BridanTheory-Practice Divide

BY M E L I N D A M. MAYER

Today's art museum educators face a challenge that is unprecedentedin the field. Where not too long ago little was known regarding how

people learn in the museum, now multiple theories have emerged (Falk& Dierking 1992,2000; Hein 1998; Roberts, 1997;Yenawine, 1988). Newtheories breed new practices. The dilemma for art museum educators isto select the theory and craft the practice that will promote meaningfullearning experiences for visitors, who can be anyone from children tosenior citizens. TMS predicament of aligning theory

and practice points to the maturation ofthe field of ail nuisetmi education, whicliwas criticized in the 1980s for its lack ofgrounding in educational theory (Eisner &Dohbs. 1980). Now, tlie contemporary artmuseum educator has access to \'arioustheories of learning as well as emergingteaching strategies. Although K-12 arteducators experienced sliifts in notionsof learning during the last decades of the20th century, the focus in tliis article is artmusemii educ^ation.

Tl\e challenge for K-12 art educatorsand ait museum educat«i*s is different(iue to the more stnictured character ofschool leamhig and the nanower range ofages. On what basis, thereforo. shoukl art,musoxnn educators decide tlie theoreticalfoundation of theirteaching? Ont e havingmade that choice, what are ihe difficultiesinvolved in translating that, theory intogood practice? Before taking up thesequestions, some c-ontext regaidingteacliing in the art museum is needed.

in ContemporaryArt Musetnn Education

M A R C H 2 0 0 5 / A R T E D U C A T I O N

Prior to developing knowledgeregarding how people le;ini in museums,art museum educators focused theirattention more on what and how theyshonid teach lh;ui (MI the learningprocesses of museum visitors, Tliecontent of art musfuiinteachiiig seemedobvious—the collection. Providingeducatioiiid prognuns tliat elucidatedand illuniinatod the works of arl in tliecollections was the basis oi teaching(Exc.etUmre a:rid Equity, 1992). Artmuseum educators were expected topass iUong the ail historical infonnationprovi(ied to them by the museum'sresearchers, the curators. The disciplineof art histoiy, therefore, played a deter-mining role in the content of educationalexperiences in the art museum. T(j figureout how to tt'ach, ml nuiseiun edncatoi'slooked to sotirces beyond art history.

Throughout (he 1970s iuid 1980s, artmuseuLii educatoi-s increasingly expUiredsuch fields as conmiunic ation theoiy andeducational psychology in order to createeffcclive. interactive teaching techniques.Whether developing questioning strate-gies designed to stimulate higher orderthinking skills or differentiating galleryteacliing for the nuilt ipif intelligences(Gardner, 19SJ) of ail musoum visitors,tiiese educators strove to teach not onlyabout their collections, but also in waysthai made tlie experience (it the museumpersonally inoiuiingfnl to visitors.Museum education progriuns jjrovidedbackground infonnation on the aitist andwork, inlroduced cultunil contexts,detine(! usoful voeahuliiry, cultivated thelooking skills of visitom. facilitiiled inler-pretation, and enabled visitors to makeconnections between iheir lives and tlieariworks (Yenawine, 19H8). Wliilearlniuseuin educat ore focus('<l their i)racticeon what to teach and how to teach,researctiers attempted to identify howpeople leajn in nuiseums.' As WILS lhecase in an educat ion at large, throughoutlhe late 198()s and into the 1990s Uieresults of research appeared in theburgeoning literature of museumeducation. Here, then, is an ovemew ofcurreul llieories and strategies ofniuseiuu learning.

ConstructivismA theory ofleanting that is

influence among museum educators isconstnictivisni. Writers and rosoarchei-sin many areas of edncalion draw upon thework of such educaUonal psychologistsas John Dewey, Je;m Piaget, .uiti LevVygotsky iJi lormulating constnictivism.The most thorough i)resentation of aconstnictivist theory for museums isGeorge Hein's/vmrHmff in the Museum(1998). Hein writes that\'isi(ors <-onstructknowledge by making connectionsbetween tJieir lives and the objects theyencounter in museums. Moreover, themeanings visitors derive from Iheirexjjerienc e in the museum, which ciui bestimulated by all aspects of the museum,not just the art., are determined not by theaims of exhibition designers, but by thegoals the visitore hold. Even in the mostoveitiy didactic exhibition, theknowledge visitors walk away with ispereonally, not curalori;illy, generated.Hein advocates that both educators andexliibition designei's de\ elop practiceslliat facilitate this nonn<U learningprocess.

