scied_learning in a personal context - levels of choice in a free choice learning environment in

8/12/2019 SciEd_Learning in a Personal Context - Levels of Choice in a Free Choice Learning Environment in

1/21

SCIENCE LEARNING IN EVERYDAY LIFE

Lynn D. Dierking and John H. Falk, Section Coeditors

Learning in a Personal Context:Levels of Choice in a Free ChoiceLearning Environment in Science

and Natural History Museums

YAEL BAMBERGER, TALI TAL

Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel

Received 5 December 2005; revised 29 May 2006; accepted 15 June 2006

DOI 10.1002/sce.20174

Published online 2 August 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

ABSTRACT: The study aims to characterize contextual learning during class visits to

science and natural history museums. Based on previous studies, we assumed that outdoor"

learning is different from classroom-based learning, and free choice learning in the museums

enhances the expression of learning in personal context. We studied about 750 students

participating in class visits at four museums, focusing on the levels of choice provided

through the activity. The museums were of different sizes, locations, visitor number, and

foci. A descriptive-interpretative approach was adopted, with data sources comprising

observations, semistructured interviews with students, and museum worksheets. Analysis of

the museum activities has yielded four levels of choice that affect learning from no choice to

free choice activities. The effectiveness of learning was examined as well by looking at task

behavior, linkage to the students prior knowledge and their schools science curriculum,

and linkage to the students life and experience. Our findings indicate that activities of

limited choice offered scaffolding, allowed the students to control their learning, and

enhanced deeper engagement in the learning process. Within all the choice opportunities,

the students connected the visit to their own life experiences and to their prior knowledge,

Correspondence to:Yael Bamberger; e-mail: [email protected]

Contract grant sponsor: Israel Science FoundationContract grant number: ISF - # 838/02-32.0.Contract grant sponsor: Israel Foundations Trustees grant.Any opinions expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent either

those of the funding agencies.

C2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


2/21

76 BAMBERGER AND TAL

even when the guided activity scarcely addressed it. Critical responses were obtained mainly

when the museum environment allows a variety of learning opportunities without directing

the students. C2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed91:7595, 2007

INTRODUCTION

For many years, museums are known as an environment that allows informal learning

of individuals, families, and school children. As a consequence, there is a growing interest,

worldwide, in the ways museums are used as learning environments, and in the variety of

experiences people have in museums. In the last decade, much of the research on field trips

to museums was either theoretical (Falk & Storksdieck, 2005), or focused on the following

themes: (a) the educational value of the class visit, (b) the influence of class preparation to

the visit, and (c) the factors that determine students learning (Griffin, 2004). We studied

students learning with regard to different choice opportunities, and therefore this study

belongs to the third group. Through the employment of the contextual model as a generalframework for learning in museums (Falk & Dierking, 2000), this study is focused mainly on

the personal context of learning. It examines the important aspect of choice, which up until

now, was discussed mainly theoretically, by looking at various choice opportunities provided

to students during class visits to science and natural history museums in Israel. The type of

choice was investigated with regard to various domains of learning that occur in museums.

In this study, we investigated (a) the types of choice opportunities given to visiting

students at four museums and (b) the ways these types of choice shape learning.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The professional literature presents and discusses various ideas such as outdoor learning

(Orion, 1993; Rickinson et al., 2004), informal and nonformal learning (Heimlich, 1993),

and free choice learning (Falk, 2001). One feature that enables examination of common

characteristics of these ideas, with a clear intention to avoid a refined definition, is that

they all address out-of-school learning environments (Falk, 2005). Learning out of school

allows the use of local resources and community-oriented content, enhances idiosyncratic

learning experiences, and encourages nonhierarchical relationship of facilitator and learner.

The idea of free choice learning, whose implementation is studied here, was introduced

by Falk (2001) in order to replace the conceptsinformaland nonformal learning. The idea

of free choice emphasizes the unique nature of out-of-school environments that allows thelearner to identify several learning options, in a variety of spaces, and finally, to choose a

specific option, theme, or space for learning. Therefore, we tend to use the concept offree

choice learning environmentsthat includes all out-of-school information sources, such as

museums, zoos, libraries, nature centers, and so forth.

Free choice learning is relative, rather than an absolute, construct. The operative issue is

perceived choice and control by the learner. To qualify as free choice learning, the learner

must perceive that there are reasonable and desirable learning choices (as defined by the

learner) available, and that s/he possesses the freedom to select (or not to select) from

amongst those choices. . . (Falk, 2005, p. 273)

Museums are one of the most popular free choice learning environments, and as such

encompass the main place for out-of-school learning in most countries. Even guided visits

to museums allow a variety of activities to choose from, and what is more important, the

visitors feel they can choose and control their exploration and activity.

Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce


3/21

LEARNING IN A PERSONAL CONTEXT 77

Unlike classroom learning, which is composed of linear sequenced units that rely on

prior knowledge and previously learned scientific concepts, museum-based learning occurs

in short time units, does not require continuity, and relies on curiosity, intrinsic motivation,

choice, and control (Csikszentmihalyi & Hermanson, 1995; Falk & Dierking, 1992; Griffin& Symington, 1997; Pedretti, 2002; Rennie & McClafferty, 1996).

Through the ability to choose, museums, with their exceptional variety, can support

learning that allows individuals to construct personal understanding. Falk and Dierking

(2000) who addressed the range of learning that occurs in museums suggested the contextual

model of learning in museums that encompasses personal, sociocultural, and physical

contexts. They claimed that learning is always a highly personal process that is strongly

dependant upon prior experiences and occurs within a situated sociocultural and physical

context. It involves multiple sources of experience and information, which collectively

contribute to knowledge construction.

