Learning with Digital Technologies inMuseums, Science Centres and Galleries

REPORT 9:

FUTURELAB SERIES

Roy Hawkey, King’s College, London

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 outsidethem, provide a number of challenges for 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? Howcan 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? What is the role of objects in the process oflearning with digital technologies? How does the relationship betweenmuseum educator and learner change as 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 thevalue 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 atresearch@futurelab.org.uk

Keri Facer Director of Learning Research Futurelab

1

CONTENTS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

SECTION 1INTRODUCTION ANDBACKGROUND 4

SECTION 2LEARNING IN MUSEUMS: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES 11

SECTION 3ON-SITE LEARNING 22

SECTION 4ONLINE LEARNING 30

SECTION 5THE FUTURE: MORE OF THE SAME… OR SOMETHINGCOMPLETELY DIFFERENT? 36

BIBLIOGRAPHY 40

Learning with Digital Technologies inMuseums, Science Centres and Galleries

REPORT 9:

FUTURELAB SERIES

Roy Hawkey, King’s College, London

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 ofinstitutions 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 learning tasks, but, critically, they permit activitiesthat would otherwise be impossible. This includes new approaches to learning by different audiences and for 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 passiveprocess of transmission

• take on the role of privileged participantrather than that of expert

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

• facilitate lifelong learning by providing a 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 Learningin 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 centresare among

the mostenthusiasticproviders of

digital learningopportunities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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 objects’ may 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 issuesare 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 naïve assumptionthat digital technologies are inevitablyinteractive, there are strident demands for 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 museum’s own exhibits and interpretation.

Digital technologies facilitate many kindsof collaboration – between museum andlearner, between different institutions and among learners themselves. Excitingexamples include those between real and virtual learners and of learnerscreating their own associations within and between collections.

In many ways the opposite of collaboration, digital technologies alsofacilitate personalisation. Freed from the 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 an art gallery (Tate Modern) highlight thelearning potential of a versatile and mobile 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 approaches to learning differ considerably, sometimes(but not consistently) reflecting the viewsof the museum itself. The extremes arerepresented by the ‘interactive reference’type and by creative applications withlearner-created outcomes.

The accounts in the literature, althoughlargely 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, and as a step from a deficit model of learningtowards greater dialogue.

3

the learner canuse appropriatetechnologies toprovide adedicated andpersonal mentor

REPORT 9LEARNING WITH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MUSEUMS, SCIENCE CENTRES AND GALLERIES

ROY HAWKEY, KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON

5 THE FUTURE

Museums have already achieved many oftheir aims in developing digital exhibitionsand 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 theprocesses 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 takeresponsibility for his/her own learning.

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Does learning in museums have a realfuture – or only a virtual one? Should amuseum 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 thesequestions 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 anddevelopers 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 learning in museums

have a realfuture – or only

a virtual one?

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 A BRIEF HISTORY

The British Museum recently celebratedthe 250th anniversary of its foundation in1753. 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 than to logic. This means that the variousfunctions of the museum, collectionsmanagement, 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 museum’sreserve 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 curator’s perspective, withoutsupport and guidance. A new generation ofexhibits – ‘with the visitor in mind’ (Milesat al 1982) – emerged, in which specialistinterpretative devices were utilised tomake 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 educator’srole became one of compensation,reaching audiences for whom theexhibition offer was inappropriate, such as children (whether in school parties orfamily 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 becamekey targets, so the role of learningspecialists began to change

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 material was initially an online brochure rather than a learning resource (Shaw 1995).

Today, museums provide a plethora ofdifferent kinds of learning activities.Anderson (1999) carried out an extensivesurvey 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 in the 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 digitaltechnologies (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 ofdifferent kinds

of learningactivities

Fig 1.1: Scope of the review

learning

museums & galleries

digitaltechnologies

Formal & informallearning with ICT –online, in school,home, workplace

Other formal &informal learning –exhibitions, guides,

printed resourcesetc

Collections management, record-keeping, digital exhibitions etc

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.3 SOURCES

Literature reviews conventionallyconcentrate on material published inbooks 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 tolearning 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 Council of Museums concurs, and emphasisescollections. These definitions, however,rule out science and discovery centres,which don’t have collections (except, it canbe argued, of exhibits). And the 24 HourMuseum (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 they’re 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 dependentupon 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 in the 21st century does digital technologypotentially permit the reunification of these roles.

In this review, the terms museum andgallery are interpreted widely, to includeany 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 Museum in 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

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 a wide range of systems and devices,characterised by, but not limited to, thecomputer. Synonyms abound, such as ICT (=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 essentially new activities that would otherwise beimpossible; this is especially true ofapplications that create material ondemand. Table 1.1 presents a summary in 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 fullyinteractive or exclusively unidirectional.

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

Microworlds and games provide anextension of the simulation by incorporatinga 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 access to real-life situations.

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

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

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 scope of this review, however, it suffices to saythat a focus on learning in museumsrequires a wide interpretation of the termand is not confined to the achievement of formal curricular objectives butencompasses the encouragement of a 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, sometrends are evident and tentative inferencescan be drawn.

9

the question ofhow we interpretlearning is key todeveloping anunderstanding ofthe potential roleof digitaltechnologies

Website Page Visitor Mean visit impressions 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 6

Natural History Museum 22 344 957 5 790 771 9.02

National Museum of Science & 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)

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 manymuseums 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 3 234 000

Imperial 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

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

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

It is worth noting Resnick’s (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 21stcentury museums, both on-site and online. 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 – evident in the provision of learning opportunities in 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 shareenormouspotential aslearningfacilitators

SECTION 2

LEARNING IN MUSEUMS:THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

2.1 A MUSEUM OF LEARNING?

“Suppose that we were commissioned tocreate a museum of learning...” Thusbegins Howard Gardner’s 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 knownabout 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 usedwith 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 Centre for Informal Learning and Schools, acollaboration between the Exploratorium,the University of California Santa Cruz andKing’s College, London. Others, such asFalk and Dierking (2002) arguepassionately for the use of ‘free-choice’learning to describe the kinds ofapproaches to learning that occur inmuseums and elsewhere outside theschool and college system.

12

SECTION 2

LEARNING IN MUSEUMS:THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

Table 2.1 Simple analysis offormal/informal learning in museums

formal

informal

formal

Lectures for groupsof students

Adulteducationcourses

informal

Free-choiceexploration of exhibits

Interactionswith gallerycharacters

Activity

Aff

iliat

ion

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 purposes of ‘formal’ learning are also themselvesundergoing revision, as Resnick (2002) argues:

“We need to transform curricula so thatthey focus less on ‘things to know’ andmore on ‘strategies for learning the thingsyou don’t 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 by the opportunities or challenges offered by 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 debate on 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 clearlyengage learners in creative and culturalpursuits as well as more vocationalaspects of learning – and certainly wellbeyond improving schoolchildren’sperformances 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 shouldcelebrateinformal learningoutcomes asbeing importantin their own right

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

2.3 THEORIES OF LEARNING IN 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. Many of the best-known models provide usefulinsights, at least into identifying issuesworthy of consideration. In recent yearsmuseum learning has been the subject of considerable attention: reports (eg Anderson 1999), initiatives (egResource 2001; MLA 2004), books (eg Hein 1998; Falk and Dierking, 2000)and research studies (eg Moussouri 2002; Hooper-Greenhill et al 2003).Although the motives, perspectives and 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 fiftyyears 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 Gardner’stheory of multiple intelligences. His seventypes are:

• logico-mathematical• linguistic• spatial• musical• kinaesthetic• intra-personal• inter-personal.

