Learning in the Museum prompts thought....

 

I adore George Hein.

Or, more correctly, I adore Shari Tishman.

Who are these people?

Hein is author of Learning in the Museum (1998), whose chapter on "Educational Theory" I re-read when I took museum education and whose name keeps cropping up in my research.  In this chapter Hein builds his theory of four major types of learning theory/educational philosophy/pedagogical approaches: Didactic/Expository, Stimulus-Response, Discovery, Constructivism. These are arranged around an axis* of how a learner learners (incrementally/built by learner) and where knowledge exists (outside/inside the learner). Then Hein does an elegant thing that applying this model to how learning in the museum would occur....

Shari Tishman uses Hein in her courses on "Museums and Learning" and "Object-Based Learning" as an organizing construct, but she actually makes the learning of Hein's ideas a constructivist exercise -- brilliant (and fun, too)!   Hein is deeply embedded in me, because of these classroom experiences.

I knew Hein, because I had experienced Hein.  It's an embodied knowing from an Understanding by Design experience in the classroom.

Also, Hein's comments on Discovery Learning prompted me to continue the cycle of self-reflection and to return to the blog in order to work through ideas that have been simmering (boiling?) for 15 years now. 

I think that I have been working with Discovery Learning, with a Constructivist bent.**   Hein defines Discovery Learning as "learning is an active process, that learners undergo changes as they learn, that they interact with material to be learned more fundamentally than only absorbing it, that they somehow change the way their minds work as they learn.... Active learning is often translated into physical activity associated with learning...Physical interaction with the world, with the requirement that the learner take an active part in the process... can lead to situations that offer a range of options, which require the learner to think." (pp. 30-31). Active learning and the physical combine -- think about this and the connection to brain-based research.

Hein goes on to say that this action is primarily mental, not physical, because "monotonous repetitive physical activity" is not "minds-on" (p. 31). Hmmm... I think I'll have some arguments with this part, as walking labyrinths do seem to stimulate creativity.

Finally, "since museums, unlike schools, value objects and learning from objects, discovery learning seems a natural approach for these institutions" (p. 31). Thus, studying museums provides insight for other learning settings.

Hein says that a limitation of Discovery Learning is that if tries to force a learner to reach pre-ordained conclusions without learner input -- this distinguishes the approach from constructivism, presumably. However, this also seems to posit that the discovery itself is an object (a concrete item of knowledge, as in "there you have struck a rock"). I would propose that the experience provided by the discovery learning is not to reproduce the Discovery itself, but to create understanding at the core of that learning. It is the replication of the experience, not the recreation of the data, that is important. The experience is transferrable and connects to other experience.

Hein points to the importance of the DOING with STUFF: a well-articulated theory of how to produce object-based learning in a kinesthetic environment is what we need. And it should include actual pedagogy, too.   This approach is a perfect match for the museum environment.  Imagine if we could produce this type of learning in a face to face or virtual classroom as well.  Hence, the subtitle to this blog -- where all this learning is interconnected....

Thank you, Hein and Tishman!




*not evil!
** I would say I am a Discovery-Constructivist hybrid, with some Didactic moments thrown in for good measure.  Use what works, yes?!