muse rt

8/9/2019 Muse rt

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/muse-rt 1/6

National Art Education Association

Museum Education and School Art: Different Ends and Different MeansAuthor(s): Terry ZellerSource: Art Education, Vol. 38, No. 3 (May, 1985), pp. 6-10Published by: National Art Education Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192885 .

Accessed: 07/09/2013 00:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art

Education.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192885?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192885?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

8/9/2019 Muse rt


SCHOOL AND MUSEUMEDUCATION

useum Education a n d

School

A r t ifferent n d s

a n d

ifferent Means

Terry

Zeller

o

-

r ....

?

7

Af

Art,

Carnegie

Institute,

ARTexpress

School/Museum

Projects.

Photo

by

Claire

Stone.

Art

Education

May

1985

M--

I

I

6

This content downloaded from 163.152.3.39 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 00:44:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions




8/9/2019 Muse rt


n

the

summer

of

1984,

aftertwo

years

of research

nd

public

hear-

ings,

the

American

Association

of Museums'

Commission

on

Museums or a

New

Century

ssued

ts

report.The findingsandrecommenda-

tions

have

sparked

wide-spread

iscus-

sion

in

museums

about the nature

of

museum

learning

and

the

educational

role

of

museums.

It

is

the

purpose

of

this

essay

to

explore

differences be-

tween

art

education

in

schools and

learnings

n

art

museums,

with an

eye

to

implications

of these differences

or

museum-school

partnership

n

light

of

the

Commission's

Report.

The

most obvious difference

be-

tween art

museum

education and

school

art

instruction

s the

setting

and

time framein whicheach takesplace.

School art instruction

spans

several

months

within the

context

of a

self-

contained class or art

room. It is

a

familiar

and

comfortable

setting

for

children

because

here

they

knowwhat

is

expected

of them. Museum

earning,

however,

takes

place

in

public

galleries

in

which desks

and

art materials

are

replaced

by sculpture,

paintings,

and

decorative

arts

in unfamiliarsurroun-

dings.

Understandably,

eachers

often

transfer their

pedagogical

expecta-

tions,

models

of student

behavior,

and

instructionalmethods from the class-

room to the museum

and

attempt

to

impose

these

on an

unfamiliar

earning

environment.

By trying

to

make the

museum

experience

n

extension

of the

classroom

or,

at the

other

extreme,

mere

exposure,

the

agenda

of

the

school overshadows

he

unique

learn-

ing opportunities

of the

museum.

This

approach

not

only

treats

the

museum

merely

as a

collection of

teaching

aids

designed

to

augment

classroom

learning,

but

more

in-

sidiously, signals

students

that

museums are

places

to

which no

one

would ever

go

voluntarily (Floud,

1952).

Gurian

(1982)

says

that

using

traditional school tours

makes the

museum nto a school rather

han em-

phasizing

he

characteristicshat make

it

a different

and

uniquelearning

en-

vironment

(pp.

18-19).

To

many

teachers and museum

educators,

a

school

tour

of

the museum means

relating

nformation

o a

topic

current-

ly being

studied

by

the class.

Frank

Oppenheimer,

ounder

and director

of

San Francisco'sExploratorium,how-

ever,

believes museums are

parallel

educational

systems,

not mere

exten-

sions

or

supplements

to

schools

(Newson

and

Siler,

1978).

Wolins

(1981)

stresses

the

uniqueness

of art

museums as

learning

resources

and

calls for

development

f

programs

and

approacheso learning rom within he

museumrather han

having

he

agenda

dictated from outside.

Museums

or

a

New

Century

(1984)

emphasizes

that

where museum

programs

are

used to

enrich

the

curriculum,

hey

are

shaped

by

the

needs of

the

schools,

not

the

strengths

of the museum.

The museum

experience

seems

auxiliary,

and

museum educators feel constricted

by

the

limits

they

feel

the schools

establish

(p. 67).

There is a

growing

body

of

opinion

andresearch

laiming

that

museum

earning

s

very

different

from learning n othersituations,par-

ticularly

n schools. Recentstudiesof

museum

visitors

must be taken

into

account

in

designing

museum

earning

experiences.

Screven

(1976)

has observed that

the

educational

goal

of museums

is

not

to

import

facts,

but also broad

overviews,

concepts,

stimulationof

in-

terest, values,

and

new

ways

of think-

ing

about

the

world

(p. 271).