Less well known is Gardner’s 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 MLA’s Inspiring Learning for Allwebsite – www.inspiringlearningforall.gov.uk– carries a quiz based on Gardner’s theory.)

14

the museumexperience canstimulate mostof the different

types ofintelligence

SECTION 2

LEARNING IN MUSEUMS:THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

A somewhat different, but interestingapproach is found in Perry’s (2002) analysisof informal learning (defined as‘intrinsically motivated, non-linear andself- directed’.) She highlights four ‘types’of 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 thelearner’s 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 effectivelearning. 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 withexperience

Accommodator Assimilator Converger Diverger

Learning style

Com

pone

nt

Concrete experience:

Observation andreflection

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 social sequential ideas interaction

hidden meaning intellectual solutions to personalcomprehension problems meaning

Table 2.2 A summary of learning styles arising from Kolb’s learning cycle

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.Kolb’s 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 theimplications 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 and free 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 (Kuhn’s‘current 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.

Hein’s 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 Hein’s model enablesidentification of clear representations ofeach of these types, including the

16

we becomeempowered aslearners when

we are in controlof the process

Figure 2.1 2D model of knowledge and learning (Hein 1995, 1998)

Constructivist

Learning ispassive andincremental

Learning isconstructed from

ideas andexperiences

Heuristic

Behaviourist

Didactic

Knowledge isindependent

Knowledge isconstructed

SECTION 2

LEARNING IN MUSEUMS:THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

behaviourist Science Casebook, theheuristic Earth Lab and the constructivistQuest (Hawkey 2002). (See section 4 for a 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 particularprogrammes 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 andDierking’s (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 socialcontext in which to appreciate the value of the real and unique (Resource 2001).

Appreciation of the learning strategies and needs of the wide variety of museum learners means that there cannot be a single, simple approach.Johnson and Quin’s (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)

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

• provide experiences and materials thatstimulate 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 necessarilyprescribed ‘curriculum’ remains strong,with learning seen as the transfer ofknowledge from expert to novice, with ICT as a vehicle for state-of-the-art

information delivery. The final myth is that assessment requires but a simplemeasure of the knowledge deficit – “Whynot,” enquired a government minister of amuseum’s Head of Learning, “test visitors’knowledge on entry and then test themagain when they leave?”

The online museum offers a tantalising,seductive prospect for learning. Within a 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 betteror 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. After all, 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 progress will be limited

until learning iswidely regarded

as much morethan the

acquisition of abody of

knowledge

SECTION 2

LEARNING IN MUSEUMS:THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

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 TateModern’s 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 Museum’s 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)

Educ

atio

nal

Obj

ecti

ves

Change ofpersonalattitudes &social models

Growth ofabilities &knowledge

Transfer ofdata/facts/procedures

Educational Models

Technology Innovatio

n

60s: BehaviourismPavlov, Skinner, Thorndike

70s-80s: CognitivismNovak, Ausubel, Gowin

90s-00s: ConstructivismNorman, Jonassen

Quantum Leaps:

Fundamental & Disruptive“Jump Shifts” Forwardin levels of

- interactivity

- collaboration

- personalisation

brought to education bynew technologies & media

80s:PersonalComputing

90s:InternetTechnology

New Millenium:Learning ObjectsXML and DistributedWeb Services Standard Digital Content & ServicesMobile BBCommunication &Ambient Intelligence(interrelation of content,context & communities)

Mainframe Computing

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-learningsectors. This will enable institutions to“unlock the richness and diversity ofEurope’s 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 Cardinali’ssuggestions for the components of virtuallearning environments (VLEs) seem toresonate much more closely with formaleducation systems than with the kinds of 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 museums nor with the aspiration of differentiation by learner choice afforded by digitaltechnologies. However, rather than

accept a mis-match, the assertion is that 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 Hein’sobservation 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 does not stimulate, and to share what seemsinteresting.” (Hein 1990)

20

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

Lifelong learning New technology

individualised personallearner-centred user-centredsituated mobilecollaborative networkedubiquitous ubiquitouslifelong durable

SECTION 2

LEARNING IN MUSEUMS:THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

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 ofcommunication 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 be“using tomorrow’s technology to deliveryesterday’s curriculum” (Hepple 2001). It is therefore not beyond the realms of theimagination to envisage a situation where 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 adopt new approaches, there have already beenmany 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 conceptualised as the transmission of a fixed body ofknowledge 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

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 ‘lifelong’and as occurring outside as well as withinthe walls of the school, offers anopportunity 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 theirreliance 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 these new technologies in achieving theireducational objectives.

3 ON-SITE LEARNING

‘The future of education in museums: willit be real?’ asked a recent internationalconference. 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 havecome to be used to facilitate more than‘interaction’, 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 ofmuseums, 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 questions to consider. Is there a conflict betweenobjects and interactives? What does

22

rather thanreplacing

objects, digitalresources have

come to be usedto facilitate morethan ‘interaction’

SECTION 3

ON-SITE LEARNING

‘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 Gregory’s (1989) demand that sciencecentre exhibits be ‘minds-on’ as well ashands-on. Such a requirement would limitHall’s (2004) criticism of the kind of‘interactive’ 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 forms of interaction between the user and theexhibit through to ‘low-tech’ artefactsdesigned to enhance visitors’understanding of particular objects.Different ‘interactives’ engender verydifferent forms of interaction and providehighly variable opportunities for co-participation and collaboration. As yet we know little of the conduct andcollaboration that different ‘interactives’afford, 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 usefulstarting point:

“A hands-on or interactive museum exhibit has clear educational objectiveswhich encourage individuals or groups of people working together to understandreal objects or phenomena throughphysical exploration which involves choice 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

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 dimensions are 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-fundedstudy 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 learningenvironment. The former, he contends, isdesigned to “broadcast facts”, the latter to“support 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 conflicts with that of Gilbert and Stocklmayer(2001). While recognising the need forentertainment and for opportunities for 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 Magician’sRoad gallery at the National RailwayMuseum. The exhibition itself, a ‘mélangeof 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 andopinions of the curator? Is there emphasison transmitting knowledge or on fosteringinquiry skills? On providing answers or on 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 complexversion 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 aninteractive

museum galleryare similar

to thoseencountered in

the virtual realm

SECTION 3

ON-SITE LEARNING

a digital record of oneself for subsequentretrieval. The museum’s 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-Bristol’s 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 shiftedfrom 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 theapproach 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 themuseum’s website.

Durbin (2004) suggests going much furtherthan mere participation. “You don’t have tosweat it out over all your content if you are prepared to allow visitors to generate it 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 to the 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 aregenerally high on the agenda in themuseum context. Galani and Chalmers(2002) report an innovative study involvinga three-way collaboration between real

25

in manymuseums ofscience andtechnology, theaxis of learninghas shifted fromthe deficit modelto one ofdialogue

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 visits of others.

