Teachers and successful museum field trips

(1)

Teachers and Successful Museum Field Trips by

Emily Mathias

H.B.A, University of Toronto, 2010

B. Ed., Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, 2011

A Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

In the Area of Social, Cultural and Foundational Studies In the Department of Curriculum and Instruction

(2)

Supervisory Committee Dr. Helen Raptis, Department of Curriculum and Instruction Supervisor

Dr. Graham McDonough, Department of Curriculum and Instruction Department Member Abstract

This project was undertaken to examine teachers’ approach to existing field trips, including current opportunities and challenges surrounding museums as free-‐ choice spaces. Observations of the literature revealed a lack of successful strategies, including pre-‐ and post-‐ activities and appropriate questioning. Furthermore, the literature revealed a striking lack of field trip resources for English Language Arts curriculum. In order to address these gaps, a website, Open Book Field Trips, was created as a resource to empower teachers with practical knowledge about free-‐ choice spaces and accessible resources to integrate a field trip to any museum with a poetry analysis and creative writing assignment. The resources are aligned with the British Columbia’s English Language Arts Prescribed Learning Outcomes grades 9-‐ 12.

(3)

Table of Contents

Supervisory Committee………..i

Abstract………..………..i

Table of Contents………..……….ii

Acknowledgements………..………iii

Dedication………..………...iii

Chapter One: The field trip………..……….1

Personal background………1

The value of museum field trips………4

Problems with the museum field trip today………..5

Relevance of field trips and British Columbia teacher today………..…6

Purpose of project and research questions………7

Theoretical framework………8

Constructivism……….8

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development……….10

Definitions………..………..11

Chapter Two: Literature review……….12

Introduction………..………..12

Pre-‐visit and post-‐visit museum field trip activities………..13

Recognizing the museum as a free-‐choice space………..18

Asking the right questions………..21

Who plans the field trip? The teacher or the museum?………25

English Language Arts field trips: Absent from research………30

Conclusion………..………..30

Chapter Three: Open Book Field Trips………...36

Introduction………..………..36

Website address………..………….37

Chapter Four: Conclusion and Discussion………38

Discussion of research questions………...38

Addressing the gaps in the literature………..39

Reflections on theoretical frameworks………..43

Website rationale………..………..44

Reflections on the process………..47

Selecting the topic………47

Challenges………..………..48

Current feedback………..…………50

Next steps………..………...50

Future research directions………52

Final thoughts………..………..53

(4)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank and acknowledge so many people who have helped me in this journey. You have all made this experience more important, exciting and worthwhile.

Thank you to my husband, David, for his kindness, hilarity and patience. I’m really happy we’re married.

I would also like to thank my family, Mom, Dad, Michael, Glen and Grandpa, whose ongoing support for me is unwavering and unending. It means so much to me. For my friends and colleagues who have listened and laughed with me,

including, but not limited, to Jessica MacLean, Sarah McLeod, Emma Milliken, Elspeth Horn, Brianna Degirolamo and Patrick Tucker. Thank you for all your insights and your laughter.

I would also like to extend sincere thanks to the dedicated professors at the University of Victoria, Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Particularly, my supervisor Dr. Helen Raptis, for her continued encouragement, support and shared love of museums. Helen, I hope I can be as inspiring to my students as you have been for me. And Dr. Graham McDonough, for his thoughtful and insightful feedback on this project. Thank you both for making this project so rewarding and meaningful.

Dedication

(5)

Chapter 1: The field trip

Personal background

“Every experience is a moving force. Its value can be judged only on the ground of what it moves towards and into.” -‐ Dewey, 1938, p. 12

My inspiration for investigating the museum field trip initially came from my own teacher education program at the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education (OISE) at the University in Toronto. We had two afternoon science classes that discussed the value of field trips and an assignment where we developed resources for specific sites around Toronto to be emailed to everyone in the cohort. It is reasonable to understand that the purpose of this activity was to foster the collaborative nature of education, but also to give us new teachers a wealth of resources to draw from. Although I understand the rationale of this activity, I was troubled by it. I wondered why we were taught to make our own resources; why weren’t we talking with museum educators? I had worked and volunteered in museums for many years, and I was disappointed to see a lack of invitation from OISE toward some of the world-‐renowned museums in town. I could not understand why OISE would not want to build on the existing museum visitor experience by connecting its Teacher Candidates with museum staff perhaps through

presentations or even a museum visit.

I began investigating more about field trips when I became a Teacher-‐on-‐call with the Greater Victoria School District. I looked online to find what kinds of

(6)

resources were available to teachers on district websites around British Columbia and from Canadian museums. I was particularly interested in the museums I had worked or volunteered at, including the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) and the Vancouver Maritime Museum. Although there are many resources available from these sites, there appeared to be little consensus regarding what makes an effective field trip. Many museums websites, such as the ROM, had worksheets aimed at elementary to intermediate level students and consisted of activities such as crossword puzzles and matching activities. I was surprised by the lower-‐order thinking the activities called for and the lack of connection to the classroom (Krathwold, 2002). The intent of the activities appeared to fulfill the role of occupying students’ time and energy, but I wondered how well they connected students to the educational potential of the museum itself. Furthermore, each of the activities were focused on either social studies or science curriculum. As an English teacher, it was disappointing to see the lack of connection to my subject of choice. These worksheets were startling because of my experience working in museums, which had always been positive and creative. My experience working at the ROM was particularly valuable in my conceptualization of the field trip. At this museum, I worked in two hands-‐on galleries that promoted visitors (primarily children) to investigate objects kinesthetically. Staff and volunteers in these

galleries were always creating new resources and activities for visitors, including a bee-‐keeping demonstration and a medieval weapons display. This kind of creativity, I felt, was sorely missing from the worksheets. Simplistic activities that were

(7)

at the ROM. I recognized there was a disconnect between the regular museum visit and the visit to the museum on a field trip, but I was unclear what could be done about it.