The personal context that affords the foundation of this research is related to ones prior

knowledge, prior experiences, interest, motivation, choice, and control. Choice opportuni-

ties and control of learning form the conditions for encouraging curiosity, interest, and mo-

tivation, which serve as inputs as well as outputs in the learning process (Csikszentmihalyi

& Hermanson, 1995; Falk & Storksdieck, 2005; Rennie, Feher, Dierking, & Falk, 2003).

Furthermore, Falk (2005) claimed that the underlying motivation and interest of the learner

makes the argument for using the term free choice learning.

Although it is widely agreed that choice and control stimulate students and visitors

learning (Griffin & Symington, 1997; Kisiel, 2003), previous studies of school visits to

museums have indicated that class visits are mainly guide directed and students choice

in the specifics of their learning is limited (Cox-Petersen, Marsh, Kisiel, & Melber, 2003;

Griffin, 2004; Griffin & Symington, 1997; Kisiel, 2003; Tal, Bamberger, & Morag, 2005;

Tal & Steiner, 2006). Furthermore, previous studies did not look into the way learning

intervened with different types of choice provided to students during class visits to museums.

The assumption that choice and control affect learning lies in the background of this

study. We explored different types of choice provided to students in class visits to Israeli

science and natural history museums and investigated the way they affect various domains

of learning.

METHOD

Class visits to museums are conducted either by teachers (Griffin & Symmington, 1997;

Kisiel, 2003) or by museum educational staff (Cox-Petersen et al., 2003; Tal et al., 2005;

Tal & Morag, 2006). We studied guided visits conducted by museum educational staffs,

which encompass the vast majority of museum visits in Israel.

Four museums were selected for this study: a medium size zoological center (museums 1),

a medium size natural history museum (museum 2), a large science museum (museum 3),

and a small natural history museum (museum 4). All the museums provide educational

programs and are visited by thousands of students per year. Museums 1 and 2 are located in

the metropolitan area of Tel Aviv, museum 3 is located in a city in the north, and museum 4 is

located in the rural Upper Galilee. The four institutions presented different foci and guiding

styles, addressed diverse student populations, and were miscellaneous with regard to theirexhibits and educational staff. Following Tal and colleagues (Tal et al., 2005), we adopted

the term guides for the museum explainers. Typically in an Israeli context, all the class visits

observed and documented for this study were guided by museum professional guides. All

the guides were employees, who work at least few hours per week at the museums. Another

term, which needs to be defined here, isnatural historyandscience museums. Although the



4/21


TABLE1

Museum

Characteristics

Museum

No.ofStudents

TargetGrade

(Code)

per

Year(2003)

Location

Levels

Characteristics

GuidingSt

aff

1(NC)

8,000

TelAviv

612

Azoologicalcenter,locatedw

ithina

university.Focusesmainly

ona

zoologicalgarden;aimsto

make

useofthenationalnatural

history

collections,whicharestore

dat

theuniversity

Graduatestuden

tsatalife

sciencesfacultyofthe

university

2(ML)

16,000

TelAvivmetropolitan

area

18

Anaturalhistorymuseum;wasbuilt

foreducationalpurposes;

includesanexhibitwingan

dan

educationalcenter,whichholdsa

fewhalls,arrangeddifferen

tlyfor

eachactivity

Professionalguid

es,

holdingaBAin

biology,

mostofthemh

avea

teachingdiplom

a

3(SM)

80,000

North

K-12

Thenationalmuseumofscie

nce;

thelargestsciencecenterinthe

country;presentsavast

assortmentofinteractiveexhibits

Graduatestuden

tsatthe

scienceanden

gineering

facultiesofthe

university

4(BO)

7,000

North

411

Anaturalhistorymuseum;was

establishedinordertopreserve

andpresenttheunique

archeologyandwildlifeoft

he

region

NationalService

women

(age1821);

professionalnature

guides



5/21


TABLE 2Museums, Classes, and Grade Level

Grade Level

Museum 4 5 6 7 8 Classes

1 2 0 0 4 1 7

2 0 0 2 2 2 6

3 0 4 4 0 0 8

4 0 1 0 3 4 8

Classes 2 5 6 9 7 29

four institutions include a science museum, natural history centers, and a zoological center,

we followed Falk and Dierking (2000, p. xi), and these institutes are referred to here as

museums. The museums general characteristics, as were observed and described by their

staff, are presented in Table 1.

The geographical distribution of the visiting schools covered the whole country, and the

studied visits were selected randomly from those schools that already coordinated their

visit at one of the museums. All the schools were regular public schools from urban areas,

small towns, and Kibbutz schools. Altogether, we observed about 750 students in 29 classes

in grades 4 8 (age 9.5 14.5). The summary of visiting classes per museum is presented

in Table 2.

Data Collection

As suggested by other researchers in studying complex learning environments and ex-

periences in museums (Hein, 1998; Rennie & McClafferty, 1996; Rennie & Williams,

2002), we employed multiple instruments that improved our understanding of the museum

learning experience:

Observations. Each visit was videotaped by one of three trained data collectors. The

training process began with an initial visit at the museum and meeting with the educational

director and staff. In the second stage, couples of data collectors observed a class visit and

took notes. Following the initial observations and analysis, main foci were identified for

further observations. Then, each data collector videotaped a class visit. The researchers

observed together each tape, identified the observed patterns, and suggested and agreed

upon the categories for analysis. After this process was completed, each data collector

individually videotaped the museum visits and took notes as well. Following this process,

while videotaping, we focused on the guiding, the students actions, and on student student,

studentteacher, and studentguide interactions.