The STEM project (www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/education/stem) encouragesvisitors 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 theMagician’s 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 Institute’sproject Keystone Online, in whichresearch-based activity kits andprofessional development opportunitiescombine with a dedicated website tofacilitate inquiry-based science teaching.

3.4 PERSONALISATION AND MOBILITY

Learning in museums and galleries hasbeen 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 needs to learn

• individual, adapting to the learner’sabilities, 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 enablecommunication with teachers, experts and peers

• adaptable to the learner’s evolving skills and knowledge

26

SECTION 3

ON-SITE LEARNING

• persistent, to manage learningthroughout a lifetime, so that thelearner’s personal accumulation ofresources and knowledge will beimmediately accessible despite changes in technology

• useful, suited to everyday needs for communication, reference, work and 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 someextent – 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 museum’sexhibits. 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 to“’understand the use’ and to produce anoutput based on the interpretation of theuser’s 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 than on 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 Sparacino’swork, 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 Exploratorium’sphilosophy, where “the right answer is aquestion” (Klages 1995). In contrast, therewas 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 canmanipulate 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 context of objects and exhibits without feelingsocially or physically isolated.

27

within monthsthe majority ofthose who enterthe physicalspace of amuseum will becarrying theirown digitalcommunicationsdevice

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 forlearners with special educational needs,one’s 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 Modern’sMultimedia Tour programme also includestwo other different types of handheldtours: a Multimedia Highlights Tour and aCollections Tour. All of these relate toother gallery activities and fulfil manyeducational aims. Quantitative andqualitative evaluation has generatedvaluable knowledge about visitors’thoughts on handheld tours in museums.

Proctor and Burton (2003) report on thepilot of Tate Modern’s 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 on display, 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; othersa 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 with the 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

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 moresophisticated location sensitivity.

3.5 SUMMARY

These examples illustrate some of the reasons why any debate asking objects orinteractives? 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 and yet 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, assensitive and appropriate use oftechnology is seen to enrich theexperience of learning from objects andexhibits, rather than competing with them.

29

learning inmuseums isconcerned withobjects but alsoessentially withpeople

Table 3.1 Positive and negative aspects of the Tate Modern’s multimedia tour pilot(after Proctor and Burton 2003)

Positive Negative

strong link between long audio and visual messages

interactivity, requesting blank screena response

audio (including textnavigation)

video absence of help menu

intuitive interface

4 ONLINE LEARNING

“Want to find out what the world was like a century ago? Visit a museum. Want to find out what computer-based learning was like a decade ago? Visit a 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 explorehow 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 museumsites:

“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-basedenvironment”. The authors assume these differences to be axiomatic andhardly surprising.

Potentially more useful is their analysis ofthe correspondence of different types ofweb learning activity with pedagogicalapproaches: “discovery learning lendsitself to puzzles and mysteries, with theirsingle correct solution, while constructivismsupports user-created outcomes that allowmore personal choice and involvement”.Most valuable is their general conclusionthat some combination of reference andplay is likely to provide maximum appealand, therefore, most learning potential.

4.2 MUSEUM WEBSITES

Many major museums and galleries carryweb-based products that tend towards oneor other of these extremes, often reflectingthe pedagogical perspectives of theiroriginators – curators, educators or webdesigners.

30

SECTION 4

ONLINE LEARNING

The British Library began the ElectronicBeowulf project in 1993, as one of anumber of initiatives to increase access toits collections by the use of imaging andnetwork technology (www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/beowulf.html). This electronicversion of Beowulf provides new, easy-to-use search facilities to help readersexplore the texts, opening up thepossibilities for sophisticated interpretationand “close to challenging the object interms of being the ultimate repository ofknowledge” (Knell 2003)

The British Museum’s major onlinelearning resource is Compass(www.thebritishmuseum.org.uk/compass).This is essentially an annotated onlinedatabase featuring around 5,000 objectschosen by the curators “to reflect theextraordinary range of the BritishMuseum’s collections”.

“The system features a wealth of links,background information and maps. Thereare online tours on a variety of subjects,including introductions to the currentexhibitions. Each object featured isillustrated with high quality images thatyou can enlarge and study in detail. Theinformation has been written with thegeneral visitor in mind, and technicalterms are explained in glossary links. If you want to find out more, many of the articles give references to booksrecommended by the curators.”

In contrast, Loverance (2001) summarisesthe British Museum’s development ofeducational websites on AncientCivilizations (www.ancientegypt.co.uk andwww.mesopotamia.co.uk). She suggeststhree alternative strategies to drawlearners from better known to less well-known areas of content:

• familiarity or skills transfer• discovery or experimentation• confounding expectations.

The National Maritime Museum(www.nmm.ac.uk) “seeks to promoteonline learning as an extension of theMuseum’s collections” - through activities,resources and information. The materialappears fairly typical of museums’ onlinelearning offers: a mixture of downloadableresources, fun activities and textbook-typepages. All carefully constructed and wellpresented, but using digital technologiesessentially as a delivery mechanism.

The museum’s Search Station(www.nmm.ac.uk/searchstation) is a more sophisticated product, the receptionof which has been universally positive(Smith 2000). It offers interactive,computerised access to nearly 2,000 itemsfrom the Museum’s collections that maynot be on display. In the Museum, visitorscan access the Search Station using tenlinked workstations, always available toadult learners and researchers andbookable by school groups. The materialsare also available online on the Museum’swebsite, and as a hybrid CD-Rom forprimary schools.

Online exhibitions can offer multiplelearning paths through material in ways that real exhibitions cannot. The Smithsonian’s Revealing Things(www.si.edu/revealingthings), for example,uses Thinkmap® for the provision of adynamic interface in which the learner hascontrol over content and narrative. Suchfeatures permit a large degree ofexperimentation, by both learner andexpert provider (Freedman 2003).

31

onlineexhibitions canoffer multiplelearning pathsthrough material

A focus on the personal meanings andhistories of objects is the essentialelement of a new Culture Online project:Every Object Tells A Story (www.cultureonline.gov.uk/projects/object.asp).Aiming to encourage visitors (both physicaland virtual) to create their own stories andto share their interpretations of hundredsof featured objects, the project offers arich multimedia menu. Very much a two-way process, learners can upload theirown perceptions and perspectives – andtheir own related objects – to the site viaPC or mobile phone. Culture Onlineemphasises that Every Object Tells A Storyhas specific relevance to the NationalCurriculum for English. It is a comment on the content constraints of other subject areas that such a rich resourcecannot claim anything but a serendipitouslink elsewhere.

A second Culture Online project, The Dark(www.cultureonline.gov.uk/projects/dark.asp),also integrates a real museum/galleryexperience with an online presence: thewebsite and (touring) installationcomplement and support each other.Designed to create a 3D soundscape “filledwith the virtual ghosts of our past”, it isintended to challenge the ways in whichinformation is received and perceived.

