Last Friday (November 18, 2011) I attended a pre-conference workshop at the Boston Learning and the Brain Conference. The workshop was Jay McTighe and Judy Wills' "Instruction and Curriculum for 21st Century Brains."
The talk was an integration of the principles of Understanding by Design (UbD) and Brain-Based Research. In other words, how to design student learning based on how brains learn.
While the information is still "consolidating" in my own brain -- and I'm still trying to figure out how to apply McTighe and Wills' talk to how museums work with visitors -- two things did capture my attention and lead me to make connections between their work and museum education.
1) "The video game model"
A main component of Wills' portion of the presentation was that video games create intrinsically-motivated learners.
How do they do that? Because the basic design of the game and the nature of the gamer interact to produce behavior-reinforcing feel-good chemicals in the brain (dopamine). Dopamine is something the brain seeks. Through the process of being rewarded (through dopamine-release) or not, behaviors become patterned, memory is stored, and neural networks develop. [Ok, this is a vast reduction of what Dr. Wills was saying -- and she was drastically simplifying!] As Wills said, "The brain seeks patterns and pleasure."
Video games create situations in which the gamer gains pleasure.
Video games:
--challenge each player at the individual's level
-- provide immediate feedback
--reward success with greater challenge
-- provide frequent feedback on incremental progress throughout play.
Video gamers:
--buy into the goal
--persevere through challenge, despite an 80% failure rate
--use immediate feedback to improve
--consult resources for help
--will work hard for the pleasure of going to higher levels of play.
Anyway, for classroom instruction and for online learning, making the experience more like a video game should improve learning and instruction.
Would this be true of exhibit experiences and museum education I wonder? How would we do this?
2) The Power of Predictions
As McTighe and Wills explained, being able to see and to predict patterns (seeing how the experience fits together and matches previous experience) is a motivator. Making predictions and waiting to see the results of those predictions sustains interest (dopamine is release when the prediction proves true). The brain "needs to know" if the prediction was correct.
Buying into a goal and seeing patterns are big connects to UbD -- the student learns what the big picture is and how they fit into it. As neural networks are built on patterns, patterning works at a brain level, too.
These ideas finally gave me an answer to something that has been nagging at me for four years now: what about constructivist approaches? My sense has been that while constructivism and Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) work well, the extreme versions do not. What's extreme? Never confirming students' answers.
Case in point. Several years ago, during a research on learning in museums class, we had a presentation by a museum educator who had been trained in the extreme version of the constructivist/VTS approach. She presented to us, the adult learners and professional educators, a set of wooden objects that she had used in her research and had included in an exhibit. While we came up with a ga-jillion questions and possible answers, including some excellent connected-knowing responses, we never once learned what these objects actually were.
To this day, I don't know if those things were spindles or not. In fact, I no longer care -- because this information is floating in my mental space somewhere and not connected to the other things I understand about objects and history. Frankly, my annoyance was such that I remember this experience more as a lesson on how NOT to teach. (See? There's that emotion in learning concept again....).
I have heard of similar experiences, most of which were pretty painful for the audience. Never knowing if one's predictions were correct or not caused a lot of agony for some groups of very bright and motivated graduate students in arts education. This has bothered me deeply.
If, as Wills and McTighe argue, the building block of "perseverance and memory" (i.e., learning) is the "instrinsic satisfaction of discovering that a prediction made in an unknown situation" is correct via "feedback that it is so," then somebody needs to provide that feedback. The brain needs to know.
On a practical level, this means that the instructor in the gallery does need to gently guide the conversation to a wrap-up place and provide confirmation of the group's ideas. (NOT force a conclusion, or just tell the visitors the answers right away - but find the pattern and give feedback about the accuracy of the prediction.)
On a broader level, this also means that there is a role for the expert in museums (and elsewhere). Elaine Gurian has asked this question in "Curator: From Soloist to Impresario" (part of Hot Topics, Public Culture, Museums The practical and philosophical implications of curatorial authority in museums are a "hot topic" in the museum field. Given the brain-based UbD approach of McRight and Wills, it looks like museums DO need experts to provide feedback...
...but those experts need to share authority and allow for participation by the audience.
Now, can anyone tell me what those objects were? Can I reexperience them in the video game model? Inquiring minds wanna know!!
For additional resources and the presentation slides, go to Jay McTighe's website's Resources Page.
Showing posts with label VTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label VTS. Show all posts
Monday, November 21, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Museums as Learning Organizations, or, why intent and its consistent application is important....
Earlier this week I heard a presentation by two General Managers of the Guest Experience at the Conner Prairie Interactive History Park: Aili McGill and John Elder.
Their comments were enlightening as was the class audience discussion afterward.