These

sentimentsare

echoed

in

Museums

or

a New

Century

(1984)

which claims

that

learning

n

a

museum means

to

developthe abilityto synthesize deas

and

form

opinions,

and

shape

an

aesthetic

and cultural

sensibility

(p.

58).

Studies

of

why

people

visit or

stay away

from

museums

have

impor-

tant

implications

or museum

earning

and

for

the

way

educators

structure

school

field

trips.

A

1972

survey

in

New

York State

found that

only

3% of

frequent

museum

visitors said school

field

trips

were

stimulating

nterest

n

museums

Newson,

1977,

p.

14).

Non-

attendance

s influenced

by prior

con-

ditioning

and

by

the

belief that

museumsare not

places

o

go

for

social

relaxation,

wo

major

factors nfluenc-

ing

people's

choice

of leisure

time

activity

Nash,

1975;Hood,

1983).

In

a

1973

Metropolitan

Museum

of Art

survey,

51

%7

erceived

hat the

purpose

of

museums

was to

educate

he

public;

in

1975,

however,

it was found that

most

visitors

do not come

to museums

primarily

to learn

(Linn, 1976).

In

Toledo's

Museum of

Art,

only

fre-

quent

visitors

said

they

came

to the

Museum

to learn

(Hood,

1983).

The

National Endowment for the Arts

found that more than

80% of those

who

visit

museums

have attended

college,

and

a

study

of

visitation to a

travelling

exhibition of

Japanese

art,

conducted

in

Boston,

Chicago,

and

Seattle,

reported

hat

it

is clear that

visitors

wereas a

whole an

exceptional-

ly well educated group (Bigman,

1956,

p. 10).

These

studies,

and

in-

house

demographic urveys

and obser-

vations

of

visitor behavior conducted

by

many

museums,

make it

clear that

museum

attendance

s

high;

the

major-

ity

of

Americans either do not visit

museumsor do so

infrequently; nly

a

minority

do so

specifically

o learn.

In

light

of

this,

it seems

strange

that

museumscontinue

basing

their

school

tour

program

on the

agenda

of the

schools.

Williams

(1981)

is correct n

saying

that learningfrom objects is the core

curriculum

of

the

museum

visit,

and

that

the

primary

commitment of

museum

educators

should be the

in-

terestsof

the

museum,

not

those

of

the

school.

Museum

educators cannot

be

expected

to fit

museum

learning

nto

whichever

pedagogicalapproach,

cur-

riculum

model,

textbook

series,

or

learning theory

is

current

in

the

schools,

or

to base their

programs

on

other

models and

theories

designed

primarily

or

learning

n

schools. It is

clear

that

designing

museum visits

in

accordancewith the needs of schools

may

satisfy

administrators

r teachers

but does little

to

give

students the

knowledge,

skills,

and

attitudes

they

need for

lifelong enjoyment

of,

and

informal

earning

n,

museums.

If

children

are to

see

museums as

something

otherthan a continuation f

classroom

exercises,

then

fun,

pur-

poseful

play, challenging

new

exper-

iences,

being

with

friends,

self-directed

exploration

and

discovery,

and

spon-

taneity

must be

majorparts

of

museum

learning (Andrews

and

Asia,

1979;

Gottfried,

1980).

Bettleheim

(1980)

believes hat the

way

to

get

children o

enjoy

and

value

museums is

to

stimulate

magination,

arousecuriosi-

ty,

and

give

them

a chance

to

experience

awe

and

wonder.

Learning

n

museums s a

random,

spontaneous,

individualized,

and in-

formal

process

hat cannot

be

imposed

on

the

visitor

(Museums

or

a New

Century,

1984;

Screven,

1976).

Other

museum

professionals

have observed

that

social interaction

within visitor

groups

takes

up

a

largepercentageof

the

total time

at

a science

center,

museum,

or

zoo;

[these]

are not

places

ArtEducation

May

1985

I

I

7





8/9/2019 Muse rt


for

giving

extensive

information

-

characteristic f

sequential earning

n

schools

(Laetsch,

et

al.,

1980,

p.

17).

Newson and Silver

(1978)

insist that

learning

n

art

museums

s

not

quan-

tifiable

(p.

271).

Bettleheim

(1984),

remembering

is

own

early

experiences

in

that

place

of

wonder

and

miracles,

the art

museum,

thinks

people

seek

interesting

and

enjoyable

entertainment ather than knowledge,

in

museums. For

Margaret

Mead

(1970),

a

museumoffers

opportunities

for

individuality

nd freedom hat

are

rare.