Semistructured interviews with 41 students in grades 68 were audiotaped and tran-

scribed. Since only 68 graders visited all the museums during the data collection, our

interviewees were representatives of this age group. The interview protocol included ques-

tions that addressed the students perception of the learning experience, linkage of the

scientific content to the students life, and the way the visit was connected to the students

prior knowledge and the school curriculum. The interviews took place at school, the dayfollowing the visit. The interviewed students were elected by their teacher who was asked

to select good informants, taking care to avoid the top students in the class.

Based on Kisiel (2003),Museum worksheetswere collected in order to obtain data about

the extent and type of choice provided, and about the way the visit connected with the

students prior knowledge and experiences.



6/21


7/21


the topic of the exploration, the space for discovery, the objects for exploration, and the

order of exploration within a restricted or nonrestricted space. In addition, we looked for

reference to the students prior knowledge and life experiences.

When the class visit consisted of more than one type of choice, we analyzed the obser-vation data separately for each part of the visit; accordingly, the students interview data

were analyzed with regard to the part of the visit the student referred to.

Table 3 summarizes the instruments and criteria employed for analyzing the learning

experience in the museum.

FINDINGS

Types of Choice

The guided visit, in all the museums, began with an introduction lecture, which was

followed by other activities. However, in some cases, this talk encompassed the whole visit.

When the lecture was used only as introduction, the rest of the visit included individual or

small group learning tasks or unlimited and undirected free exploration. Some of the visits

included three parts: a lecture, a self-learning task, and free exploration.

The analysis of the observations in the four museums yielded four types of choice

provided to students in guided visits.

No choice:Expository, lecture like guiding. In this type of visit, the space was limited

by the guide, to one area in which the students were required to sit or stand in order to listen

to the guides lecture. These visits or parts of visits were guide centered, and the students

had no responsibility for or control of their learning. The students could neither choose the

space for their exploration nor the time they spent at the exhibit in general, or at specific

objects, in particular. In this type of visits, most of the interactions between the students

and their schoolteacher were limited to management and discipline issues.

Limited choice: In this type of visit, the students were given an individual or small-

group learning task in order to explore the exhibition according to the topic of the visit. We

identified two kinds of tasks that gave the students different opportunities:

Limited 1:The space for discovery is restricted to a specific area of the museum. The

students are given a task, and then control their learning by choosing the order of their

exploration, and by choosing peers to work with. If they have questions, need further help

or direction, the students usually ask the teacher or the guide who are at hand and direct

them accordingly.

Limited 2: The space for discovery is not restricted and the students control their learning

by choosing the objects that are related to the questions they receive, from the entire exhibit.

In both types oflimited choice, we observed interactions amongst students, between students

and their teacher, and between the students and the museum guide. The guide and the teacher

directed the students and sometimes helped them in choosing objects for exploration.

Free choice:The students can explore the whole exhibit with neither space limitation,

nor direction or assignments. The students choose the space, the objects, the subject, and

the peers to explore with. Usually the guide is present and is ready to answer the students

questions. The teacher might interact with the students, but with no defined role.

The different choice opportunities, or types of choice, can be presented as levels, withregard to the extent of choice provided through the following elements: the subject of

the exploration, the space for discovery, the objects for exploration, time allocated to

each exhibit, the students interactions, and the order of exploration within a restricted or

nonrestricted space. Table 4 presents these constituents (

stands for occurrence and

stands for nonexistent) of each level of choice we identified. If we look at limited choice 1,



8/21


TABLE3

InstrumentsandCriteriaforDataAnalys

is

LearningDomains

LinkagetoPriorKnowledge

LinkagetoStudents

Life

Instrument

C

hoiceOpportunities

TaskBehavior

andSchoolCurriculum

andExperiences

ObservationsT

opic,space,objects,

time,interactions,

andtheorderof

exploration

St

udentsaskandreply

toquestions,fillin

worksheets,interact,

pressbuttons,touch

models,readlabels

Guidesquestionsorcomments

thataddressschooland

n

onschoolknowledge

Guidesquestionsorcommentsthat

addressstudentsfeelin

gsand

everydayexperiences

Worksheets

T

opic,space,objects,

andorderof

exploration

Questionsrelatedtoschooland

n

onschoolknowledge

Questionsorcommentsre

latedto

studentseverydayexpe

riences

andfeelings

Interviews

Responsesthat

addressinterestin

thescientificcontent,

enjoyingthevisit,and

indicateabouta

learningexperience

Responsesthataddressschool

a

ndnonschoolknowledge

Responsesthataddresse

veryday

experiences,emotions,

and

background



9/21


TABLE 4Choice Constituents

for example, we see that the students could not choose or control either the topic or the

space or the objects for exploration, but they controlled the time they spent at each object,

their interaction with their peers, and they controlled the order, in which they explored the

objects in the restricted space.The pattern that is generated from Table 4 suggests that the levels of choice could be

presented as a continuum, where various museums or activities could be placed at different

locations on that continuum, which spans a totally closed, guide-directed visit to a totally

open free choice visit, as drawn by Figure 1. It is worth noticing, of course, that there are

many possibilities forlimited choicewithin this sequence.

The term limited choice describes two different levels of choice (limited choice 1 and

limited choice 2). One might expect that these two levels would get different titles such as

restricted choice, broad choice, and so forth. We claim, however, that such titles do not

distinguish meaningfully between the different types; moreover, these do not reflect the

sequential nature of choice that enables even more levels between the no choice to freechoice poles. We could have defined each level by the extent of choice provided by the

various elements such as object choice, interaction choice, etc. This use emphasizes only one

element and ignores the others. Hence, we used the term limited choiceand differentiated

between the two levels by numbering, to point out to the possibility of defining other levels

of limited choice within the continuum.

