, anchored instruction and other approaches that involve learning with others.
Collaboration among learners
Learners with different skills and backgrounds should collaborate in tasks and discussions in order to arrive at a shared understanding of the truth in a specific field (Duffy and Jonassen 1992).
Most social constructivist models, such as that proposed by Duffy and Jonassen (1992), also stress the need for collaboration among learners, in direct contradiction to traditional competitive approaches. One Vygotskian notion that has significant implications for peer collaboration, is that of the zone of proximal development. Defined as the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem-solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers, it differs from the fixed biological nature of Paiget’s stages of develoment. Through a process of ’scaffolding’ a learner can be extended beyond the limitations of physical maturation to the extent that the development process lags behind the learning process (Vygotsky 1978).
The importance of context
The social constructivist paradigm views the context in which the learning occurs as central to the learning itself (McMahon 1997).
Underlying the notion of the learner as an active processor is “the assumption that there is no one set of generalised learning laws with each law applying to all domains” (Di Vesta 1987:208). Decontextualized knowledge does not give us the skills to apply our understandings to authentic tasks because, as Duffy and Jonassen (1992) indicated, we are not working with the concept in the complex environment and experiencing the complex interrelationships in that environment that determine how and when the concept is used. One social constructivist notion is that of authentic or situated learning, where the student takes part in activities which are directly relevant to the application of learning and which take place within a culture similar to the applied setting (Brown et al. 1989). Cognitive apprentiship has been proposed as an effective constructivist model of learning which attempts to “enculturate students into authentic practices through activity and social interaction in a way similar to that evident, and evidently successful, in craft apprenticeship” (Ackerman 1996:25).
Assessment
Holt and Willard-Holt (2000) emphasize the concept of dynamic assessment, which is a way of assessing the true potential of learners that differs significantly from conventional tests. Here the essentially interactive nature of learning is extended to the process of assessment. Rather than viewing assessment as a process carried out by one person, such as an instructor, it is seen as a two-way process involving interaction between both instructor and learner. The role of the assessor becomes one of entering into dialogue with the persons being assessed to find out their current level of performance on any task and sharing with them possible ways in which that performance might be improved on a subsequent occasion. Thus, assessment and learning are seen as inextricably linked and not separate processes (Holt and Willard-Holt 2000).
According to this viewpoint instructors should see assessment as a continuous and interactive process that measures the achievement of the learner, the quality of the learning experience and courseware. The feedback created by the assessment process serves as a direct foundation for further development.
The selection, scope and sequencing of the subject matter
Knowledge should not be divided into different subjects or compartments, but should be discovered as an intergrated whole (McMahon 1997; Di Vesta 1987).
This also again underlines the importance of the context in which learning is presented (Brown et al. 1989). The world, in which the learner needs to operate, does not approach one in the form of different subjects, but as a complex myriad of facts, problems, dimensions and perceptions (Ackerman 1996).
Engaging and challenging the learner
Learners should constantly be challenged with tasks that refer to skills and knowledge just beyond their current level of mastery. This will capture their motivation and build on previous successes in order to enhance the confidence of the learner (Brownstein 2001). This is in line with Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development which can be described as the distance between the actual developmental level (as determined by independent problem-solving) and the level of potential development (as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers) (Vygotsky 1978).
Vygotsky (1978) further claimed that instruction is good only when it proceeds ahead of development. Then it awakens and rouses to life an entire set of functions which are in the stage of maturing, which lie in the zone of proximal development. It is in this way that instruction plays an extremely important role in development.
In order to fully engage and challenge the learner, the task and the learning environment should reflect the complexity of the environment that the learner should be able to function in at the end of learning. Learners must not only have ownership of learning or problem-solving process, but of the problem itself (Derry 1999).
Where the sequencing of subject matter is concerned, it is the constructivist viewpoint that the foundations of any subject may be taught to anybody at any stage in some form (Duffy and Jonassen 1992). This means that instructors should first introduce the basic ideas that give life and form to any topic or subject area, and then revisit and build upon these repeatedly. This notion has been extensively used in curricula.
It is also important for instructors to realize that although a curriculum may be set down for them, it inevitably becomes shaped by them into something personal which reflects their own belief systems, their thoughts and feelings about both the content of their instruction and their learners (Rhodes and Bellamy 1999). Thus, the learning experience becomes a shared enterprise. The life contexts of those involved in the learning process must therefore be considered as an integral part of learning. The goal of the learner is central in considering what is learned (Brown et al. 1989; Ackerman 1996). emotions and
The structuredness of the learning process
It is important to achieve the right balance between the degree of structure and flexibility that is built into the learning process. Savery (1994) contends that the more structured the learning environment, the harder it is for the learners to construct meaning based on their conceptual understandings. A facilitator should structure the learning experience just enough to make sure that the students get clear guidance and parameters within which to achieve the learning objectives, yet the learning experience should be open and free enough to allow for the learners to discover, enjoy, interact and arrive at their own, socially verified version of truth.