Anyone

who has

spent

even a

short

time

observing

museum

visitors

will

recognize

that

they

usually

come in

pairs

or

small intimate

groups

for a

relaxing, pleasant

hour or

so,

but

are

also

widely

different in

interests

and

backgrounds,

limited

in

time,

fre-

quently

overwhelmed nd

confused

by

too much sensoryinput, and random

in

their

approach

to the

collections.

How

different

these

observations

are

from

traditional

school

field

trips

structured

o

correlatewith

a

specific

curriculum unit.

Recognizing

the

realitiesof museums

as informal

earn-

ing

environments,

museum

educators

need

to set

goals

for

school field

trips

that will

help

young people

ake

advan-

tage

of a

museum's rich

cultural

resources.

The

Commission

on Museums or

a

New

Century

oncluded hat

museums

are agents of visual, scientific, and

historical

iteracy

where

people

learn

to

synthesize

ideas

and form

opin-

ions,

and

shape

an

aesthetic

and

cultural

sensibility

(1984,

p. 58).

In

The

Art

Museumas

Educator,

Newson

and

Silver

1978)

studied ifteen

school

visit

programs

and

summarized

what

museum

educators

said

were their

ob-

jectives:

Helping

young

people

feel at home in

an

art museum

and

understand ts

value.

Introducing

hem to visual

experiences

that will

sharpen

their

perceptions.

Giving

children richer

opportunities

to

make art

important

for itself and

for

understanding,

and

enjoying

the art

of

others.

(p.

260)

Other

museumeducators

ay they

seek

to

promote

conversationswith

visitors,

share

understanding

hrough

personal

interactions,

promote

fun and

playful

activity

rather than

a

catalogue

of

facts,

help

visitorsbecome

responsible

for

their own

learning,

and stimulate

creativity

and

opportunities

o learn

through play

(Weinland

and

Bennett,

1984;

Gottfried, 1980;

Wolins,

1981;

Fache,

1982).

Similar

goals

were ex-

pressed

by

respondants

o a

question-

naire

he

authordistributed

o

museum

educators

attending

the 1984

NAEA

Convention.Promotingvisualpercep-

tion/literacy,

creatingpositive feelings

about art and art

museums,

and

teach-

ing

about art

appreciation

nd

cultural

context were the most

frequently

ited

goals.

Asked which

methods/tech-

niques

weremost

effectivefor

teaching

art

appreciation

nd artistic

heritage

n

museums

at the

primary,

ntermediate,

and

secondary

levels,

the

consensus

was

for

a

variety

of interactive ech-

niques

such

as

gallery games,

im-

provisation,

inquiry/discovery,

and

discussion/dialogue.Thoughthereare

similaritiesbetween

the

goals

of

art

museum

educators and the

NAEA's

Purposes,

Principles,

and Standards

for

School Art

Programs,

more

than

one

writerhas observed hat school

art

instruction

s

very

much

a

matter

of

hands-onactivities

with

a reluctance o

include

art

history,

criticism,

or the

broadercultural

ontextsof art

(Chap-

man, 1982;Lanier,1983;

Hastie, 1984;

Zimmerman,

1984).

If

art instruction s to becomea

part

of

the educationalmainstream

nd

pre-

pare students for lifelong learning,

there is

an

urgent

need

for

fundamen-

tal reforms

n

the

way

art teachersare

trained.

Chapman (1982),

who

has

called such reform

he

most

important

ingredient

in

improving

art in the

schools,

observes

that the

skills

required

to teach the

lay public

and

youth

about

art

are

not

the

inevitable

result

of

deep

engagement

with

studio

activities.

The role of

the teacher

s not

that of

a

creatorof

art,

but that of

a

translator,

interpreter,

and

lifelong

student of art (p. 95). Chapman's

notion of the

role

of the art

teacher

has

more

in

common with what art

museum educators

are

doing

than

it

does with current

practices

in

art

rooms

n

America's chools. The Com-

mission

on Museums

or a New

Cen-

tury

also

recognizes

the need

for

reform of teacher education

in

its

recommendation hat

learning

based

on

objects

s such

a critical

part

of the

educational

process

that no teacher

should be

permitted

to overlook its

potential

(1984, p.

68).

The

Commis-

sion

believes

that

training

teachers

to

use

museum

resources

should be

an

integralpart

of

teacher

education.