The British Art Information Project (BAIP)is being developed as an integral part ofthe creation of the new Tate Britain,complementing the new gallery spaces. Itis creating a fully indexed database of highquality digital images for all 50,000 Britishworks and is “of extraordinary importancefor the study and appreciation of Britishart” –incorporating the paintings,sculptures, works on paper and prints, and including a vast quantity of relativelyinaccessible material, such as

watercolours and sketchbooks, includingthe Turner Bequest. It forms the basis fora range of new public information andeducation services delivered both at theGallery and through the web. New imageswithout copyright restrictions are alreadybeing fed through to the public via the Tatewebsite each day, with new searchmechanisms and other content generatedby the project (Smith 2000).

The 24 Hour Museum (www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/index.html) is theUK’s national virtual museum and acts asa portal to a rich range of resources. Itaims to encourage visitors out into realsites by showcasing activities all over theUK, as well as news and exhibitioninformation. Its database includes over2,800 museums, galleries and heritageattractions and simple but effective searchprocedures give access to the museums’material, by place, date or subject. Internettrails produced in partnership withmuseums and galleries provide significantopportunities for learning.

Show Me (www.show.me.uk) is thechildren’s version of the 24 Hour Museumand gives access to ‘cool’, ‘crazy’, ‘fun’,‘scary’ and ‘wild stuff’ from UK museums,some of it developed specially incollaboration with educators and websitedevelopers in the museums themselves.(Call it anything but learning, seems to bethe message.) The learning opportunities,however, range widely in both subjectmatter and strategy, as indicated by theexamples in Table 4.1. (For a review of thewider context of learning throughcomputer games, see Kirriemuir andMcFarlane (2004).)

Fathom (www.fathom.com) is a ratherdifferent example of museums’

32

SECTION 4

ONLINE LEARNING

involvement in online learning and providessomething of a salutary case study.Fathom was intended as a comprehensivedirectory of related online courses offeredby universities and cultural institutions,including four major UK museums. Indeedit successfully offered a wealth of content,including multimedia lectures, articles,interviews, exhibits and seminars,featuring prominent museum curators andresearchers. However, it failed foressentially commercial reasons, notbecause of its approach to learning –although this could be questioned (rathergenerally linear and reminiscent of aseries of textbooks). The site continues tobe maintained by Columbia University asan archive of online learning resources.

4.3 WEB STRATEGIES AND LEARNING THEORIES

The Natural History Museum was the firstUK museum to establish a web presenceand remains one of the most frequentlyvisited of all museum websites. Table 4.2compares excerpts from the museum’sweb strategy with key points from itseducation policy. What follows exploreshow these attributes manifest themselvesin the current set of learning resourcesboth on the NHM site and in the exampleof the MOLLIS initiative.

33

Cabinet of Curiosity

Digging Up The Romans

Mission: Explore

Move It! In 1850 By Train, Wagon And Boat

Space Station

The Dig

The Story Of Trim The Cat

Where's Monty?

Here's your chance to be a museum curator

History of Roman London - excellent for homework

Fancy being a scientist? Need a mission?This is the game for you

A Victorian race against time and money

Sweat and wee in outer space

Medieval? Victorian? Modern? You decide

A cheeky ship's cat is the star of this tale

Lift the leaves to find Monty and his mates

Title Invitation

Table 4.1: Examples of web-based museum learning projects on Show.Me(Taken from www.show.me.uk/games/games.html)

4.3.1 QUEST

QUEST– (Questioning, Understanding and Exploring Simulated Things)(www.nhm.ac.uk/ education/quest2/English/index.html) – began as part of theSIMILE project, supported by funding fromthe Information Society Project Office ofthe European Commission. (The principalaim of the SIMILE project – Students InMuseum Internet Learning Environments –was to increase learners’ access tocultural heritage, as represented byartefacts, objects and specimens inmuseum collections.)

The Museum’s education policy(www.nhm.ac.uk/education/policy.html andsee Table 4.2) highlights active learning in

terms both of learner participation and ofthe learner making his or her own senseof experiences. Emphasis is thereforegiven to observation and enquiry. In thiscontext it would not be tenable simply todisplay photographic images of objectstogether with traditional labels. Unlikemany exhibitions and much of theeducational material in museums, QUESTis deliberately intended to facilitate learnerdecision-making and user choice. Itsapproach is essentially constructivist onboth of the dimensions identified in Hein’s(1995, 1998) analysis of museum learning.QUEST’s home page presents twelveobjects, familiar and unfamiliar, carefullychosen to be as representative as possible.Selecting any object presents it full-screen, together with a series of icons

34

• approach issues as far as possiblefrom the visitor’s perspective –enthusiasm, reticence, priorknowledge, misconceptions et al –

• enhance access to the Museum’scollections and research, in ways thatprimarily make sense to the visitorrather than the expert.

Virtual visitors can

• create their own agendas and theirown pathways to learning

• create coherent frameworks andsignposts, rather than deliver raw dataor pre-packaged information.

Important principles underlie alleducational activities. These include:

• opportunities for differentiation

• clear objectives

• active learning based on directobservation

• asking appropriate and informedquestions

• emphasis on the processes andmethods of science

• making links (with previous knowledge and with new ideas)

• challenging assumptions and changing perspectives.

Electronic exhibitions: NHM policy(The Natural History Museum 2000)

Education policy (www.nhm.ac.uk/education/policy.html)

Table 4.2: Excerpts from The Natural History Museum’s web strategy and education policy

SECTION 4

ONLINE LEARNING

giving access to the virtual tools that canbe applied to it. Virtual learners can viewthe object from different angles, measureit, weigh it, magnify it, touch it (for textureand temperature) and even find out its age.More innovative, though, are the ‘ask ascientist’ page (for further questions orsuggestions, rather than answers) and the‘notebook’. When active, the latter enableslearners to record their observations,deductions and conjectures – and to sharethem with others. Only at this stage can apage of information be accessed, written ina discursive style.

So, does it work? Can such an essentiallyconstructivist approach really facilitatelearning? A pilot study in schools andonline feedback both suggest so. Thethousands of users, with an average dwelltime of 18 minutes, confirm itsattractiveness. But the most compellingevidence comes from an analysis of thecomments in the notebook. Mostsignificant is the number of learners whochoose to delay accessing the right answeruntil they have thoroughly explored theobject and shared in an online debate. The experience of QUEST does suggestthat real learning is possible from virtualobjects, and it is active learning predicatedon discovery rather than merely passive(Hawkey 1998, 1999, 2000).

4.3.2 Walking with Woodlice

There is a tendency to assume that the useof web-based learning material issomehow an alternative to real learning.One of the features of Walking withWoodlice (www.nhm.ac.uk/woodlice) is thatit promotes learning not only in the real(but artificial) world of the classroom orteaching laboratory but also in the real

(and natural) world of the environmentbeyond. The promotion of fieldwork and itsinteraction with digital technologies –through data recording and analysis – is akey element of the project. And, althoughthe museum can call upon the leadingexperts in the field, it is less concernedwith approving and validating the findingsthan with encouraging participants, havingsubmitted their own data, to join inanalysing and commenting on the results.(Hawkey 2002)

4.3.4 MOLLIS (www.molli.org.uk)

Museum Open OnLine Learning Initiatives(MOLLIS) have been developed in apartnership between the University ofExeter and local museums (Dillon andProsser 2003). Learning activities areanalysed as a series of dynamic processes;each is a discrete educational entity, butevery individual’s experience arises from a unique and complex combination of them all:

• information exchange – facts andconstructs that can potentially beintegrated into a context

• skills application – ability to performactions

• knowledge construction – integratingnew information with previous learning

• social interaction – reciprocal action inexchanging or challenging ideas

• self-expression including beliefs andcreativity.