Most of the 29 visits we observed were of the no choice(45%) and thefree choicelevels

(38%). Only 17% of the visits were of the limited choice level, which enabled students to

explore the exhibit themselves, using some kind of structured direction. Table 5 presents

the 29 class visits according to the dominant pattern of choice characterized at each visit.

Museums 1 and 3 presented only one type of choice in their guiding, while museums 2

and 4 suggested a variety of activities of different levels of choice. The types of activities

and choice at museum 2 were related to different topics. For example, an activity that

focuses onreproductionwas of theno choicelevel, thelimbs and motionactivity allowed

limited choice, and the activity about maturation included a free choice part. Museum 4,

which is a regional museum, offered the same topicadaptation of wildlife to the unique

ecosystem of the region, to all the visiting classes, but the guiding varied from no choiceto

limitedorfree choiceaccording to the time allocated for the visit, the characteristics of the

visiting classes, and the teachers requests [with relation to that, see the case of Rainbow

School" (Tal et al., 2005)].

Figure 1. Levels of choice.



10/21


TABLE 5Level of Choice in Museum Class Visits

Number of Visits (Classes)

Museum No Choice Limited Choice Free Choice Total Classes

1 8 0 0 8

2 4 2 1 7

3 0 0 6 6

4 1 3 4 8

Classes 13 5 11 29

Learning at Different Choice Opportunities

Do the different types of choice affect learning? In order to answer that, we examined the

extent at which the different choice levels stimulated each domain of learning: (a) task be-

havior, (b) linkage to prior knowledge and to the school science curriculum, and (c) linkage

to students life and experience. In each level of choice, learning was analyzed according to

two dimensions: the observed guiding characteristics and the students perceptions (through

interviews).

As indicated earlier, quite often the visit encompassed more than one level of choice

such as a lecture, a self-learning task, and a free exploration. In such cases, the observation

data were analyzed separately for each part of the visit, and the students interview data

were analyzed according to the part of the visit the student referred to.

No Choice.

Task Behavior. In a solo performance of a guide, who is explaining about the objects in

the exhibit, on- or off-task behavior was highly related to the guides personal teaching skills

and charisma. In museum 1, after an introductory slide show in the museum classroom,

the students are guided through the zoological garden. The guide explains about the animals,

and the students are not allowed, at any stage, to go by themselves. In most of the visits

we observed, after a short while, the students were struggling to concentrate and often lost

their interest. Some of the guides remained with only a few students who followed them,while other students waited at the entrance balcony. A few guides were struggling with

students chatting and deserting the group by calling them and asking for their attention.

Typically, the students did not ask questions in this type of visits and some of the guides

were not used to addressing the students questions. In one example, a student was trying

to ask a question while the guide was explaining:

Guide: I am at the middle! No, I am at the middle of something; this

is very impolite.

(The guide was trying to call and arrange the girls, who were interested in other

animals)Guide: (nervous) Girls, I asked you to go together! Yes, you as

well. . . (NC\140503\Y\8)

Unfortunately, that student never got the answer, and was discouraged to ask further

questions.



11/21


In museums 2 and 4, the students sat on the floor while listening to the lectures. The guides

usually used demonstration aids that helped in focusing their attention, and encouraged

asking questions. For example:

(The guide is explaining about the pelican in the exhibit)

Student: Is it real?

Student: It is huge!

(The guide reveals a poster that describes the pelicans wingspan.)

Student: Wow, is this what a pelican looks like? (BO\230903\O\6)

The physical environment of these two museums, in which the lectures took place, is very

attractive due to the presence of stuffed animals, skeletons, and models. Sometimes, while

the guide was still talking, the students were attracted to the dioramas and the models,

and interrupted him by asking if they would get the chance to explore the exhibit after

the talk, or directly asked about objects they saw while the guide was talking about other

things.

In museum 3, at which the students got the opportunity for free exploration that encom-

passed the majority of the time (see Table 5), each visit began with a guide-directed tour of

three or four halls. At each hall, the guide explained to the whole group, about the scientific

phenomena or principles related to one or two objects for about 10 15 minutes. Only then,

the students were allowed to freely explore the hands-on exhibition. Quite often, the guides

used jargon and unfamiliar scientific concepts, and the students were expected to be quiet

and passive in an engaging environment. Unsurprisingly, they lost their attention very fast,

many left the group, and pressed buttons or operated objects. This was also reflected by

students in the interviews:

Yuval (pseudonym): You do not really learn, at least from what I understood.

I sort of didnt learn, even when they explained (the guides),

I didnt listen. (S4 SM190105)

Linkage to Prior Knowledge and School Curriculum. One might expect that in a lecture,

which is a typical no choice activity, the guide would question the students about what

they learn in school, and then follow up their responses with more questions or further

explanation. However, in only in less than 15% of the 29 observed visits, the guides

checked how the topic of the visit was connected to the class curriculum.Checking the students nonschool prior knowledge, using questions such as do you

know about. . .? or does anyone know. . .? commonly occurred in all the museums as a

way to proceed with the lecture. In these cases, if at all, the guides were expecting only

short answers.

(1) Guide: Does anyone know what a territory is? (NC\020603\Y\8)

(2) Guide: In the southern part of this valley, there were swamps.

Have you heard about them? Do you know the name of this lake?

(Students do not answer.)Guide: You never heard about Hula Lake? (BO\230903\Y\6)

(3) Guide: Does anyone know who invented the first airplane?

Students: The Wright brothers.

Guide: Do you know their names? (SM\190105\Y\8)Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce


12/21


The interviews allowed us to examine the extent to which the students themselves made

these connections. As mentioned before, when the class visit included more than one

type of choice, the students interview data were analyzed with regard to the part of the

visit the student referred to. In total, 33 interviewers reported about a solely or partly nochoice lecture. Most of them (82%) indicated that the museum experiences are somehow,

connected to other things they knew or studied.