Final remarks
A constructivist learning intervention is thus an intervention where contextualised activities (tasks) are used to provide learners with an opportunity to discover and collaboratively construct meaning as the intervention unfolds. Learners are respected as unique individuals, and instructors act as facilitators rather than as teachers.”
For the full article see Wikededia
I came across an excellent article by Kthryne McGrath. Below is an excerpt:
“By setting up a problem to be solved, demanding interaction, producing effects from direct actions and allowing variations of approach, cognitive development in children is enhanced. Hands-On Children’s Museums encourage contextually relevant reasoning. These museums are successful, concrete examples of interactive, participatory learning. As reflected in their interactive exhibits, the combination of a realistic setting and the use of objects that belong in that setting is being recognized as an important educational development. Their continued and increasing popularity is unprecedented and the framework used so successfully in the museum context can be translated into the elementary classroom. A study of 259 Children’s Museums in the United States was undertaken by the author to examine what kinds of similarities existed in this type of museum. Research questions addressed demographics, exhibit type, interactivity, and success and educational programs. This paper analyzes portions of that data in order to propose an outline for creating an equally successful interactive environment in elementary classrooms.
American educational practice has generally been based on the premise that knowledge is something that can be transmitted directly from teachers to students. Although practitioners attempt to develop new ways of transmitting knowledge, early childhood theorists have always disagreed with any concept of passive learning. The body of current early childhood literature strongly encourages participatory, hands– on, learner-centered, outcome-based learning. However, even though scholars in the field of early education recommend creating experiences that are participatory and interactive, changes in actual practice are not occurring in the average classroom. Passive, worksheet oriented pedagogy that utilizes traditional content and organization appears more the norm than the exception in many American classrooms. Yet, while our elementary classrooms have been slow to implement true interactive learning strategies, Children’s Museums have been in the vanguard of educational change.
Piagetian theory reminds us that cognitive development stems from action on the environment and interactive learning occurs as a result of assimilation and accommodation of stimuli. According to the position statement of the National Association of Education of Young Children (NAEYC), developmentally appropriate practices such as providing children with concrete learning activities, creating environments which enable children to learn through active exploration and interaction, and designing appropriate activities for different ability levels, all enhance a child’s ability to learn. Hands-on museums effectively utilize interaction with the environment by offering a multiplicity of learning opportunities and presentations styles (Edeiken, 1992). Exhibits in various categories that are based on cognitive objectives (i.e., creating relationships between event and object, encouraging creativity, divergent thinking, understanding general principles) become the basis for exhibit creation. These institutions recognize the importance of structuring the presentation of information to meet a child’s existing base of knowledge so that additional knowledge can be integrated and used by the child (Wadsworth, 1989). The most popular subject matters, Life/Nature Science, Physics, History, Environment and Technology, lend themselves to focused, singular principles or events that can be understood and enjoyed by the participants (Speaker, 1995).
Experts in the field of Hands-On Children’s Museums (Edeiken, 1992; Danilov, 1986; Fisher, 1960; Lewin, 1989;) all point to a connection between this type of museum and the educational implications for children by relying on the premise that children develop intellectually through direct experience. Psychologist Robert Glaser (1984) asserts that interactive inquiry methodology is extremely important in order to teach children to think within the context of the subject matter. The coupling of a realistic setting with the use of objects that belong in that setting and experienced in contextually relevant ways enhances a student’s ability to store information within a contextual framework (Springer and Deutsch, 1981). Jerome Bruner’s work in encouraging inductive reasoning has also influenced the philosophy and creation of interactive exhibits (Bruner, 1966; Seefeldt and Barbour, 1990). Howard Gardner’s work on types of intelligence has led to the creation of interactive exhibits that address a multiplicity of learning styles (Edeiken, 1992). Based upon this research, cognitive -objectives concerning exhibits are delineated with visual, perceptual, kinesthetic and affective strategies as major components. Gardner cites the philosophy and practices of children’s museums as having powerful implications for how schools might design curriculums that elicit students’ deep understanding of material. The participatory kind of thinking that occurs in the context of a children’s museum can occur in any classroom. Teachers should strive to put learning into context. As Ann Lewin (1989), Director of the Capital Children’s Museum, points out, the children’s museum is a model for what could be one cornerstone of the elementary school of the future: children exploring real materials in a context rich with possibilities for learning Methodology. “
For the full article:
Interactive exhibit theory: Hints for implementing learner-centered activities in elementary classrooms
Education, Spring 2001, by Speaker, Kathryne McGrath