Collectively, these processes amount tothe construction of meaning in the gapbetween the object and the individual. Theweb-based learning community is a weak

35

real learning ispossible fromvirtual objects

system, characterised by differentiationand change. Better understanding willrequire synthesis and integration of what isknown about the nature of information, thecharacteristics of complex communitiesand instructional design for onlinelearning.

4.4 WEBCASTS

Webcasts are a developing feature of thee-learning offer of an increasing numberof museums. Initially seen as a way ofintroducing the human dimension – ofcurator, researcher, expert – at far lesscost than film or TV, they provide anotherexample of synergy. Webcasts give thelearner the potential for interaction not(yet) otherwise available. Participants canask questions, feedback ideas orpreferences and engage in a raft of otheractivities. A pioneer in the museum realm,the Exploratorium offers a programme offrequent live webcasts while the NaturalHistory Museum – from its Darwin Centre– has an equally ambitious commitment tocreating an ever-increasing archive of itsdaily Darwin Centre Live programme. Inboth cases video and audio is streamedover the internet, although differentplatforms are utilised. (A recent highlightwas a three-way collaboration between thetwo institutions and the NHM’s fieldresearch station in Belize (www.exploratorium.edu/origins/belize-london/index.html).)

In many ways such webcasts are a naturaldevelopment of the kinds of publicpresentations given on-site, themselvesextensively supported by a range of digitaltechnologies. Presentation is a more aptterm than talk or lecture, althoughencounter or exchange might place further

emphasis on the aspiration of two-waycommunications, especially in sciencemuseums, where dialogue is replacingdeficit as a model: see also, for example,the Dana Centre at the Science Museum(www.danacentre.org.uk) or the BostonMuseum of Science (www.mos.org).

4.5 SUMMARY

Museum websites may have begun asdigital brochures and developedsubsequently into online representations ofthe physical museum, but they have notstopped there. Generally resisting thetemptation to use the latest special effectsfor their own sake, they show considerablediversity – of content, design, philosophyand navigational practice. The best areamong the best sites for learninganywhere on the internet. While notprofessing to play the same kind of role ascommercially produced games, manymuseum websites provide enjoyable andmeaningful experiences in which therepresentation of objects and artefacts andthe motivation and active engagement oflearners are clearly paramount.

5 THE FUTURE: MORE OF THE SAME… OR SOMETHINGCOMPLETELY DIFFERENT?

To what extent will museums continue touse digital technologies to facilitate thesame kinds of learning as earlier, moretraditional approaches? Will culturalinstitutions inevitably become hybrids ofthe real and the digital? How far can theygo in using new opportunities to fostercompletely new strategies? What kinds oflearning philosophy and rationale – explicit

36

webcasts givethe learner the

potential forinteraction not(yet) otherwise

available

SECTION 5

THE FUTURE: MORE OF THE SAME… OR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT?

or implicit – are discernable? What are thekey parameters that museums need toaddress when planning futureopportunities for learning with digitaltechnologies? Where do the tensions lie?What are the risks in making the wrongdecisions – or in making no decisions at allbeyond the maintenance of the status quo?

Museums began to develop electronicexhibitions and learning resources for anumber of reasons. They were able toshowcase a wider range of objects; theycould mount exhibitions on different – anddifficult – subjects, perhaps morespecialised or more topical; they couldincrease outreach and access; they couldattract more visitors to the physicalmuseum. These aims have already beenrealised. They have certainly moved wellbeyond the use of ICT to facilitate theschool visit or field trip (Schmidt 1997;Tinker et al 2002). Beginning to emergeare signs of a revolution far greater thanthat envisaged in A Netful of Jewels(National Museum Directors’ Conference1999) or in Building the Digital Museum(Smith 2000).

Since the proliferation of museums in thelate 19th century there have been manychanges (Table 5.1). The museum’srelationship with its visitors, with potentiallearners, has moved from (in)tolerancethrough encouragement (in search ofvisitor numbers) to empowerment (asphilosophies alter). Once the only raisond’être, objects – while no longer quite as

exotic – retain (or, possibly, have regained)their uniqueness. The most dramaticchange lies with digital technologies,initially feared as competitor, nowwelcomed as ally.

So, whither learning in the 21st centurymuseum? Abungu (1999) is clear that,“Museums of the 21st century are placesto explore, and to learn through discovery.The exhibits should not provide all theanswers, but be interactive and stimulatethe visitor to ask questions.”

Sheppard (2001) agrees with thesignificance, in terms both of discovery and of intellectual development:“Museums encourage discovery. Throughthe power of objects, they help visitors link their worlds to those of other timesand places. Through both content andcontext, museums teach visual thinkingskills, using tangible objects to helpvisitors understand and respect thediversity of their worlds.”

It has been convenient in this review todeal separately with learning on-site, inthe physical space of the museum, andonline – at home, school or wherever.However, as with the distinction betweenformal and informal learning, theboundaries are blurring (Fig 5.1) and it would be a mistake to make anyassumptions based on the traditional

37

Table 5.1 2020 vision (Hawkey 2001)

1880s 1990s 2020?

exotic marginal essentialtolerated encouraged empoweredn/a alternative integral

ObjectsLearnersICT

Figure 5.1 Persistent dichotomies orblurring the boundaries? (Hawkey 2001b)

museum/zoo/sciencecentre/botanic garden

school

internet

broadcast TV

formal

informal

real virtual

paradigms either of museums or of e-learning. It is certainly not sensible tothink that the future of learning with digitaltechnologies in museums and gallerieslies merely with some hybrid synthesis ofthe educational expertise of the classroomteacher with the functionality of any extantmuseum website.

Museums may be educational innovators,but virtual museums have evolvedprimarily as replications of the physicalstructure of museums rather than beingbased on their underlying and originatingprinciples (Goldman and Kaplan 2002).Indeed, “many museums are failingthemselves and their users by creating adigital pastiche of the physical museum,rather than seizing the opportunity toextend and enhance the museum learningexperience offered by effective use of ICT”(Prosser and Eddisford 2004). Mitchell(2002) suggests treating time and space asthe key variables (Table 5.2): are the visitorand the interpreter in the same place atthe same time? This analysis hasinteresting implications, for the keydifference between a real exhibition and avirtual exhibition is the location of thevisitor, as the interpreter is not presentsimultaneously in either case. Thisapproach also has the advantage ofremoving the real or virtual dilemma. It

helps us to recognise that 21st centurytechnologies enable digital materials tosupplement and enhance 3D objects.