(1) Liron: Its these kind of things that you dont exactly remember

how you know them, but overall, you do know them. . .it made me

recall, of course . . . things that I did not remember. . .so it reminded

me all these things about aviation and space. (S7 SM190105)

(2) Noa: It is connected to what we have learned two years ago about

food chains. (S12 NC020604)

These quotes imply that the students are aware of connections to prior school or nonschool

knowledge despite the fact that the guide or the teacher did not make these connections

clear; rather, they made these connections simply because they were at the museum.

Linkage to the Students Life and Personal Experiences. Every student has his/her own

world of experiences, which could be incorporated to the museum experience. In the no

choice lectures, we observed very few attempts by guides to connect the concepts to the

students everyday experiences. These attempts were usually guide dependent, and were

not observed as patterns at any museum. One of the guides in museum 4 used a unique way

of addressing the students home region geography, while explaining about the geographyof the Upper Galilee (where the museum is located).

(1) Guide: . . . and in Mt. Hermon, there are very unique species of

animals and plants, for example, in Kfar Vradim (the students

town) there is a poisonous viper, right? Have you heard about it?

Students: Yes.

Guide: So, on Mt. Hermon there is Hermon viper, which does

not exist in any other place in the world. (BO\0110 03\O\5)

(2) (the students come from a city named Ashkelon)Guide: Who lived in Ashkelon in ancient times?. . . The ancient

Palestines, of course as you ought to know, so here, we have a

Twin City of AshkelonDan. (BO\230903\Y\6)

Very few instances of addressing personal and everyday experiences were observed:

(1) Guide: Has anyone snorkeled before?

Students: Yes (much noise).

Guide: Have you tried walking with these (flippers)?

(BO\230903\Y\6)

(2) Guide: Did anybody make him/herself a cup of tea or did your

mother make you a cup of tea? Do you ever get it with a teaspoon

inside?

Students: Yes



13/21


Guide: Next time take a look at your cup of tea. Take out

the teaspoon and slowly put it back. When you put in only a part of it,

the teaspoon seems to be shorten. . . try it at home, its fun.

(SM\190105\Y\6)Although we found only limited attempt of the guides to address the students own ex-

periences, they found similarities and connections to their past experiences and everyday

knowledge. The interview data indicate that the students themselves connected the visit to

their experiences and adventures:

(1) Ben: My father and brother look at snakes all the time. In our

family, everyone likes snakes. (S3 NC020604)

(2) Lauren: The bat interested me the most. Since I was little, I heardabout bats, but never saw one. This was my first time.

(S5 NC160205)

The students expressed their memories and told anecdotes they could have shared with

others during the visit to the zoological garden (museum 1), while the guide explained

about the animals:

Ben: Mati, a friend of mine, asked me if I ever saw those animals. So

I told him no if I didnt see them before, and I explained him about

the animals I already knew. (S3 NC020604)

These interactions were limited only to the zoological garden. In otherno choiceguiding

situations, the students did not get the opportunity to interact during this part of the visit.

Limited Choice.

Task Behavior. Some of the activities at museum 2 could be characterized aslimited

choice 1. At that museum, after a short introduction talk, the students get worksheets, which

require the application of principles that were previously introduced in the talk. The learning

activities engaged the students in discussing in small groups; exploring a specific area in

the museum; finding answers to questions; playing games and doing hands on activities.

The observation data indicate a high level of interest and motivation in these activities; the

students looked at the objects, and answered the questions on their worksheets. However,

the main interaction among the students was technical: Where do we go now?, What

we do next?, Where is this one?, etc. In some cases, it was very difficult stopping them

from doing the tasks and calling them to join the next activity. They kept lying on the floor

and writing their answers.

In some visits at museum 4, the activities were identified as limited choice 2. The students

got an assignment that required them to freely explore the exhibit. Through a mystery quiz,

they were directed to search for a mysterious predator that left evidence of its actions.The evidence list was connected to the concepts presented in the introduction. In this way,

the students were guided to explore the exhibit according to several criteria such as limb

structure, beak forms, teeth, footprints, and so forth. The students were highly engaged,

and collaboratively tried to solve the problem. Students addressed their enjoyment of the

competitive game:



14/21


(1) Doron: It was fun. At the beginning I thought I will not succeed,

but actually it was easy (S2 BO011003)

(2) Bar: I didnt know the names of some animals, so I read (thelabels) and found information (S4 BO011003)

While playing the game, the students approached the guide and asked questions; however,

it seemed that a few children had difficulties in directing themselves and were assisted in

their navigation by the teacher or the guide. In cases of a competitive game, we observed

the students working very fast and often guessing the answers instead of closely examining

evidence at the exhibit and prompts embedded in the assignment sheet.

Linkage to Prior Knowledge and School Curriculum. Although the activities at museum

2 are chosen according to the students grade level, the worksheets of the limited choice

activities do not address the science curriculum or nonschool prior knowledge. The sheetsrefer to concepts that were presented in the introduction lecture. Despite this, students

connected the visit to their prior learning experiences:

(1) Dor: . . . to measure our height and weight.

Researcher: Do you learn this at school?

Dor: Yes, in mathematics. (S1 ML120105)

(2) Naveh: The hawk and the snakes were familiar to me, but I saw

new snakes (S5 BO011003)

(3) Eytan: We are learning about aviation in science lessons, so

somehow it is connected. . . (S6 BO011003)

From this and other students statements, it is clear that the new experience was connected

by the students to prior and general knowledge and to school knowledge that was acquired

at different opportunities. Nevertheless, we have poor evidence for an intended connection

made through the task sheets.