IVo essential features iu*e requisite toconstnictivist learning. First, the paitici-pjuit nuisl be aciively engaged in the|p;uiiing process. Second, what is leamedmust be confunied not tluoughextenialcriteria of the discipline, smrh Jis arthistoiy, but through the visitor's ownsense-making mechanism. Relevance is intlio life of the beholder.

Constnictivist museum pedagogyprovides visitore with many differentinteractive ieaniing opportunities throughwhich visitors could make meaningfulconnections bet ween objects and theirown lives. Experiences that invited .specu-lation, exi>erimentation :uid coming toconclusions also would be provided.Visual Thinking Strati'gies (VTS), theapi>roach to leaching with works of artinitiated by Abigail I lousen ;uid PhilipYenawino is an example of a constjoic-livist melliod of learning in t]\e artmuseum.

Fostering AestheticDevelopment

Ilou-scns(1 its?)int4?restin the natureof kvirning in art, museimis dates back tothe 1970s. Tln'ough extensive research onaesthetic loaming sho developed a stagetheory regarding aesthetic devel()|iruenl.llousen and Yenawine used this theory tocreate Visual Tliinkuig Stratejyes.Through guided questioning, VTSdevelops lhe [uiiseum visitors' visuailiteracy—tlie ability to inter[iret relation-ships, content iUid meaning in works ofart, (Yenawinc, 2(M)S). The goal of leachingthrough VTS is to enable visitore lo buildtheir own understandings of art works.Houseii and Yenawine believe that mostart museum visitors, young or old, ju-ebeginning viewere—Stage 1 (A<'( ountive)and Stage 11 (Constniclive). Supportingwhat these viewere nalurally do wheninteri)reling images plus enabling them togrow shouki be lhe objective of t lie art.museum erlucator in selecl ing and.sequencing ariworks, employing theappropriatequestions, and facilitatingobservation-based refleciion. As withconstnictivism. learners are active as theyconsider multiple points of view and useevidence to continn observations. Asdoes Hein (1!:)98), Housen and Yeiiawineuse the writings of t ognitive psychologistLe\- Vygot.sky conceming I he sot iaidimension of learning to inform VTS.

What is learned must beconfirmed not throughexternal criteria of thediscipline, such as arthistory, but through thevisitor's own sense-making mechanism.

A R T E D U C A T I O N / M A R C H 2 0 0 5

While Housen's and Yenawine'sresearch on VTS is ongoing, their recentstudies (Housen, 2002) provide evidenceof transfer—students used theirincieasmg visual lileracy in olherdisciplines. \TS curriculum is appliedprimarily in scliools, yet art museumeflucat ors appear to be adopting it morebroadly Ihan they did when VTS first wasintroduced Inihefipld in the 1990s.

The Contextual Model ofLearning

Tlw contribution of John FalkandL>iin Dierking (1992,2000) to thediscoiuse on museum leaming is twofold.Firet, they exi>anded oui' undei-staiidingof the context of leiirning in the museumI )eyond Ihe object through creating theContextual Model of learning (CML).Second, having aiticiilated this model,Falk and Dierking are among the firstrest'iu chei-s to propose that, visitorsengage in free-choice leaming when in\he museum enviromnent.

Tlie CML grew out of the research andmuseum evaluation studies conducted byFalk, Dierking. and their associates sincethe 1980s. CML frames visitor leaming asoccuningtlirough the overlapping andinteracling contexts of the personal,sociot-ultural and physical. Museiunvisitors bring with them their ownpersonjil context of experience.A<ldilionaliy, while museums presenlcullural content and are experiencedwithin cultural frameworks, manynnist'uni visitors experience the museninwith friends, family, or a gioup. Thiscombination of cultiual mid social experi-ence wit hill the museum constitutes tliesociocultural context. The physicalcontext of the museum can inchide every-Iliing from the building and ils galleries tot lie parking lot, gift shop, restaurant, andbathrooms. These Ihree contexts providethe niatxix tlirongli which visitors leam inIho museum and should be taken intoaccount in educational progranmiing.

