The Relationship Between Learning and Identity:

How the Museum Can Cultivate People’s

Identities as Learners

Introduction

Why do visitors to the same exhibit have different learning experiences? The museum

experience is highly individualistic, influenced by the identity of the person within that

space. To cultivate learning, museums are required to inform themselves on who their

visitors are. We shall discover how a learner’s identity constructs his or her learning and

how the museum experience in turn reconstructs a learner’s identity.

Museums are increasingly caring about the identities of their visitors: a result of the shift

within the sector from the former content-focused to visitor-focused ideology (Kreps 2003;

Falk 2009). This changing ideology has produced a learning theory that counters the

didactic exhibits characteristic of nineteenth century museums (Hein 1994). Previously,

once they entered the museum, visitors structured their visitor identity in relation to the

museum’s superior role as the giver of knowledge; new ways of structuring museums

replaces top-down traditions with more collaborative practices recognize the identity of

the visitor (Kreps 2003).

This essay introduces the elements of constructivism and provides recommendations for

and examples of their implementation in the museum. The first section provides the

theoretical framework of constructivist learning and learning identity, which the second

section will then use to explore how a museum can cultivate learning through

understanding this identity. The concluding section will demonstrate how this application

could positively impact the museum in other areas as well.

Learning Identity within Museums: The Constructivist Theory

Visitor Learning Identity

The term ‘learning identity’ could be defined by any number of criteria; Falk (2009)

structured visitor identity around motivation, one of the necessary elements in

constructivism. Here we shall explore visitor identity as defined by the sum of an

individual’s prior knowledge and experience. Though individuals embody a multitude of

identity constructions simultaneously, other identity structures will not be addressed here

for the purpose of space. Here, we are concerned with what the visitor brings to the

museum and how that is used in conjunction with what is presented during their visit (and

after) to ‘make meaning’.

Constructivist Learning Theory

Constructivism challenges the notion that all knowledge is external. In contrast to the

traditional didactic approach, the learner constructs knowledge continuously, with his or

her prior knowledge and experiences serving as the basis. “It is not only difficult but

almost impossible to learn something without making an association with familiar

categories” (Hein 1998:156). Associations provide the learner with the structure to

cognitively reconcile the new information with the old.

Prior knowledge is disregarded within the transmission-absorption model because it can

contradict and misinterpret what is to be learned (Roschelle 1995), but ignoring its

existence within the learner actually hinders learning. As Hooper-Greenhill (1994) has

asserted, “Subjective interpretation cannot be avoided, it is part of what knowing is about.”

Once we accept that knowledge is not objective, the individuality of the learner plays a

central role in the learning experience.

When faced with new information, learners attempt to mentally fit this into their existing

knowledge structure, often through associations (Hein 1998; Falk & Dierking 2000). How

closely the new information aligns with the learner’s previous understanding will

determine how that knowledge is re-shaped:

Most commonly, learners assimilate additional experience to their current theories

and practices. Somewhat less frequently, an experience causes a small cognitive

shock that leads the learner to put ideas together differently. Much more rarely,

learners undertake major transformations of thought that affect everything from

fundamental assumptions to their ways of seeing, conceiving, and talking about

their experience (Roschelle 1995).

If the knowledge differs to the point of contradiction, a learning block can occur where the

learner rejects the new information entirely.

Although I highlight the individual’s identity as a learner, it should be noted how the social

setting influences learning identity. Individuals of a group enhance their learning by

combining their individual knowledge bases (Leinhardt & Knutson 2004). Through social

engagement, knowledge can not only be individually constructed, but also co-constructed

among learners.

If individuals construct their own meaning, then what is the role of the museum? The

museum does not lose its educational power: it simply shifts from teacher, to facilitator. By

allowing visitors to physically handle objects and discuss their experiences, the museum

provides the space and the tools for learners to harmonize new information with what

they already knew (Hooper-Greenhill 1994:).

Constructing a Constructivist Museum: Practices of Determining Visitor

Prior Knowledge and Learning

Implementing a constructivist learning approach to museums requires time and energy

spent focusing on understanding their visitors rather than merely transmitting content to

them. If we want to cultivate learning within museums, we must acknowledge where those

visitors are coming from.