Linkage to Students Life and Personal Experiences. Some of thelimited choicework-

sheets addressed students experience by asking questions about their own body and making

recommendations for maintaining a healthy way of life. Following is an excerpt from the

worksheet used at museum 2:

Menu for keeping a healthy body:

Running 10 minutes

Biking (with helmet) 15 minutes

Skating (with shields) 20 minutes

1 cup of milk

A big smile for 1 hour per day (ML\291203\O\4)

The students indicated that the museum experiences are somehow, connected to their ownlife:

(1) Nadav: I liked the food exhibit. I really wanted to know how to

eat healthy, low calories and so forth. I actually wrote it

down, what I ought to eat and what not. (S2 ML120105)



15/21


(2) Yarden: I like cats, and before (the visit) I didnt know that there

are such wild cats in Israel. It wasnt exactly a cat; it was like a

panther. (S1 BO011003)

Students reflections usually referred to their own body:

(1) Researcher: What was the most enjoyable thing at the visit?

Yaniv: The activities. To measure my height, my weight. . . the

things I would take to prepare myself to a party. (S3 ML120105)

(2) Ariel: She (the guide) told us about reproduction. We filled a

worksheet: what is your eye color?, what is the shape of your

forehead? It was fun and we compared the results with our

friends. (S6 ML160305)

Addressing the students body connected the activity to the personal experience and to the

students life.

Free Choice.

Task Behavior. In museums 2, 3, and 4, the students, at least at some stages, are allowed

to freely explore the exhibit. Hands-on objects comprise the majority of the exhibit in

museum 3. While exploring, individual students or couples mainly operate the objects and

express their impression and excitement. Our observation data indicate that they enjoyed the

technology, but rarely read the explanations on the labels. The interactions between students

occurred mostly when excited students called to their friends and invited them to observe

or operate an exciting object. We rarely observed an interaction that could be identified

as cognitive, at which students talked about a phenomenon or a scientific principle. They

shared their fun and excitement, but hardly shared knowledge, ideas, questions, and so

forth. The guides were usually at hand in the room, but the students rarely asked for their

explanations. Students responses reflected upon their enjoyment as well as criticism.

(1) Amit: You have machines, and you press buttons and you see

what comes up. I think its fun.

Researcher: What was fun? Pressing buttons?

Amit: Yes. Seeing what happens. (S11 SM190105)

(2) Researcher: What did you like the best?

Dor: That they allowed us to be independent, and we were free to

explore. . . (S1 ML120105)

(3) Maya: They did not explain how it worked. We could read the

label, but we do not like it, and its written very unclear.

(S2 SM190105)

(4) Researcher: What did you not like?

Liron: We got too much time at the halls. It was very interesting,

but how many times can we pass on everything?

Researcher: Did you explore freely?

Liron: Yes, but for too much time. (S7 SM190105)



16/21


The students that were quoted in the first and the second quotes were satisfied with the

independence and enjoyed the technology, but the students that were quoted in the third and

the forth quotes expressed their frustration regarding lack of understanding of the scientific

ideas and some boredom of the free exploration, with no directions.Linkage to Prior Knowledge and School Curriculum. Free choiceexploration, in mu-

seum 3, usually took place after about a 15-minute talk in two or three exhibit rooms. In

each room, the exhibit focuses on a specific scientific idea or phenomenon. All the classes

observed visited the same two exhibitionsthe aviation room and the dark room. It ap-

pears that the guides decided which rooms they were going to visit only when the students

arrived and then the visit began. The students grade level and the class curriculum were

not considered. The main consideration was the capacity of the museum and the number of

visitors on the day of the visit.

We found few students responses that connected the free choice exploration to prior

knowledge:

Oz: I saw a big spider there. We dont have such spiders in

Israel. The temperature doesnt fit.

Researcher: How do you know that?

Oz: Our teacher told us, here at school. (S2 ML160305)

Most of the connections the students drew to their prior knowledge referred to living or

stuffed animals.

Linkage to the Students Life and Personal Experiences. Free choice learning environ-

ments are designed so that visitor would be engaged through a relevant and evoking exhibit;

therefore, in the case offree choiceactivities, we could not assess the guiding component.

Discussions among students, who are engaged in free choice activities, could provide

evidence to linkage to life experiences made by students. Although we could not track,

in our videotaped observations, all the talks, we captured as many conversations as we

could. As indicated earlier, most of the talks between students reflected their excitement

and enjoyment. Sometimes, the students shared their feeling about the exhibit:

(Two students touching a plasma sphere)

Student 1: What do you feel?

Student 2: Its frightening.(Another student touched and screamed)

Student 3: Its frightening. Its scary. Stav!! (calling his friend),

you have no courage, you fill like. . . (pressing the friend to touch the

sphere).

(SM\190105\Y\8)

The interviews were used as the main source of data in order to highlight the students

perceptions of the linkage between the visit and their life experiences. In general, the

students found many similarities and connections to their past experiences and everyday

life.

(1) Asaf: I love aircrafts. I saw there a big battle aircraft, and

although it was old, it impressed me a lot. (S3 SM190105)

(2) Adi: When I go to our Kibbutz stockpile, I see pelicans.



17/21


Researcher: So the pelican in the museum reminded you the

pelicans in the stockpile?

Adi: Yes, they are all the same (laughing). (S7 BO031105)

To this point, we showed that no choice type of visit strongly relied on the guides

teaching skills. Even so, the students connect experiences from the visit to their school and

nonschool knowledge as well as life experience.

In the limited choice type of visits, the students expressed high involvement in learning at

the museum, and much interaction with each other throughout the activity. They connected

the contents of the visit to their prior knowledge and experiences, even though our finding

indicated that the worksheets rarely addressed the students prior knowledge.