FiUk and Dierking are key figures indefining and theorizing free-<'hoiceleaming for museum educators. Likeresiding a newsi)Uper oi' surfing theIntemet, the leaming that visitors acquirein the musemii is directed tluougli their

Three simultaneouslyoccurring dialogues—those with partners,within the privacy ofone's own thoughts, andwith the works of artthemselves—stimulatelearning while lookingat artworks.own choices, motivations, and interests.In some respects free-choice leamingsupplants the notion of inlbnniil leaming,which once characterized musemneducation and distinguished it from theformal learning of schools.

Constructivism and free-choiceleaming are quite compatible. One waymuseum echic-ators sometimesdistinguish the two is by notmg that amuseum educator migiit have establishedobjectives in constmctivist teaching thatvisitois pursue through their own means,whereas the gcjals and objectives offree-choice leaming aie completelydetemiined by the visitors.

Literary TheorySomew hat par allel in effect, yet more

recent and untried than constmctivism, isthe influence of literaiy theory onmuseum education. WitJi the influx ofliteraiy Iheoiy into the field comesanother set of choices for educators tomake in crafting practice. In FmmKnowledge to Nnrmlivp (1997). LisaRoberts presents a thoroughly I'esearchedand clear statement of this approach formuseum education.

Tlie long-held notion that the puri)oseof museums is to reveal liistorical infor-mation tJirough tlie display of objects istumed on its head in Roberta's book. Shepoints out that tlie knowledge impartedin the museum always was a story, an"official" story. Roberts contends,however, that leaming occurs wlienvisit ors create their own narratives based

on what they see. lnteri>retation is shaped;is much by tlie life experience visitorebiing to viewing objects as by the worksthemselves, not unlike constmctivisttheory. Wolfgang Iser's work in readerresponse theoiy, a branch of literarytheory that claims the reader rather thantlie author detemiines meaning, played asignificant role in Roberls's view ofmuseum leaming. Drawing upon literarytheory also brings Robeils work intocoiTespondence with the new arthistories (Moxey, 1991; Bal & Bryson,1994),

In the closing chapter oiProinKiwwIMge to Nnnntiiie, Roberts (1997)challenges educators to consider theimplications ofthusnanative approach.What me the consequences to teaching inthe nuiseum? What do visitors need tohelp them construct inemiingfiil nana-tives? Although she does not suggestspecific teaching techniques, Robeilsinvites museum professionals to considerthe use of practices tliat make apparentthe museimi's role in presenting the narra-tives they pill foi'ward. Moreover, shesuggests that the simple recognition thatthese institutional narratives are notcomplete could ojien teaching practice totlie fuller paiiicipation of tlie museumvisitor.

Emerging ApproachesSome recent approache.s to leaming

in the museum also draw upon literarytheory. McKay and Monteverde (2003)present the notion of dialogic looking asan altemative to the facilitated educa-tional experiences offered to museumvisitors. While it woiild appear tJialdialogic looking is more of a strategy thana theory of leaming, it is biised onBakhtin's theory of heterglossia or many-voicedness, which comes out of socio-linguistics. When applied to viewingworks of art in museums, classrooms ordaily life, dialogic looking is a three-foldapproach to nteaning-making. In thisapproach, throe siniultiuieously occurringdialogues—those witli partners, withmthe privac-y of one's own thoughts, andwith the works of art themselves—stimulate leaming while looking attutworks. I

A R C H 2 0 0 5 / A R T E D U C A T I O N

Uke Roberts. Reese (2003) andGaroian (2001) propose a narnitiveapproach to loaming in the museiun.They write of viewers creating meaningas they "peribrm" the museum. Fivecontexts are performed in an inlei1cxtu;\l<lialogue when visitors constmct naira-tives in art. musemn exhibitions. Visitorsperfomi (1) peiTeption, (2) autobiography,{'i) museuru culture, (4) the institution,and (5) interdisciplinmily. Vi.sitorsareempowered to both create their ownmeanings and reflect critically upttn thosebeing present ed to them in exhibitionsthrough this pedagogy.