If museums are primarily educational in mission, then they should be learning institutions.
Learning institution is a term of Peter Senge and his followers. Senge is the top management guru of the 1990s and 2000s. His goal was to create an entire learning organization, from top to bottom. His book The Fifth Discipline is the cornerstone for organizational learning theory.
Senge’s ideas are picked up in Randi Korn's article about holistic organizations and intentionality. Her argument boils down to a simple precept: the entire museum, with all staff, needs to be focused on its mission, and purposefully make all actions directed to achieving that goal. In other words, the organization needs to live its intent.
This is hard to do. I am the veteran of several educational organizations' transition years and know well what designing the mission (via strategic planning) and living the mission can feel like. It doesn’t go smoothly and it doesn’t always go well. It's "living in interesting times" -- !
Enter Conner Prairie. As consultant and educator Laura Roberts argues, it is “the best example of intentionality” she can find. Certainly, the way in which this museum has clarified its mission and crafted its programs and staff experience to fit the intent of the museum. Conner Prairie presents how this did this on their website and through their DVD.
Several things that John and Aili mentioned resonated with the idea that museums as educational institutions and with the concept of holistic intentionality.
One, the institution as a whole really looked at mission and program and made sure that the entire institution was on target.
Two, the strategic planners involved everyone in the process of planning and made sure that those who were affected had input. The suggestions for how the program would work were made by those who saw who it worked or did not. Doing this was crucial because these are the people who actually know what’s going on and therefore have the data that is needed for planning. Also, it is necessary for buy in and implementation of program. Too often strategic planning it top down. In a school it would be top level management sequestered in a conference room for several days. Certainly the food service staff and security would not be involved. Yet who is the front line when something breaks? The "line staff" of security, food service, interpreters, etc.... Thus holistic intentionality.
Three, they crafted their approach to allow for downtime for the “guests” (visitors). They did this to enhance visitor learning. Allowing the learners enough time to process what they've learned so they remember it is called consolidation time. It is basic brain-based educational theory. It works.
By switching their approach from filing visitor vessels to interacting with guests, Conner Prairie staff began to educate.
Four, they shifted evaluation. This got them the greatest impact. Their evaluation shifted so that the rubrics looked for what was desired as results. This means that the person or product being assessed knows how to craft their performance to reach the goals. In education this is called “backward design” or understanding by design (UbD). It is essential to the curriculum planning process. Look at the work of Heidi Hayes Jacobs and Grant Wiggins for more on this.
As I listened to the questions and comments after the presentation, however, two areas of audience concern riled me.
1) A few people thought that the switch from content to process was ghastly.
I couldn’t disagree more. If learning involves the long-term retention of information and the knowledge how to use it, then a focus on process and building cognitive connections is much more important than trying to cram facts into someone else.
This position of building interconnections is the core of constructivism.
It’s also brain-based learning theory.
It’s also effective social psychology.
It’s also Web 2.0 social networking, and hence participatory museum fundamentals.
Ken Bain in What the Best College Teachers Do has demonstrated that the question of what people think about who can learn dictates their the purpose of education, their educational approach, and their results. To wit: if someone thinks that the ability to learn is static – that one is born with the ability to learn and cannot change – then their students won’t learn.
If you think people can’t change, then why the hell are you in teaching?
And, if a museum is about learning, then why would anyone involved in it belief that learning is fixed, that is a quantity, that it is an object, that it is one-way communication about facts?
So, the holistic organization is about learning and interaction.
The struggle reminds me of the controversy of VTS.
Shari Tishman, whom I adore, presents a good response in her argument that museums are for learning; see her essay here.
2) Why involve the whole organization in decision-making? The little people don't have much to add. (Ouch! is my response.)
Besides populist politics and good manners, it is good learning theory to involve everyone. (You know, Vygotskyan and Dewey-esque social learning; that sort of thing...) It’s also politic and effective.
Granted, not everyone will want to be involved, or agree with the new stragetic direction of the institution. Regrettably, there will be turnover. This is the sad experience. And it hurts if it’s you. But if the mission and intent is crafted by the whole organization with input and purpose, then those who participate can see if they want to buy in. Those who are new hires will fit themselves to the intent.
When we all know what that organization is all about, then that museum or school will have a clear mission that all members can fulfill with intent. I can still quote the mission statement from one of my previous schools, as can the alumnae. Mission gives us purpose and everyone in the organization needs to live that purpose in order to be effective. So, this is a "participatory museum" and a "learning organization" and a "holistic institution."
So, museums are learning organizations AND they need to know learning theory.
As you can tell by my references to educational theory above, I think there is more to be done in this area of connecting museum management to classroom managers.
Conner Prairie actually did that.
Cool.
Their comments were enlightening as was the class audience discussion afterward.