While t

is incumbent

pon

museums

to

maketheir

resources

vailable o

the

broadest

possible public,

it

is

equally

incumbent

upon

schools

to see that

young people

are

prepared

o

utilize

such

resources. t is

vital

that

museum

educatorsunderstand earningtheory

and becomefamiliar

with

current

prac-

tices in

schools that

use

museum

ser-

vices.

Their

responsibility,

however,

s

to

students,

not the

instructional

bjec-

tives of

teachers.

Museum

educators

are

responsible

or

helpingyoung peo-

ple recognize

he

exciting potential

of

museums

for

purposeful

leisure

time

Art

Education

May

1985

I

I

8





8/9/2019 Muse rt


activity.

While

working

with school

groups,

museum

educators

should

be

laying

foundations

for

lifelong

learn-

ing

rather

than

providing

enrichment

to classroom

learning.

Teachers

should

recognize

that

museums,

though

publically

financed,

do

not exist

primarily

for

school

field

trips;

it

behooves

them to

become familiar

with

how

people

learn

in

museums

as

well as

how children

learn

in

classrooms.

Many

art

education

programs

are

not

providing

art teachers

with the course

work and

practical

experience

they

need to

give young

people

the knowl-

edge,

skills,

and attitudes

to

enjoy

and

value

what is available

in

museums.

The

NAEA should

take

the

lead,

reforming

art education

by changing

its

Standards

for

Art Teacher

Prepara-

tion

Programs

that recommends

a

nine-hour

minimum

in

art

history,

aesthetics,

and/or

criticism

while

proposing

21

hours

of

studio

work

as

an absolute

minimum.

This

emphasis

on studio and crafts courses

in

art

education curricula

of

most

colleges

and

universities

reduces course

work

about

art

history

and

criticism

to

simple

surveys

that do not treat the

complex

and

challenging

ideas

available

in the

history

and

philosophy

of

art.

Responsibility

also

rests

with

university

art

education

departments

that

perpetuate

the artist-educator

model

by

hiring faculty

whose

training

is

primarily

in studio arts.

Vacancy

listings

in

The Chronicle

of Higher

Education,

NAEA

News,

and the

College

Art Association

placement

service

call

for demonstrated

background

in

creative

production

or

studio,

experience,

competency

in

studio

art

or

ability

to teach

jewelry

and

two-dimensional

design

rather

than

expertise

in

art

history

or museum

experience.

Art education

departments

would

do well to look at

methods of art

museum education and the work of the

Getty

Institute

for Education

in

the

Arts

(Duke,

1983;

Greer

and

Rush,

1985)

for

initiating

reform of teacher

training programs.

The

discipline-

based

approach

taken

by

the

Getty

Institute

incorporates many

of the

goals

of museum education.

This

approach, however,

could be

strength-

Photo

credit:

Museum

of

Art,

Carnegie

Institute,

ARTexpress

Art

Education

May

1985

9





8/9/2019 Muse rt


ened

were it

to

include

greater

atten-

tion to the

broader

social,

intellectual,

performing,

and

popular

arts contexts

of the visual

arts. Teachers trained

in

a

discipline-based approch

to

art

instruc-

tion

would be better able

to

contribute

to a

strong

museum-school

partner-

ship.

A museum-school

partnership,

with

school field trips, museum outreach

programs,

teacher

workshops,

and

museum-designed pre-

and

post-visit

materials

geared

to the needs and

interests of the

schools,

would

undergo

fundamental

changes

if

museum edu-

cators

reassess their roles

within the

museum and come to

grips

with the

realities of a

shrinking

school-age

population

and

increasing

median

age

of the

population.

Museums

for

a New

Century (1984)

recommends

that

greater

attention

be

paid

to adult

programs.

While

it

calls

for a national

colloquium of participants from

government,

business,

the academic

community,

and schools and

museums

to discuss

the

mutually enriching

rela-

tionship

museums and schools should

have,

its recommendations

for struc-

tural/organizational

changes

in

museums

hold

important implications

for

museum-school

partnership.

The

museum

profession

already recognizes

that

people

learn

in

museums

in

dif-

ferent

ways

than

in

other

educational

institutions;

as research documents

how this type of learning takes place,

museum

education

will

change

to

max-

imize such

learning.

No one should

doubt that

such

changes

will

influence

the

program

and services

museums

provide.

As

they

approach

the

twenty-first

century,

museum

professionals

are

reassessing

the educational function of

museums and

the nature of museum

learning.