The free choice activities allowed students to explore the exhibit, but through random

movement in the hall, pressing buttons, operating objects, and loudly expressing their

enthusiasm. In addition to their enjoyment, the students reported insufficient understanding

that caused frustration.

Finally, interactions between students and adults were more common in limited choice

activities, and rarely observed in free choice exploration. In no choice visits, information

flew from the guide to the students, but real interaction was very limited. It appears that

interactions between students occurred whenever the situation enabled them (to interact),

in limitedand free choice activities. It might be that directed learning in limited choice

activities encourages more engagement, expressed by students discussions about phenom-

ena or scientific principles. Free choice exploration, however, encouraged mostly social

interactions that yielded expressions of excitement.

A summary of the levels of choice by domains of learning is presented in Table 6.

DISCUSSION

Various levels of choice, expressed in learning activities, were identified in studying

school visits to four science and natural history museums: no choice, limited choice,

and free choice. An activitys typical level of choice was determined according to the

constituents of the enabled choice of the (1) subject to focus on, (2) space for exploration

within the exhibit, (3) objects for exploration, (4) time allocated for each exhibit, (5) order

of the exploration and assignments, and (6) opportunity for interaction among visitors and

facilitators. A guiding that does not enable any choice opportunity was defined here asno

choice level, free exploration with regard to the previous list was defined as free choicelevel, and activities that allowed various extents of choice opportunities with regard to these

constituents were characterized aslimited choice level. The levels identified in this study

were further investigated against three domains of learning: task behavior, linkage to prior

knowledge, and linkage to ones personal experiences.

Task Behavior

We found that activities that allowedlimited choiceoffered scaffolding and control to the

students and enhanced deeper involvement in the learning process, compared with no choice

andfree choiceactivities. This is congruent with previous studies, about the effectivenessof using worksheets in class visits to museums, that found them helpful in organizing and

improving the students learning (Griffin, 2004; Kisiel, 2003).

It is well accepted in the literature that class visits to science and natural history museums

should take the special context into consideration while planning and executing educational

programs (Falk & Dierking, 2000; Hooper-Greenhill, 1997; Lucas, McManus, & Thomas,



18/21


TABLE6

LevelsofChoicebyLearningDomains

LinkagetoStude

ntsLife

LevelofChoice

TaskBehavior

LinkagetoPriorKnowledgeandSchoolCur

riculum

andExperien

ces

Nochoice

Varied;guidedependant

Theguidesma

deconnectionstononschool

knowledgeb

yaskingquestionsusedtopro

motethe

lecture.The

studentsmadeconnectionsto

school

andnonscho

olknowledge

Varied;guidedepe

ndant;the

studentsmadec

onnections

tolifeexperience

s

Limitedchoice

Mostlyon-taskbehavior.T

heguide

andtheteacherhavean

important

navigatingrole

Noreferenceintheworksheets.Thestudents

made

connections

toschoolandnonschoolknowledge

Afewreferencesin

worksheets;mainly

regardingthestu

dents

health.Thestudents

addressedlifeexperiences

Freechoice

Observedmainlyexciteda

ndpressing

buttons.Thestudentsexpressed

bothsatisfaction(enjoym

ent)and

frustration

Noconnection

betweentheschoolcurriculum

andthe

topicofthev

isit.Thestudentsmadeconnectionsto

schoolandn

onschoolknowledgeespeciallywhile

observingliv

ingorstuffedanimals

Thestudentsaddressedlife

experiences



19/21


1986). Our findings indicate that museum guiding (teaching) usually did not go well with

the unique characteristics of the environment. We thought that the guides would encourage

the students curiosity, encourage exploration, and not suppress it as appeared in some

cases. We believe that during class visits to museums that are founded on limited choiceactivities, the students are supported in developing their natural curiosity into substantial

learning. The anchors provided by the designed activity prevent the frustration expressed

by the students who participated in the free choice exploration, and the students get both

scaffolds and freedom that balance their exploration and learning (Kisiel, 2003; Rennie &

McClafferty, 1996).

Linkage to Prior Knowledge and School Curriculum

Connecting the content of the visit to the school science curriculum was barely referred

to despite the literature that emphasizes the importance of bridging the gap between the

formal and informal environments, by the facilitators or the activities (Contini, Rosenfeld,

Moore, & Movshovitz-Hadar, 2004; Hofstein & Rosenfeld, 1996).

In all the levels of choice, students connected the visit to their prior knowledge. The

free choice exploration was connected to prior knowledge, especially when the exhibit

consisted of living or stuffed animals, but not in the hands-on exhibits. This indicates that

the out-of-school experience has yielded a meaningful learning. This is in accord with

Falk (2001) who claimed that learning in out-of-school settings has to be connected to the

learners prior knowledge. Critical responses were obtained, in the interviews, especially

when the environment suggests a variety of learning opportunities but the students were

not directed in any way. Therefore, the students described the free choiceactivities as fun

but not as a learning experience. This finding supports previous research (Griffin, 2004),

indicating that students perceptions of free exploration during class visits to museums as

enjoyable, yet, these students, as well, did not count the experience as learning.

Linkage to the Students Life and Personal Experiences

In all the levels of choice we identified, the students connected the visit to their life

experience; however, we have to keep in mind that people make these connections anyway.

This lead us to assume that a purposeful effort of connecting such experiences through a

designed activity or guiding would enhance deeper meaning, making a more substantial

reflection for the students of the things they learned.