Prior knowledge is not an immeasurable variable; once compared relative to the specific

exhibitions, this information becomes most useful to the museum (Simon 2010). Simply

becoming familiarized with what their visitors already know does not automatically equate

to successful exhibits. These findings constitute a feed-back loop the museum can use to

continuously monitor their own success and adopt alterations as necessary.

Regardless of its accuracy, prior knowledge should be viewed as a valid part of the

learner’s identity. The execution of the exhibit must work within these identities instead of

challenging them or “attempt to replace learners’ understanding with their own”

(Roschelle 1995). Successful constructivist exhibits recognize and work within the

confines of a visitor’s learning identity and do not risk visitor learning by suppressing it.

Recognition of visitor identity begins with an understanding of what a visitor knew before

coming to the museum, leading to an educated prediction of what connections could be

made between previous and new experiences within the exhibit, and followed by the

admission that subsequent experiences outside the museum also impact visitor learning

(Falk 1999:261).

Understanding Visitors: Front-End Evaluations

Individuals hold internally their own unique motivations and prior experiences. How can a

museum possibly address the learning needs of an immensely diverse audience?

Conducting front-end visitor studies allows visitors the opportunity to express their own

knowledge and interests, in turn providing the museums with valuable information to

design more meaningful exhibits. Front-end evaluations are conceptually simple, yet

immensely beneficial in understanding an audience that in general, does not express their

learning identity unless specifically asked.

Regardless of content, museums can develop failed exhibits if they ignore or are

misinformed on the public’s level of knowledge on a subject. Without an understanding of

the visitor, the exhibit might be dense in unfamiliar material, leaving the visitor unable to

make any connections with his or her own life. Or on the other hand, neglecting to facilitate

appropriate associations can lead to the visitor learning things the curators did not intend

(Roschelle 1995:37). Museums should not make assumptions about what the visitor does

or does not know, because it very likely is misguided without verification (Hein 1998:164).

If empirical data is collected before installation, museums are more likely to produce

exhibits better suited to a museum’s audience.

Before the Carnegie Museum of Natural History installed Africa: One Continent, Many

Worlds exhibit, they installed kiosks where visitors answered questions. When interviewed

by Leinhardt and Knutson (2004:35), curator Deborah Mack expressed they “wanted to

find out where people were coming from so they could design an exhibition that would

address the most common misconceptions about Africa.” Even though this exhibit had

previously been installed at the Field Museum in Chicago, the Carnegie Museum of Natural

History desired to cater the exhibit to their Pittsburgh audience.

By implementing front-end evaluations, communication between the museum and the

visitor becomes multi-directional. Individuals begin to become self-aware and confident in

their learning identity. Shifting the power relationship opens up a more natural dialogue

between the museum and the visitor, one where the visitor feels important and validated.

By participating in front-end evaluations, the visitor becomes an active contributor to their

own learning, and the learning of others.

Cultivating Learning Associations: The Next Step

For geographical and other practical purposes, not every visitor will have participated in a

front-end study. To accommodate for the needs of these visitors, steps can be taken within

the exhibition space to facilitate relevant cognitive associations for all. If an appropriate

environment is presented, it can both facilitate learning and ‘reinforce identity’ through

features the visitor can connect with (Wortham 2006:5). Constructivist museums are

consciously aware of the connections visitors make in regards to the space and concepts

provided (Hein 1998:157).

While in an exhibit, staff or volunteers can act as flexible facilitators – adapting to the

precise needs of the visitor they engage with. They are not to be used as human

encyclopedias, didactically lecturing on the content of the exhibit. They are there to

structure the material with respect to individual visitors (Hein 1995).

If a museum does not have the resources to man every exhibit, facilitation can be

imbedded into the space through text.

The content of some exhibits can be off-putting to individuals who are less familiar with

the content. To prevent visitors from mentally rejecting concepts or avoiding the exhibit

entirely, visitors need to be able to familiarize themselves early on. Not all museums have

the resources to man every exhibit, leaving the visitor without a human presence to

motivate them inside. The introductory text of Medicine Now at the Wellcome Collection in

London instilled confidence in the learner before entering: it validated the knowledge and

experiences of all visitors whether they stemmed from a “patient, doctor, or researcher”

vantage point. Multiple identity connections were presented and those connections led to

not only wider, but possibly also deeper learning experiences.