If museums are primarily educational in mission, then they should be learning institutions.
Learning institution is a term of Peter Senge and his followers. Senge is the top management guru of the 1990s and 2000s. His goal was to create an entire learning organization, from top to bottom. His book The Fifth Discipline is the cornerstone for organizational learning theory.
Senge’s ideas are picked up in Randi Korn's article about holistic organizations and intentionality. Her argument boils down to a simple precept: the entire museum, with all staff, needs to be focused on its mission, and purposefully make all actions directed to achieving that goal. In other words, the organization needs to live its intent.
This is hard to do. I am the veteran of several educational organizations' transition years and know well what designing the mission (via strategic planning) and living the mission can feel like. It doesn’t go smoothly and it doesn’t always go well. It's "living in interesting times" -- !
Enter Conner Prairie. As consultant and educator Laura Roberts argues, it is “the best example of intentionality” she can find. Certainly, the way in which this museum has clarified its mission and crafted its programs and staff experience to fit the intent of the museum. Conner Prairie presents how this did this on their website and through their DVD.
Several things that John and Aili mentioned resonated with the idea that museums as educational institutions and with the concept of holistic intentionality.
One, the institution as a whole really looked at mission and program and made sure that the entire institution was on target.
Two, the strategic planners involved everyone in the process of planning and made sure that those who were affected had input. The suggestions for how the program would work were made by those who saw who it worked or did not. Doing this was crucial because these are the people who actually know what’s going on and therefore have the data that is needed for planning. Also, it is necessary for buy in and implementation of program. Too often strategic planning it top down. In a school it would be top level management sequestered in a conference room for several days. Certainly the food service staff and security would not be involved. Yet who is the front line when something breaks? The "line staff" of security, food service, interpreters, etc.... Thus holistic intentionality.
Three, they crafted their approach to allow for downtime for the “guests” (visitors). They did this to enhance visitor learning. Allowing the learners enough time to process what they've learned so they remember it is called consolidation time. It is basic brain-based educational theory. It works.
By switching their approach from filing visitor vessels to interacting with guests, Conner Prairie staff began to educate.
Four, they shifted evaluation. This got them the greatest impact. Their evaluation shifted so that the rubrics looked for what was desired as results. This means that the person or product being assessed knows how to craft their performance to reach the goals. In education this is called “backward design” or understanding by design (UbD). It is essential to the curriculum planning process. Look at the work of Heidi Hayes Jacobs and Grant Wiggins for more on this.
As I listened to the questions and comments after the presentation, however, two areas of audience concern riled me.
1) A few people thought that the switch from content to process was ghastly.
I couldn’t disagree more. If learning involves the long-term retention of information and the knowledge how to use it, then a focus on process and building cognitive connections is much more important than trying to cram facts into someone else.
This position of building interconnections is the core of constructivism.
It’s also brain-based learning theory.
It’s also effective social psychology.
It’s also Web 2.0 social networking, and hence participatory museum fundamentals.
Ken Bain in What the Best College Teachers Do has demonstrated that the question of what people think about who can learn dictates their the purpose of education, their educational approach, and their results. To wit: if someone thinks that the ability to learn is static – that one is born with the ability to learn and cannot change – then their students won’t learn.
If you think people can’t change, then why the hell are you in teaching?
And, if a museum is about learning, then why would anyone involved in it belief that learning is fixed, that is a quantity, that it is an object, that it is one-way communication about facts?
So, the holistic organization is about learning and interaction.
The struggle reminds me of the controversy of VTS.
Shari Tishman, whom I adore, presents a good response in her argument that museums are for learning; see her essay here.
2) Why involve the whole organization in decision-making? The little people don't have much to add. (Ouch! is my response.)
Besides populist politics and good manners, it is good learning theory to involve everyone. (You know, Vygotskyan and Dewey-esque social learning; that sort of thing...) It’s also politic and effective.
Granted, not everyone will want to be involved, or agree with the new stragetic direction of the institution. Regrettably, there will be turnover. This is the sad experience. And it hurts if it’s you. But if the mission and intent is crafted by the whole organization with input and purpose, then those who participate can see if they want to buy in. Those who are new hires will fit themselves to the intent.
When we all know what that organization is all about, then that museum or school will have a clear mission that all members can fulfill with intent. I can still quote the mission statement from one of my previous schools, as can the alumnae. Mission gives us purpose and everyone in the organization needs to live that purpose in order to be effective. So, this is a "participatory museum" and a "learning organization" and a "holistic institution."
So, museums are learning organizations AND they need to know learning theory.
As you can tell by my references to educational theory above, I think there is more to be done in this area of connecting museum management to classroom managers.
Conner Prairie actually did that.
Cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)