With educational functions

more

fully integrated

into broader

realms

of

interpretation,

and more

attention

being paid

to adults'

needs,

the time, staff, and money for school

programs

may

well be

diminished,

par-

ticularly

if

school field

trips

decline as

a result of

school

budget

cuts.

Art

pro-

grams

in

many

communities

are suffer-

ing

from low

enrollments

or

experienc-

ing

cuts

in

funding

while art museums

continue to

provide

leisure

learning

classes and recreational

opportunities

for

millions of

Americans;

it behooves

both

art teachers and those who train

them to

reevaluate their

priorities

for,

and

approach to,

art

education

i

Dr.

Terry

Zeller

is

Chairperson,

Department of

Education,

Rochester

Museum

and

Science

Center,

Rochester,

New York.

References

Andrews, K. and Asia, C. (1979).

Teenagers'

attitudes about

art museums.

Curator,

22

(3),

224-232.

Bettleheim,

B.

(1984).

Children,

curiosity

and museums.

In

S.

Nichols

(Ed.).

Museum

Education

Anthology.

Washington,

D.C.:

Museum Education

Roundtable,

16-19.

Bigman,

S.K.

(1956,

June) (1956,

September).

Art exhibit audiences.

The

Museologist,

59, 6-16;

60,

2-6.

Chapman,

L.H.

(1982).

Instant

art,

instant culture.

New York:

Teachers

College

Press.

Duke,

L.L.

(1983).

The

Getty

center

or

education

in

the arts.

Art

Education,

36

(5),

4-8.

Fache,

C.

(1982).

Educational

games.

Copenhagen,

Denmark: Museums and

Education.

ICOM/CECA,

57-60.

Floud,

P.

(1952).

Teaching problems

in

working

with children.

Paris,

France:

Museums and

Young People.

ICOM,

22-34.

Greer,

W.D.

(1984).

A

discipline-based

view of

art education.

Studies in Art

Education,

25

(4),

212-218.

Greer, W.D.,

and

Rush,

J.C.

(1985).

A

grand

experiment:

The

Getty

institute

for

educators

on the visual arts. Art

Education,

37

(1), 24,

33-35.

Gottfried, J. (1980). Do children learnon

school

field

trips?

Curator,

22

(3),

165-174.

Gurian,

E.H.

(1982).

Museums'

relation-

ship

to education.

Copenhagen,

Denmark:

Museumsand

Education.

ICOM/CECA,

17-20.

Hastie,

W.R.

(1984).

A search for ex-

cellence.

Art

Education,

37

(4),

10-11.

Hood,

M.C.

(1983). Stayingaway: Why

people

choose

not to visit

museums.

Museum

News,

64

(4),

50-57.

Laetsch,

W.M., Diamond,J., Gottfried,

J.L.,

and

Rosenfeld,

S.

(1980).

Children

and

family groups

in

science centers.

Scienceand Children,17 (6), 14-17.

Lanier,

V.

(1983). Beyond

aesthetic

education.

Art

Education,

36(6),

31-32,34,

36.

Linn,

M.C.

(1976).

Exhibit evaluation

-

informed decision

making,

Curator,

19

(4),

291-302.

Mead,

M.

(1970).

Museums

in

a

media-

saturated world. Museum

News,

49

(1),

23-25.

Museums

for

a new

century.

(1984).

Washington,

D.C.: American Association

of Museums.

Newsom,

B.Y.

(1977).

The art museum

and the school. American

Education,

13

(10), 12-16.

Newson,

B.Y.,

and

Silver,

A.Z.

(1978).

The art museum as educator.

Berkeley:

University

f CaliforniaPress.

Screven,

C.G.

(1976).

Exhibit evaluation:

A

goal-referenced approach.

Curator,

19

(4),

271-290.

Williams,

P.

(1981).

Relations

between

consenting

institutions.

In

S. Lehman and

K.

Igoe (Eds.).

Museum-School Partner-

ships. Washington,

D.C.: American

Association of

Museums,

16-20.

Wolins,

I.

(1981).

A

catalyst

for

museums:

Examining

the role of art

museum education. The

Museologist,

155,

17-20.

Zimmerman,

E.

(1984).

What art

teachers

are not

teaching,

art students

are

not

learning.

Art

Education,

37

(4),

12-15.

aum

Education

Department,

Omaha,

Nebraska. Photo

by

Roxanne

Gryder

_i-

-

10

I





muse rt

Documents