George E. Hein

More than a field trip: science programmes for elementary school groups at museums

Science learning in non‐school settings is receiving increased attention both in practice and in the research literature. Schools increasingly turn to museums, zoos, aquaria and other science centres for assistance in educating students and these institutions are questioning how to make their exhibits and educational programmes more effective. The Program Evaluation and Research Group at Lesley College (PERG) has evaluated informal, non‐school science programmes for school‐age children for the past 15 years. In this paper we review our work, compare our findings with other published literature about elementary school programmes in extra‐school science institutions, and discuss issues that apply to all such programmes from the perspective of these institutions. * The authors wish to thank Emily Romney and the members of the Museum Research Group at Lesley College especially Sue Cohen, Linda Snow Dockser, Candace Heald and Judith Kelley for their thoughtful comments on this article

In Their Own Words: Voices of Teens in Museums

more than 25 years. She was YouthALIVE project coordinator while director of education at the Childrens Museum of Maine, Portland, and she still uses the knowledge she gained from that project when teaching college-level history. Stories told by young people involved in museum programs provide a rich record of the difference museums can make in human lives. In 1999, we analyzed autobiographical stories collected by the science and childrens museums that made up the YouthALIVE network. Through their stories, the young people teenagers in junior or senior high school describe their museum experiences and offer insights into their lives. Every story is rich in details about what these adolescents learned from

Progressive Education and Museum Education

Abstract Museum education and progressive education both arose at the same historical period, approximately a century ago, and share not only a common history but also common features. Both emphasize pedagogy based on experience, interaction with objects, and inquiry. They also share a social vision of serving the entire society, including underserved audiences. The work of Anna Billings Gallup at The Brooklyn Childrens Museum and Louise Connolly at the Newark Museum, exemplary museum educators during the early decades of the 20th century, illustrate the pedagogic and social aims of museum education in the progressive tradition. Their accomplishments can inspire us today.

A Review of “Researching Experiences: Exploring Processual and Experimental Methods in Cultural Analysis”

Reviewed by George E. Hein Visitor studies, including both research on visitor behavior in museums and evaluation of exhibitions and programs, is an emerging field. Some address it through the lens of learning in museums; others refer to visitor experiences. These different vocabularies mirror the range of theoretical bases for carrying out empirical studies in this specialized corner of applied social science. Monograph-length discussions of theory in this field are rare, although articles and introductions to edited collections provide constant reference to the underlying assumptions that govern a particular approach. Thus, a book devoted to Researching Experiences—even with the inclusion of an awkward adjective (not a neologism!) in the subtitle—should receive attention in this journal. The 1980s yielded several books that addressed visitor studies. Loomis’s (1987) thorough treatment of visitor studies was informative but cautious about theory. The American Association of Museums’ reprints of some pioneering studies by Melton and colleagues as “Museum Classics” (Melton, 1988; Melton et al., 1988) are of interest because they illustrate both the strengths and limits of “objective” behaviorist approaches (primarily based on observations or written tests rather than inherently “subjective” interviews) and because of their definitions of attracting power and holding power and detailed descriptions of tracking. Roger Miles et al.’s (1988) solid effort to apply rational methodology to visitor studies in order to improve exhibitions at the British Museum of Natural History was a milestone (partly because he published a detailed description of his work) and has been recognized recently in this journal by Harris Shettel (2007) and Miles (2007) himself. But otherwise, we are left with much shorter descriptions, such as the introduction to Learning Conversations in Museums (Leinhardt et al., 2002) in which the authors argue for the centrality of conversations (broadly defined) as a rich source of evidence for learning based on a socio-cultural approach; the critical exchange between Miles (1993) and Lawrence (1993); or my own debate with Miles at the VSA meeting in 1997 (Hein, 1997; Miles 1997). More recently, some publications, especially Humphrey and Gutwill’s (2005) description of the work on Active Prolonged Engagement (APE) with exhibits, emphasize the “grounded theory” aspect of visitor studies, the need to modify both assumptions and methods during the course of research as our understanding of visitor behavior changes through research.