For the future the need is for an entirelyfresh approach. Current mutations maygive rise to the rapid evolution of totallynew species that incorporate radically newways of thinking – about museums, aboutlearning and about digital technologies:

• individual exhibits (or components)rather than exhibitions

• learner input in development

• pathways rather than packages

• signposts rather than tracks

• new concepts of temporality andpermanence.

The integration of real and virtual willprovide further powerful learningopportunities. Jones (2002) develops someof the feedback features of mobileinterpretative methods into the notion ofthe self-learning hypermuseum. Here, thetracking of visitors and the analysis of theirbehaviour patterns is used not onlygenerically in helping to evaluate bothexhibits and interpretative materials, butalso to develop a differentiated andindividualised approach. The combinationof both real and virtual objects with artificialintelligence systems enables the museumitself to learn, to adapt to new visitors,based on the patterns, preferences andpredilections of previous visitors.

Knell (2003) argues that the object willinevitably remain the ultimate repository of knowledge, even if technologies doprovide possibilities for sophisticatedinterpretation. Museums may wish topresent their audiences with challenges,but they will still want control of the thrust

38

for the future the need is for

an entirely freshapproach

Table 5.2 Exhibits, interpretation, media(after Mitchell 2002)

local

live tour /personalinteraction

physical exhibit,with interpretationin ‘stored’medium

remote

livewebcast

onlineexhibit

synchronous

asynchronous

SECTION 5

THE FUTURE: MORE OF THE SAME… OR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT?

of the interpretation. Yet, as Freedman(2003) asserts, individual objects haveshifting and ambiguous meanings; theirsignificance is open to multipleinterpretations and highly dependent uponcontext. Key to an individual learner’sunderstanding is the opportunity toconstruct a large number of meaningfulconceptual connections. In a physicalexhibition this possibility is restricted tothe selection of the curator/designer; withan online exhibit learners are able toconstruct their own personalised narratives.

Personalisation is the way forward. Not the kind of personalisation represented by the supermarket loyalty card or thewebsite cookie. But personalisation ofinterpretation, of technology and oflearning. Personalisation of interpretationcould significantly enhance social andintellectual inclusion. Personalisation oftechnology could free both museums andlearners from many of the currentconstraints. Personalisation of learningcould finally facilitate an escape from thedeficit models so prevalent in educationalinstitutions and release untold potential.

“Let’s do the interesting bits first, then wemight not have time for the boring bits!”Said by a child to the adults accompanyingher on entering a major national museum,this highlights the need for personalisation.Just as no two museums are identical, noteven two exhibitions within a museum, soall museum visitors, all learners, aredifferent. Prior to the introduction of digitaltechnologies it was possible to distinguishonly between museums that presented asingle curatorial view and those – with thevisitor in mind – that assumed all visitorsto be well-educated good readers ofEnglish. Trying to layer content on textpanels, using different fonts or point sizes,

had serious implications for learning andfor design integrity.

Imagine a family group of two adults, withdifferent subject interests and preferredlearning styles, and two or three children,of various ages, abilities and attentionspans. With personalised applications ofdigital technologies, they can all share thesame experience – look at the sameartefact, engage with the same activity –but each can fine tune it in ways of his/herown choosing. This might mean a differentlanguage, presentation style, degree ofcomplexity, technical vocabulary etc. Itmight mean a choice of very differentapproaches to the same material:information or inquiry, instruction orinvestigation. Every exhibit has numerouslogical links to other exhibits, which maybe physically separated or only availabledigitally. Whether on-site or online (orboth) these links can be made real foreach individual. The group has a sharedexperience, enhanced by their ownchoices, which can then in turn be sharedwith each other.

The story of digital technologies ineducational contexts has often been one of a solution in search of a problem. Theprovision of learning opportunities inmuseums has frequently been driven bythe agendas of expert curators or of theformal education sector. Drawing on theexample provided by Inspiring Learning forAll (MLA 2004) it is time for educators totake the lead and to make demands ofboth museums and technologists. For,after all, learning in museums with digitaltechnologies is principally about learning.

39

it is time foreducators to takethe lead and tomake demandsof bothmuseums andtechnologists

BIBLIOGRAPHY

24 Hour Museum (2003). 2002 Sector WebStatistic Comparisons. Brighton: 24 HourMuseum. www.24hourmuseum.org.uk

Abungu, G (1999). Message from theDirector-General, National Museums ofKenya. www.museums.or.ke/dg.html

Anderson, D (1999). A Common Wealth:Museums in the Learning Age. London:Department of Culture, Media & Sport

Arnold, K (1996). Presenting science asproduct or process: museums and themaking of science, in: S Pearce (Ed),Exploring Science in Museums. London:Athlone Press

Bazley, M (1998). The internet: who needs it?Journal for Education in Museums, 19, 40-43

Boon, T (2000). The opportunities ofhybridity: making the modern world, a newhistorical gallery in a diverse institution.Paper presented at ScienceCommunication, Education, and theHistory of Science, British Society for theHistory of Science, London, 12-13 July

Bradburne, J (2001). A new strategicapproach to the museum and itsrelationship to society. MuseumManagement and Curatorship, 19(1), 75-84

Cameron, F (2001). Wired collections – thenext generation. Museum Managementand Curatorship, 19(3), 309-312

Caulton, T (1998). Hands-on Exhibitions.London: Routledge

CLMG (Campaign for Learning inMuseums & Galleries) (2002).www.campaignforlearning.org.uk

DfEE (Department for Education andEmployment)/QCA (Qualifications andCurriculum Authority) (2000). Information

and Communication Technology: theNational Curriculum for England KeyStages 1-4. London: The Stationery Office.www.nc.uk.net/index.html

DigiCULT Consortium (2003). LearningObjects from Cultural and ScientificHeritage Resources. Salzburg: DigiCULTConsortium. www.digicult.info

Dillon, P and Prosser, D (2003).Educational transactions in museumonline learning Initiatives. InternationalJournal on E-Learning, 2(1), 14-20.http://dl.aace.org/11549

Durbin, G (2002). Interactive learning in the British galleries, 1500–1900. Paperpresented at Interactive Learning inMuseums of Art and Design. London,17–18 May. www.vam.ac.uk/exploring/cons_research/interactive_learning

Durbin, G (2004). Learning from Amazonand eBay: user-generated material formuseum web sites, in: Bearman, D andTrant, J (Eds) Museums and the Web 2004:Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & MuseumInformatics. www.archimuse.com/mw2004/papers/durbin/durbin.html

Elinich, K (2004). The key to scienceinquiry: Keystone Online. Society forInformation Technology and TeacherEducation International Conference 2004,4637-4642. http://dl.aace.org/15197

European Commission (2002).Technological Landscapes for Tomorrow’sCultural Economy: Unlocking the Value ofCultural Heritage. DigiCULT report.Luxembourg: Official Publications ofEuropean Communities.www.digicult.info/pages/report.php

Falk, J and Dierking, L (2000). Learningfrom Museums: Visitor Experiences andthe Making of Meaning. Walnut Creek, CA:AltaMira Press

40

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Falk, J and Dierking, L (2002). LessonsWithout Limit: How Free-Choice Learningis Transforming Education. Walnut Creek,CA: AltaMira Press