In addition to the theories of leamingidentified above, museum educators aredefining adult leaming as distinct fromchild leaming (Sachatello-Sawyer et al.,20Q2,). Like I heii' colleagues in theschools, ml musetim educators also wmitto develop leaching strategies that ai'eresponsive to diverse audiences in termsof culture, ethnicity, gender, age, anddisability. With this plethora of tJieoriesmid strategies to choose from, knowinghow to teach in the museum is not aneasy task.

Visitors come to themuseum by choice andstay for the length oftime they choose. Yet,the bridge traversingthe theory-practicedivide also maybevisitor choice.

Calling the QuestionHow should ail museum educators

decide upon what bjisis to craft theirteaching practice? In reflecting on thechoices, some common factors emergethat could guide educators. Theresem'chers and educators whodeveloped the theories mid strategiespresented above drew from constructivistmifi literary theory. Both of these areasassert the centrality of tlie person in thelearning process. Museum leamingshould not be discipline-centered, butviewer-centered. Furtiiemiore, the visitorshould be an active pmiicipmit inmeiming making.

The use of constmctivism by K-12generalist and art specialist teachers aswell as the influence of the new mlhistories on curatoi s could also be factorsin guiding praclicc. Wlien giving toure toschool groups, art museum educatorscould align t heir methods with teachersthrougli constructivism. Altematively,•"new" ari historians write about themultiple narratives that viewei-s createwhen looking at artworks. An art museumeducator who devises teaching luethodsthat foster multiple narratives bringsstructural consistency to interpretationand teaching within the institution. Theimportance of convei'sation in memiingmaking is ini|)ortant in the theories orstralegies put forwmd by Housen andYenawine, Roberts, and McKay andMonteverde. By favoring conversaiioiijuiiong visitors in museums rather tlimiwith exiM'rt.s, these educator recognizetliat nteaningful leaming occiu^ whenvisitors' inteipietations build on theconunents and conversatioiLS of a socialgroup, as Vygotsky asserted.

Altliough Falk and Dierking draw uponVygotsky s work when they discuss thesocioculturiU context, it is noteworthythat free-choice lemiiing is theorizedbased on sm;ill peer or fmnily groupings,rather t hmi on lai"ge organized umrs suchas school field trips. Falk and Dierking'syears of visitor study in museums of allkinds revealed that most visitors come tomuseums in small groups. This habitindicates that free-choice leaming strate-gies would be a good choice for walk-in

visitors. McKay and Monteverde'sdial(.)gic looking also appears suitable inthese circumstances.

Falk mid Dierking (JOOO) as well asRoberts (lf)97) remind us that visitors goto museums for nimiy reasons, hut enter-tainment mid ei\joyment is a primarymotivating tact or They represent visitslo museums as a leisure activity.Furthermore, these resem'cliers asserttiial although visitors vvmil lln'niu.seuniexperience to be meinonihir. they alsowani ittobeenioyahle. It would behoovenuiseuni educators, therefore, to considei'how the I heories they subscribe to ;uulthe methods they devise offer visitors apleasurable exiierience while t hey leai n.Although most of the theories mid strate-gies presented here are complex, they puithe nuiseiuii visitor righl in t he middle ufmemiing making. Such ilu-oiies promiseenticing educational exjieriences thatmake it possible for visitors to producetheir own insights iind discoveries aboutthemselves, life, and art

Bridging Theory and PracticeWhat are Ihe diilicuil ies invoKcd in

Iransliiting tlieoiy into good praclicc oncethe choice of learning theories has beenmade? While it would seem tlial Iherelationship of tlieoiy and practice in artmuseum educaliou .should lie in' i'[i;ii;ilil('—theory infonuing|)raclicciiiiil liKniir.'reforming Iheoiy—Ihey can become qtiileLlistmit from each other. Wiicn educatorsembrace new theoretical positions, it canhe extremely challenging to reconceptu-alize comforialiie mid on-|)riU'ticedteadiing metiiods, redefine concepts, andinternigate one's long held beliefs andvalues regarding wliat is imporiiinl loteach. Layering a new sel of goals andobjectives on old iiicl hods does not traiis-fomi teaching or lem ning. As a result, awidening chasm can emerge betweentheoiy and practice mid the promise ofexciting new leaming oppoil unities forvisitors cmi be losf. Negotiating thisdivide can be both peqalexing anddeceptive.

