The Use of Activities in Museum Orientation and Education:

Development of an activity resource guide for Archaeology museums

This project explored active learning methods in which the participants experience the process of archaeological discovery and interpretation through role-playing. The result was an activity guide for elementary teachers to use as pre-visit orientation to an archaeology museum. The activities create a learning environment that accommodates a range of problem solving skills, based on Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences paradigm. The activities also serve to orient the students to archaeology exhibits by providing a context for the objects in the exhibit.

Introduction

Museums are places of informal learning. A large portion of what museums do centers on the passive involvement of the audience, for example, looking at an exhibit or watching a demonstration. Teaching kits, created by museums for use in school classrooms, often retain these passive characteristics.

However, learning theory dealing with informal learning situations, such as found in museums, suggests that people learn more easily through active participation. This project explored active learning processes in which the participants experience archaeological and curatorial practices through simulation. The result was the development of an activity guide for pre-visit orientation to an archaeology museum, primarily designed for use at the fourth through sixth grade level.

While the precise nature of learning in the museum environment is disputed, the educational mission of museums in the United States is a basic assumption among most museum professionals. Museum education, as an entity separate from exhibition, conservation, and curating, has traditionally dealt only indirectly with the objects and exhibits of the museum. Its role has often been to provide additional or collateral information and interpretation.

A review of the literature reveals that the challenges facing museum educators include curriculum development, taking into account the needs of formal learning institutions, the strengths of the museum, and the context of the visitor; integration of the development of education programs and materials with the exhibit development process; the need to relate the visitor's personal and social context to that of the museum; and programs and materials that engage the mind and imagination of the visitor, accommodating a variety of learning styles and intelligences. In short, museum education must be responsive to the needs of the visitor as well as the goals of the curator. That concern has been central to the development of this project.

Limitations

This work focused on learning theory as developed from informal learning situations, and relied heavily on the theoretical framework provided by Howard Gardner (1983, 1991, 1993). Gardner drew on the work of Dewey, Piaget, Lowenfeld, and others. The literature review is restricted to those aspects of learning theory supporting this project, rather than serving as an in-depth review of the field.

Limitations have also been placed on the review of archaeological literature. The theoretical underpinnings of archaeological practice have been a matter of intense debate since the mid-1950's. Initially, the distinction was between the ways culture was defined by traditional and new archaeologists. Traditionalists viewed culture as "a body of ideas, values, and belief shared by a group of people" Struever & Holton, 1979, p. 84. New archaeologists defined culture as "a non-biological system which human beings developed to cope with their environment." The differences in how culture was defined influenced what archaeologists looked for at a site, how they looked for it, and how the finds were then interpreted. More recently, archaeology has seen a debate between structuralists and functionalists, which concerns itself primarily with issues of interpretation.

The issues presented in the debate among archaeologists are certainly vital to the development of that science, but they are well outside the scope of this project. The author has chosen to focus on fundamental archaeological practices and issues of interpretation common to the various schools of thought. The intent is to provide context for an understanding of how objects in the museum came to be there, and how and why meaning has been assigned to those objects. It is hoped that this project might inspire young students to pursue their study of archaeology, and thus someday engage in their own debate on the merits of the contending theories.

Any exploration of archaeology must also raise corollary issues of cultural stewardship and resource management. The literature review on that topic is confined to a brief look at the subject in very broad terms, sufficient to provide an outline for classroom discussion as a part of debriefing the activities. The focus has been on moral and ethical issues, rather than legal issues.

Evaluation of the activity guide has been limited to review by anthropologists, and museum and education specialists, for accuracy, clarity, and appropriateness to grade level. Testing of the activities in a classroom setting has not been done.

Definitions

Formal and informal learning

Drawing a distinction between formal and informal learning situations is a bit problematic. It is not simply a matter of the former being what happens in school, and the latter being what happens out of school. Museums frequently mimic school classrooms in their public programs, and entire school programs and curricula have been created around the methodologies usually associated with informal learning. The term "informal learning," as used in the literature of museum education, is that which is self-directed, self-motivated, and, usually, socially mediated. It relies more on visual or multi-sensory stimuli than on verbal stimuli. This sort of learning can take place anywhere, including a school setting.

The distinction between formal and informal learning is based on both the context and the manner in which the learning takes place. It does not imply that one is preferable to the other, or that they are exclusive of each other. Some scholars refuse to recognize any distinction between the two. A fuller discussion of the differences between formal and informal learning is found in the literature review in the section on museum education.

Culture

Culture is a complex concept, and one that does not yield easily to simple definitions. Within the context of this project, culture is broadly used in the sense of the characteristic elements that define a people or society. A discussion of anthropological definitions can be found in the literature review.

Interpretation

Interpretation is the creation of meaning through a process of analysis and synthesis.

Acknowledgments

Creation of a teaching kit for archaeology was first suggested to me by Martha Muhs, Coordinator of Public Programs for the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology, at University of California, Berkeley. Margaret Pillsbury, a retired teacher and education consultant to the Hearst Museum, provided a very valuable critique during the early development of this project. The final draft of the activity guide was reviewed by, and benefited from the comments of two fine elementary school teachers, Fred Wilbur and Arvella Kokkeler. Patricia Krier, at the University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, has been enthusiastic and helpful in her encouragement and advice. Finally, but certainly not least, I want to acknowledge the contributions made by Jane Maitland-Gholson, as my committee Chair, and Rogena Degge, whose advice and guidance have been invaluable.