Understanding Learning Experience: Post-Visit Evaluations

The experiences a visitor has before and during the exhibit are not comprehensive in

understanding the impact a museum visit has on learning. Through a constructivist lens,

learning is not added to, but a continuous process, and like the constructivist exhibit, has

no fixed starting and end point (Hein, 1994). Each museum visit becomes prior experience

for a future visit and will constitute a visitors prior knowledge that can be restructured in a

future situation.

Potentially, what a visitor learns within the museum could be re-shaped when confronted

with new, future contexts. New conceptual information is not only found in museums or

schools, but also in the everyday lives of individuals. Therefore, learning is immeasurable

immediately following a visit; instead, museums must continue their evaluations after

considerable time has passed for more accurate data (Hein 1994; Falk & Dierking 2000).

Falk (1999) discovered this when studying post-visit evaluations of the What About AIDS?

exhibit co-created by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and several American science

museums. Some participants revealed they continued to reflect on the exhibit; the personal

impact of some of the particularly frightening concepts was intensified even weeks after

their visit (Falk 1999:263).

This finding demonstrates that while the use of front-end evaluations is important, they

should not take the place of these follow-up evaluations that account for the visitor’s

subsequent experiences and reflections.

Conclusions

At the present, no true constructivist museum exists and the argument could be made that

no museum should conform to constructivist principles or any one learning theory

entirely. Due to the benefits however, elements of constructivism are being implemented

in museum exhibits to accommodate for a more active audience. The individuality of the

visitor is central to learning and the museum must work to accommodate for and validate

this. Creating an exhibit centered on the visitor and not the content requires museums to

compile research on their visitors instead of their objects.

Constructing a more constructivist museum would certainly require considerable time and

money – resources the museum might currently be using to simply remain open in a

recessed economy. However, museums have the potential to offer an indispensible

function for society if they satisfy visitors’ “deepest and most important identity-related

needs” (Falk 2009: 244). If their visitors are offered an integral role in determining what

and how their museum practices exhibit design, they become more aware of the value of

their contribution and evolve into learners confident in their identities. The added effort

translates into more valuable experiences and in turn, a more valuable institution.

Discovering how best to regularly communicate with individual visitors to concurrently

design exhibits and analyze the learning of the visitor could translate into metrics used to

determine the success. The true success of a museum stems both from its high education

standards and financial stability. If these changes lead to increased visitor numbers and

repeat visitors, the museum is opened up to additional funding opportunities, an increase

in memberships, and ultimately, a more sustainable future in a period of uncertainty.

Bibliography

Falk, J.H. (2009) Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press Inc.

Falk, J.H. (1999) Museums as Institutions for Personal Learning. Daedalus, 128 (3), 259-275.

Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2000) Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AtlaMira.

Hein, G. (1998) Learning in the Museum.

Hein, G. (1994) The constructivist museum. In: Hooper-Greenhill, E. (ed.) The Educational Role of the Museum. London, Routledge, 73-79.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994) Museum learners as active postmodernists: contextualizing constructivism. In: Hooper-Greenhill, E. (ed.) The Educational Role of the Museum. London, Routledge, 67-72.

Kreps, C.F. (2003) Liberating Culture: Cross-cultural perspectives on museums, curation and heritage preservation. Oxon, Routledge.

Leinhardt, G. & Knutson, K. (2004) Listening in on museum conversations. Walnut Creek, Altamira Press.

Medicine Now. The Wellcome Collection. 183 Euston Rd, London, United Kingdom NW1 2BE. 5 November, 2015.

Simon, N. (2010) The Participatory Museum, http://www.participatorymuseum.org/read/

Rocshelle, J. (1995) Learning in Interactive Environments: Prior Knowledge and New Experience. In: Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. (ed.) Public Institutions for Personal Learning. Washington, DC, American Association of Museums, 37-52.

Wortham, S. (2006) Learning Identity: The Joint Emergence of Social Identification and Academic Learning. New York, Cambridge University Press.