A R T E D U C A T I O N / M A R C H 2 0 0 5

To further complicate the museumeducatoi-s' challenge is the way visitorscome to the museum. Unlike the stmc-t nred regularity of learning in schools, artmuseiun education occurs only occasion-ally. Even a class tlekl trip to an artmuseum generally occurs only once ayear (Fiilk & Dierking, 2000). As Falk andDierking remind us tlirough I he name oft he approach they embrace, museumlearning is lai-gely a matter of free choice.\'isitors come to tiie museum by choice;uid stay for the length of time theychoose. Yet, the bridge traversing thethetxy-practice divide also may be visitorchoice. Good theory .should lead lomuseum education practices that enablevisitore to make illuminating midpi'i-sonally meaningful choices wheninteipreting works of mt.

Mf'iinda M. Mayer is AssistantFmfussor in thr Division of ArtEducation ami Art History, UniversityofNmih Texas, Denton. E-mail:

R E F E R E N C E SBaJ, M. and Bryson. N. (1991). Semiotics and

ai1 history. Tlic Art Bulletin, 73(2),

Eisner, E. W, and Dobbs, S. M. (1986). ITieuncertain profession: Observations onthe state of mnseum educatiim in twentyAmerieaii art museums. (A reportpublished by Tlie Getty Center forPlducalion in the Arts.)

Falk. J. H. Hi Dierking, L D. (1992"). Theruuseum. e.:i']>ericnce. Waslungton, DC:Whalesback Books.

Falk, J, H. & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Leamingfrom museums: Visitor esTierierices andthe making of meaning. WaJnut Creek, CA:AltaMira Press.

(iai dner, II. (198;J). Frames of mind: The.theory of mult iple inteUigences. New York:Basic Books.

Garoian, CR. (20(11). Performing the museum.Studies in Art Education. 42 (:3). 234-248.

Hein, G. E. (lEft*S). Jj-aniinti in the mu.spum.London and Npw York: Routledge.

Housen. A- (t987). Tiiree methods lor under-standing museum audiences. Museum.SfHf/JRsJovuTjfl/. Spring-Summer, l-U.

Housen, A. C. (2002). Aesthetic thought,critical thinking and iL-s transfer. yl/7.sfirtf/Learning Jou mat. 18 {I),

MeKay, S. W. & Monteverde. S. R. (200:)J.Dialogic looking: Beyond the mediatedexperience. Art Education. 56 (1), 40-45.

Moxey, K. (liKM) Tliepractice of thcort/:Pofitructnnitism. rutturid politics, and arthi.story. Ithaca and U^idon: CornellUniversity Press.

Reese. E. B. (201«). Art takes me thert-Engaging Iho niu rat ives of cominunitymenibei-s through interfiretive exhibitionprocesses luid prognuuniing. .4)7Education. 56[i),-iS-m.

Robi-n-s, L. (1997). Fivm knowtedge toimrratim: Educators and ttw elMnt/ingmusemn. Washington. DC: SnuthsonianInstitution Press.

Sachatello-Sawyer, B., el al. (2m2) Aduitmuseum iirugriini.'^: De.^igningmeauiufifut ciyeriettces. Walnut Cieek.CA: AltiMira Press.

Yenawinc. P, (1988). Master teaching in iui artmuseum. \i\Pattenis inprnctice^HKi'l).Wasltington, DC: Museuni EducationRoundtable.

Yenawine, P. (2tK);l). Jump start ing visualliteracy, Art Education, 5(j(l), ti-12.

E N D N O T E1 Rcsean-hers of nuiscum leaming come fromall parts of the museiun wc»rld— st icneecenters, histoi^ museums, children's museums,zoos, botanic gardens, art museums, etc.

M A R C H 2 0 0 5 / A R T E D U C A T I O N