It is widely agreed that a meaningful field trip has to include a few constituents: clear

connections between the field trip and the classroom content, concrete experiences that

cannot be provided in school, and an opportunity to investigate and learn through social

interactions (Gilbert & Priest, 1997; Hofstein & Rosenfeld, 1996; Hofstein & Orion, 1994;

Orion, 1993; Tal, 2001). Our findings indicate that there is a little consideration of these

constituents in class visits to science and natural history museums in Israel. This is especially

true with the no choice activities that rarely provide concrete experiences or allow social

interactions among the visiting students.

It is important to note that the visit to the museum is a relatively short and single experi-

ence. In such a period, it is not realistic to expect what is considered to be traditional learningoutcome, meaning measuring exactly what new knowledge students have gained. On the

contrary, nowadays, we expect complex multidimensional outcome that reflect the complex

museum experience (Falk & Dierking, 2000; Hein, 1998; Lundmark, 2002; Pedretti, 2002,

2004). This is the reason for the importance that we attribute to the personal context of

learning (Falk & Dierking, 2000). The more the guided visit includes elements that address



20/21


the personal context, the more the museum experience and the learning are meaningful

(Rennie & Johnston, 2004). Creating scaffolds for learning, through activities that express

limited levels of choice, enables control and encourages satisfying social interactions. The

various limited choice learning activities engaged the students in discussing in small groups,and the observation data indicate a high level of interest and motivation.

Our findings indicate that museum educational staff is not aware of the ideas and work

done in the field of learning in Free Choice Learning Environments. This causes the

implementation of either authoritative knowledge transmission model of teaching that was

expressed by theno choiceactivities, or a totally undirected free choiceexploration. Both

inadequately make use of the special opportunities of the museum setting. We suggest that

activities in museums that allow controlled choice are the most suitable, considering the

characteristics of the museums and the uniqueness of learning in museums. This type of

activities encourages effective and more complex learning. Furthermore, we recommend

that museum educational staff adopt and apply the conclusions of this and previous studies

regarding learning in museums. Hopefully this will lead to a better understanding and

implementation of the potential of the school-based museum visit.

REFERENCES

Contini, H., Rosenfeld, S., Moore, M., & Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (2004). Bridging school science with museum

science: Learning about energy. Proceedings of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching

Annual Conference, Vancouver, Canada.

Cox-Petersen, A. M., Marsh, D. D., Kisiel, J., & Melber, L. M. (2003). Investigation of guided school tours,

student learning, and science reform recommendations at a museum of natural history. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 40(2), 200 218.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museum: What makes visitors want to

learn. In J. H. Falk & L. D. Dierking (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research

agenda (pp. 67 77). Washington DC: American Association of Museums.

Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.),

International handbook of science education (pp. 11551174). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Falk, J. H. (Ed.). (2001). Free-choice science education, how we learn science outside of school. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Falk, J. H. (2005). Free-choice environmental learning: Framing the discussion. Environmental Education Re-

search, 11(3), 265280.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback Books.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning.

Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Falk, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a

science center exhibition. Science Education, 89, 744778.

Gilbert, J., & Priest, M. (1997). Models and discourse: A primary school science class visit to a museum. Science

Education, 81, 749762.

Griffin, J. (2004). Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at the students in school groups.

Science Education, 88(S1), S59 S70.

Griffin, J., & Symington,D. (1997). Moving fromtask-oriented to learning-oriented strategieson schoolexcursions

to museums. Science Education, 81, 763 779.

Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the museum. London: Routledge.

Heimlich, J. E. (1993). Nonformal environmental education: Toward a working definition. ERIC Clearinghouse

for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, SE 053 515.

Hofstein, A., & Orion, N. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural

environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1097 1119.Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Studies in

Science Education, 28, 87 112.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1997). Museum learners as active post-modernists: Contextualising constructivism. Journal

of Education in Museums, 18, 1 4.

Kisiel, J. F. (2003). Teachers, museums and worksheets: A closer look at a learning experience. Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 14(1), 3 21.



21/21


Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lucas, A. M., McManus, P., & Thomas, G. (1986). Investigating learning from informal sources: Listening to

conversations and observing play in science museums. European Journal of Science Education, 8, 341352.

Lundmark, C. (2002). Lifelong learning. Bioscience, 52(4), 325.

Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the sciencecurriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 325 331.

Pedretti, E. (2002). T. Kuhn meets T. Rex: Critical conversations and new directions in science centers and science

museums. Studies in Science Education, 37, 1 42.

Pedretti, E. (2004). Perspectives on learning through critical issues-based science centre exhibitions. Science

Education, 88(S1), S34 S47.

Rennie, L. J., & Johnston D. J. (2004). The nature of learning and its implications for research on learning from

museums. Science Education, 88(S1), S4 S16.

Rennie, L. J., & McClafferty, T. P. (1996). Science centers and science learning. Studies in Science Education,

27, 53 98.

Rennie, L. J., & Williams, G. F. (2002). Science centers and scientific literacy: Promoting a relationship with

science. Science Education, 86(5), 706 726.

Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancing research on sciencelearning in out-of-school settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 112120.

Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamy, K., Morris, M., Young Choi, M., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review

of research on outdoor learning. London: National Foundation of Educational Research.

Taber, K. S. (2000). Case studies and generalizability: Grounded theory and research in science education.

International Journal of Science Education, 22, 469 487.

Tal, R. T. (2001). Incorporating field trips as science learning environment enrichmentAn interpretive study.

Learning Environment Research, 4, 25 49.

Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2006). School visits to natural history museums: Teaching or enriching? Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, in revision.

Tal, T., & Steiner,L. (2006). Patterns of teacher-museum staff relationships: School visits to the Educational Center

of a Science Museum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6, 25 46.

Tal, T., Bamberger, Y., & Morag, O. (2005). Guided school visits to natural history museums in Israel: Teachersroles. Science Education, 89, 920 935.

scied_learning in a personal context - levels of choice in a free choice learning environment in

Documents