Toys in Everyday Science Exhibit

exhibit_illustration-by-tadashi-tokieda

In Radcliffe Yard at Harvard (Cambridge, MA), there is an exhibit by Tadashi Tokieda on Toys in Everyday Science.

It looks like fun!

This evening, as part of the Radcliffe Open Yard event, students will be staffing the exhibit.

To help people play with the toys in science.

Tadashi Tokieda is the 2013–2014 William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Fellow, Radcliffe Institute and is spending the year hanging out and helping people understand how science (and mathematics) works.


His learning history is fascinating, and a good example to those outside the academy!

Speaking of the academy, I am saddened to report that this exhibit is not list of the Harvard Museums of Science and Culture website.

Nor is there any connection to museum education methodology mentioned on the Radcliffe Institute website.

This is ironic, as what Tokieda essentially is doing the work of museum educators.

For example, look at past and current exhibits developed at museums.

Try the Exploratorium's Geometry Playground, the Acton Discovery Museums' Hands On Science, the Boston Children's Museum Science Interactives, the Museum of Science's Investigation Station, or others....

Museum educators spend a lot of time, creativity, and joy developing hands on demonstrations of scientific and mathematic principals so others can learn by doing.

It's a field of study, as well.



Look at the current issue of the Museum Educators' Roundtable journal, entitled Engaging Visitors to Create Positive Futures.  They are offering the editor's review article for all to read here.

Or go to the American Alliance of Museum's EdCom publication on principals and practice.

So when one of the high holies of academia presents something (admittedly, a wonderful something) as revolutionary and new, by virtue of the nature of its presentation and by what is funded and the nature of its funding, the subsequent reification of that approach by what is not said becomes significant.

In other words, ignoring others who are doing essentially the same work and have been doing it for a long time, continues the existing power dynamics of 1) the university as a more important site of learning than any other learning environment (school or museum or other) 2) maintaining traditional educational views of learning as content transference from the expert to the novitiate.

Ok, the Institute may fight me on the 2nd point there -- and with some reason -- but my contention here is that offering a "playful" approach as so unique and isolated as deserving of special recognition only serves to highlight the majority of the institution that isn't that.

And it also demonstrates how, once again, learning is compartmentalized and how we do not communicate with each other, despite our commonalities of subject and approach.

oy.*

The HMSC website is mentioning this Saturday's Day of the Dead event.





Think I'll go to that.

And to the Toys in Science exhibit.

After all this meta-conversation, I could use a little fun!



*Ok, sorry to get all Foucault up in your face!  Shouldn't take myself too seriously, either!

Role Playing is Gaming with the Whole Body

Fighters with rapiers and daggers at a reenactment, 3 September 2007, 11:57, Crossed Blades, Jean, upload by Herrick, from Wikimedia Commons

Apparently, role-playing is undergoing a "renaissance."

Which is a wonderful play on words, as a lot of these stories are really medieval.

According to the WBUR story "You Be the Dragon Slayer":
The term interactive storytelling is used to describe all manner of games where both the audience and actors are part of the performance: live-action role-playing (LARPs); alternate reality games (ARGs) that often mix in technology or mobile devices; interactive theater; and everything in between, including old-fashioned role-playing games (RPGs) like D&D.

There is also the Society for Creative Anachronism.
(Sorta the anti-sport fencing.)

The connection here to museums is pretty clear, as there are a number of living history museums -- Old Sturbridge Village, Conner Prairie, and Plimoth Plantation to name a few -- that use role play as interpretation.

And there is a host of information coming out about gaming as educational, as well.
(Or not.  There is some debate.)

So is there some way we can combine these?

Higgins Armoury Museum already is.

Can we at indoor, non-armoury museums use this experience?

Playing Beck means PLAYING Beck

http://www.beck.com/index.php/song-reader-the-exhibition

Today on WBUR's RadioBoston show, there was a piece about Beck's "Song Reader," the album that isn't.

Well, it is, if you actually play the music yourself, because "Song Reader" is boxed sheet music.
Which makes it a "box set" in the original sense.

As Beck's website for the music says, "Only you can bring Beck Hansen's Song Reader to life."

Making people actually play the music both democratizes and experientializes* it.

Listen to the story here.



*yes, I know this isn't a word, but what would you say here?

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?!

Brain-Based Research, Understanding by Design, and Museum Education -- or, What I Learned at Learning and the Brain....

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.

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.