Freedman, M (2003). Think different:combining online exhibitions and offlinecomponents to gain new understandings of museum permanent collections, in: D Bearman and J Trant (Eds), Museumsand the Web 2003: Selected Papers froman International Conference. Toronto: Archives & Museums Informatics.www.archimuse.com/mw2003/papers/freedman/freedman.html

Galani, A and Chalmers, M (2002). Can you see me? Exploring co-visiting betweenphysical and virtual visitors, in: D Bearmanand J Trant (Eds), Museums and the Web 2002: Selected Papers from anInternational Conference. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museums Informatics.www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/galani/galani.html

Gammon, B (2001). Assessing Learning inMuseum Environments: a Practical Guidefor Museums Evaluators. London: ScienceMuseum

Gardner, H (1991). The Unschooled Mind:How Children Think and how SchoolsShould Teach. New York: Basic Books

Gardner, H (2004). What we Do and Don’tKnow About Learning. Dædalus, 133(1), 5-12

Geser, G (2003). Introduction and overview,in: DigiCULT Consortium, Learning Objectsfrom Cultural and Scientific HeritageResources. Salzburg: DigiCULTConsortium. www.digicult.info

Gilbert, JK and Stocklmayer, S (2001). The design of interactive exhibits topromote the making of meaning. MuseumManagement and Curatorship, 19(1), 41-50

Giorgini, F and Cardinali, F (2003). Fromcultural learning objects to virtual learningenvironments for cultural heritageeducation: the importance of usingstandards, in: DigiCULT Consortium,Learning Objects from Cultural andScientific Heritage Resources. Salzburg:DigiCULT Consortium. www.digicult.info

Goldman, M and Kaplan, D (2002).Museum education in an age of wirelesscommunication. World Conference onEducational Multimedia, Hypermedia andTelecommunications 2002, 688-689.http://dl.aace.org/10188

Gregory, R (1989). Turning minds on toscience by hands-on exploration: thenature and potential of the hands-onmedium, in: Nuffield Foundation, SharingScience: Issues in the Development of theInteractive Science and TechnologyCentres. London: British Association

Hall, J (2004). Telling Old Stories NewWays: Using Technology to CreateInteractive Learning Experiences.Washington: Smithsonian Center forEducation and Museum Studies.http://museumstudies.si.edu/hall.pdf

Hawkey, R (1998). Exploring andinvestigating with the internet: virtually asgood as the real thing? Journal forEducation in Museums, 19, 16-19

Hawkey, R (1999). Learning from objectson-line: virtue and reality. British Journalof Educational Technology, 30(1), 73-77

Hawkey, R (2000). Real education fromvirtual objects: active learning in scienceon-line, in: R Robson (Ed), Proceedings ofM/SET 2000. Charlottesville, VA:Association for the Advancement ofComputing in Education

Hawkey, R (2001a). Innovation, inspiration,interpretation: museums, science andlearning. Ways of Knowing Journal, 1(1), 23-31

41

Hawkey, R (2001b). Science beyond school:representation or re-presentation?, in: ALoveless and V Ellis (Eds), ICT, Pedagogyand the Curriculum: Subject to Change.London: Routledge/Falmer

Hawkey, R (2002a). The lifelong learninggame: season ticket or free transfer?Computers & Education, 38(1-3), 5-20

Hawkey, R (2002b). Walking with woodlice:biodiversity on-line and in the field, in: DWatson and J Andersen (Eds), Networkingthe Learner: Computers in Education.Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Heath, C and vom Lehn, D (2002).Misconstruing interactivity. Paperpresented at Interactive Learning inMuseums of Art and Design. London,17–18May. www.vam.ac.uk/exploring/cons_research/interactive_learning

Hein, G (1995). The constructivist museum.Journal for Education in Museums, 16, 21-23

Hein, G (1998). Learning in the Museum.London: Routledge

Hein, H (1990). The Exploratorium: TheMuseum as Laboratory. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press

Hemmings, T, Clarke, K, Francis, D, Marr,L and Randall, D (2001). Situatedknowledge and virtual education: somereal problems with the concept of learningand interactive technology, in: I Hutchbyand J Moran-Ellis (Eds), Children,Technology and Culture: The Impacts ofTechnologies on Children’s Everyday Lives.London: Routledge/Falmer

Hepple, S (2000). How might elLearningreally change educational policy andpractice?, in: Johnson, M (Ed), EducationFutures. London: Design Council/RSA

Hepple, S (2001). Preface, in: A Lovelessand V Ellis (Eds), ICT, Pedagogy and theCurriculum: Subject to Change. London:Routledge/Falmer

Hinton, M (1999). The Victoria and AlbertMuseum Silver Galleries II: learning styleand interpretation preference in theDiscovery Area. Museum Management andCuratorship, 17(3), 253-294

Hooper-Greenhill, E, Dodd, J, Moussouri,T, Jones, C, Pickford, C, Herman, C,Morrison, M, Vincent, J and Toon, R(2003). Measuring the outcomes andimpact of learning in museums, archivesand libraries. End of project paper for theLearning Impact Research Project.Leicester: Research Centre for Museumsand Galleries. www.mla.gov.uk/action/learnacc/00insplearn.asp

Hsi, S (2003). A study of user experiencesmediated by nomadic web content in amuseum. Journal of Computer AssistedLearning, 19 (3), 308-319

Johnson, C and Quin, M (2004). Learning inscience and discovery centres - appendix,in: Science Center Impact Study.Washington, DC: ASTC, in press

Jones, S (2002). The HyperMuseum. Paperpresented at the 3rd Science Centre WorldCongress, Canberra, Australia, February

Kirk, J (2001). Accessibility and newtechnology in the museum, in: D Bearmanand J Trant (Eds), Museums and the Web2001: Selected Papers from an InternationalConference. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives &Museums Informatics. www.archimuse.com/mw2001/papers/kirk/kirk.html

Kirriemuir, J and McFarlane, A (2004).Literature Review in Games and Learning.Bristol: Futurelab

Klages, E (1995). When the Right Answeris a Question: Students as Explainers atthe Exploratorium. San Francisco, CA:Exploratorium

Knell, S (2003). The shape of things to come:museums in the technological landscape.Museum and Society, 1(3), 132-146

42

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Littlejohn, A and Higgison, C (2003). AGuide for Teachers (e-Learning Series No3). York: Learning and Teaching SupportNetwork (LTSN)

Loverance, R (2001). Playing on familiarity:online learning at KS2 from Egypt toMesopotamia. Paper presented atCAL2001, University of Warwick, April 2-4

mda (2001). Building Digital Content: aStudy in the Selection, Presentation andUse of Museum Web Content for Schools.London: mda. www.mda.org.uk/bdc_conc.htm

Miles, RS, Alt, MB, Gosling, DC, Lewis, BNand Tout, AF (1982). The Design ofEducational Exhibits. London: George,Allen & Unwin

Miller, K and Clay, J (1999). Halted bycustoms: the potential for border crossingwith/in developing ‘scientific literacy’.Paper presented at British EducationalResearch Association conference,University of Sussex, September

Mitchell, W (2002). The museum: abuilding type in transition. Paper presentedat Museums and the Web, Boston, April

MLA (Museums, Libraries and ArchivesCouncil) (2004). Inspiring Learning For All.London: MLA. www.inspiringlearningforall.gov.uk/utilities/references/default.aspx

Moussouri T (2000). Research Digest.Leicester: Research Centre for Museumsand Galleries. www.centresforcuriosity.org.uk/pages/content/index.asp

Moussouri T (2002). A Context for theDevelopment of Learning Outcomes inMuseums, Archives and Libraries. London:Resource/Leicester: Research Centre forMuseums and Galleries.www.mla.gov.uk/action/learnacc/lirp.asp

National Museum Directors’ Conference(1999). A Netful of Jewels: New Museumsin the Learning Age. London: NationalMuseum Directors’ Conference

NFO System Three (2003). Young Peopleand ICT 2002. Coventry: British EducationalCommunications and Technology Agency(Becta). www.becta.org.uk

Perry, DL (2002). Profound learning:stories from museums. EducationalTechnology, 42(2), 21-25

Proctor, N and Burton, J (2003).Multimedia tour pilots 2002-2003.Proceedings of the mLearn Conference,London, May 19-20.www.tate.org.uk/modern/multimediatour/phase1_keyfindings.pdf

Proctor, N and Tellis, C (2003). The stateof the art in museum handhelds in 2003,in: D Bearman and J Trant (Eds), Museumsand the Web 2003: Selected Papers froman International Conference. Toronto:Archives & Museums Informatics

Prosser, D and Eddisford, S (2004). Virtualmuseum learning, in: G Marks (Ed),Information Technology in ChildhoodEducation Annual. Norfolk, VA: Associationfor the Advancement of Computers inEducation, in press

Resnick, M (2002). Rethinking learning inthe digital age, in: G Kirkman (Ed), TheGlobal Information Technology Report:Readiness for the Networked World. New York: Oxford University Press.http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/archive/papers/mres-wef.pdf

Resource, The Council for Museums,Archives and Libraries (2001). MuseumLearning On Line. London: Resource.www.resource.gov.uk/action/learnacc/muslearn/start.asp

43

Schaller, DT, Allison-Bunnell, S andChambers, MB (2002). How do you like tolearn? Comparing user preferences andvisit length of educational web sites, in: DBearman and J Trant (Eds), Museums andthe Web 2002: Selected Papers from anInternational Conference. Pittsburgh, PA:Archives & Museums Informatics.www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/schaller/schaller.html

Schmidt, E (1997). Learning from electronicfield trips. Journal of Museum Education,22(1), 10-11

Science Museum (2003). Requirements forall Science Museum Computer Exhibits.London: Science Museum. www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/documentation

Sefton-Green, J (2004). Literature Review inInformal Learning with Technology OutsideSchool. Bristol: Futurelab

Semper, R and Spasojevic, M (2002).Devices and a wireless web-based networkto extend the museum experience, in: DBearman and J Trant (Eds), Museums andthe Web 2002: Selected Papers from anInternational Conference. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museums Informatics.www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/semper/semper.html

Serrell, B (1996). Exhibit Labels: anInterpretive Approach. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press

Sharples, M (2000). The design of personalmobile technologies for lifelong learning.Computers & Education, 34, 177-193

Sharples, M (2003). Disruptive devices:mobile technology for conversationallearning. International Journal ofContinuing Engineering Education andLifelong Learning, 12, 5/6, 504-520

Shaw, M (Ed) (1995). Highways for Learning:an Introduction to the Internet for Schoolsand Colleges. Coventry: National Council forEducational Technology

Sheppard, B (2001). Museums, Librariesand the 21st Century Learner. Washington,DC: Institute of Museum and LibraryServices.www.imls.gov/whatsnew/21cl/21clintro.htm

Smith, L (Ed) (2000). Building the DigitalMuseum: a National Resource for theLearning Age. London: mda

Sparacino, F (2002). The museumwearable: real-time sensor-drivenunderstanding of visitors’ interests forpersonalized visually-augmented museumexperiences, in: D Bearman and J Trant(Eds), Museums and the Web 2002:Selected Papers from an InternationalConference. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives & Museums Informatics.www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/sparacino/sparacino.html

Tawney, DA (1979). CAL and learning, in: DATawney (Ed), Learning Through Computers.London: Macmillan

The Natural History Museum (2000). Web Strategy. London: The Natural History Museum

Tinker, B, Staudt, C and Walton, D(2002).The handheld computer as fieldguide. @Concord, 6(1), 10.http://concord.org/newsletter/2002winter/monday_lesson.html

Wilson, G (2004). Multimedia tourprogramme at Tate Modern, in: D Bearmanand J Trant (Eds), Museums and the Web2004: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives& Museum Informatics. www.archimuse.com/mw2004/papers/wilson/wilson.html

44

BIBLIOGRAPHY

About Futurelab

Futurelab is passionate about transforming the way people learn. Tapping into the hugepotential offered by digital and other technologies, we are developing innovative learningresources and practices that support new approaches to education for the 21st century.

Working in partnership with industry, policy and practice, Futurelab:

• incubates new ideas, taking them from the lab to the classroom• offers hard evidence and practical advice to support the design and use of innovative

learning tools• communicates the latest thinking and practice in educational ICT• provides the space for experimentation and the exchange of ideas between the

creative, technology and education sectors.

A not-for-profit organisation, Futurelab is committed to sharing the lessons learnt fromour research and development in order to inform positive change to educational policyand practice.

Futurelab1 Canons RoadHarboursideBristol BS1 5UHUnited Kingdom

tel +44 (0)117 915 8200fax +44 (0)117 915 8201info@futurelab.org.uk

www.futurelab.org.uk

Registered charity 1113051

Creative Commons

© Futurelab 2006. All rights reserved; Futurelab has an open access policy which encourages circulation ofour work, including this report, under certain copyright conditions - however, please ensure that Futurelab isacknowledged. For full details of our Creative Commons licence, go to www.futurelab.org.uk/open_access.htm

Disclaimer

These reviews have been published to present useful and timely information and to stimulate thinking anddebate. It should be recognised that the opinions expressed in this document are personal to the author andshould not be taken to reflect the views of Futurelab. Futurelab does not guarantee the accuracy of theinformation or opinion contained within the review.

This publication is available to download from the Futurelab website –www.futurelab.org.uk/research/lit_reviews.htm

Also from Futurelab:

Literature Reviews and Research ReportsWritten by leading academics, these publications provide comprehensive surveys ofresearch and practice in a range of different fields.

HandbooksDrawing on Futurelab's in-house R&D programme as well as projects from around theworld, these handbooks offer practical advice and guidance to support the design anddevelopment of new approaches to education.

Opening Education SeriesFocusing on emergent ideas in education and technology, this series of publicationsopens up new areas for debate and discussion.

We encourage the use and circulation of the text content of these publications, whichare available to download from the Futurelab website – www.futurelab.org.uk/research.For full details of our open access policy, go to www.futurelab.org.uk/open_access.htm.

FUTURELAB SERIES

REPORT 9

ISBN: 0-9544695-9-3Futurelab © 2004