Another huge influence on my decision to investigate field trips was my first semester in my Masters program at the University of Victoria. Here, I reconnected with John Dewey and his thoughts of constructivism, so deeply rooted in experience and the engagement with that experience (Dewey, 1902; 1938). I came to realize that although field trips were experienced, the worksheets indicate that they did not necessarily build towards anything. As Dewey indicated, the quality of the

experience is significant as it should promote the appeal of future like experiences (Dewey, 1938). I questioned how could these worksheets lead to students desiring an experience at the museum in their future. Often, museums did not provide activities to be conducted back in the classrooms to anticipate and build upon the experience in the museum. Furthermore, I wondered: How did the field trip work sheet build towards curricular goals of the classroom, but also towards a comfort and confidence in using museum space? Average visitors to a museum visit because the space is interesting, informal and maybe even provocative, but, certainly, they are not filling in a worksheet as they move through the space (Falk & Dierking, 2000). Rather, I believe the informal experience takes advantage of Dewey’s

articulation of the learner as autonomous, imaginative and inventive (Dewey, 1902; 1938). The average museum visitor enters the space on their own terms and

(8)

reconnection to Dewey’s philosophy helped solidify my decision to move forward with the study of field trips.

The value of museum field trips

There is no doubt that field trips to museums provide a valuable learning experience for students. The experiences are memorable and the majority of students are able to remember specific events of things that occurred on museum field trips (Falk & Dierking, 1997). Many students are able to recall, years later, where and with whom they visited the museum. Furthermore, Falk and Dierking (1997) demonstrate that experiences to museums on field trips are not at all trivial or focused on the novelty of the setting as have been their criticism. Rather, they are memorable because of their educational and social benefits.

However, it is not only that field trips provide warm and positive memories for students. Rather, field trips have also been shown to contribute to students’ knowledge about art, critical thinking skills and historical compassion (Greene, Kisida & Bowen, 2014). Field trips have also demonstrated a strong potential not just for cognitive development, but as motivators for further learning (Hurley, 2006). These facts reinforce the conclusions I have drawn from my personal experience working/volunteering in museums, where I would observe students participating in field trips. Particularly in the hands-‐on galleries of the ROM, students appeared overjoyed to be “discovering” by trying on costumes or crawling through bat caves. From these experience, I could see the potential and opportunity for field trips to be

(9)

powerful educational experiences. Truly, if field trips are conducted appropriately, there is enormous potential for an enriching and rewarding outcome.

Problems with museum field trips today

From my personal observations, I have concluded that there are a number of general problems with field trips to museums. Firstly, museum field trips generally fail to connect to classroom curriculum. The experience is often described by teachers as a “one-‐off”, not to be discussed or built upon back in the classroom (Kisiel, 2007; Griffin & Symmington, 1997). From my observations, students seem aware of this and treat the experience as unimportant. They often appeared bored and disinterested with the exhibits. Secondly, teachers, perhaps from inexperience on misunderstanding of what constitutes learning in a museum setting, often occupy students with lengthy worksheets or give few instructions and give students free-‐ reign on their space and time (Kisiel, 2007; Griffin & Symmington, 1997). Neither of these scenarios provide the majority of students with the tools needed for a

meaningful, engaging field trip. The worksheets are often far too long, include too many “closed” questions and led to boredom. And on the opposite end of the

spectrum, the free-‐time leaves students without any guidance regarding how to use the space, leading again to boredom. Truly, the majority of field trips I have

observed do not correspond with Dewey’s description of a quality experience, as they appear to be disagreeable and do not appear to promote students’ desire to return to a museum (Dewey, 1938).

(10)

Relevance of field trips for British Columbia teachers today

As a teacher in British Columbia, I am focused on field trips in this province. Without a doubt, BC is home to many significant and valuable museum institutions that each provide enriching opportunities for field trips. One of the most significant resources available to teachers is the website bcfieldtrips.ca which hosts an annual Field Trip Fair in Vancouver, a searchable database of over 500 available programs

at over 100 organizations. It also provides a list of transportation options and a blog. Furthermore, BC museum websites each provide teachers with information for how to book a field trip and often provide accompanying resources or guides. In addition, nearly every school district website clearly outlines their field trip policy and

regulations. These sites and links clearly indicate that field trips are valuable and, furthermore, are well-‐used by teachers in this province.

Field trips may also have an increasing role to play in the next few years. As teachers and the public have been introduced to the BC Ministry of Education’s new curriculum, certain terms such as “Essential Concepts and Content for Deeper Learning” and “Personalized Learning” would seem to go hand-‐in-‐hand with the museum field trip experience (BC Ministry of Education, 2013). The Ministry website states that “deeper learning” occurs when students “solve problems, make decisions, and inquire into real-‐world issues” (BC Ministry of Education, 2013). Personalized learning is defined as a situation where “student engagement is

(11)

learning, giving students choices – more of a say in what and how they learn and where they learn” (BC Ministry of Education, 2013). Surely these goals can be

successfully achieved in a museum setting. One can develop historical empathy, thus connect more effectively to our “real-‐world issues” (Greene, Kisida & Bowen, 2014).

Purpose of project and research questions

The overall purpose of this project is to provide teachers in British Columbia with an accessible resource that provides realistic activities for a museum field trip and that overcome some of the classic problems with field trips to museums. My research questions were: What are the opportunities and challenges for teachers opting to use field trips? What are some strategies teachers can engage with in order to plan meaningful field trips that actively engage with the free-‐choice nature of museums? And how can teachers support the self-‐directed nature of the museum field trips?

These questions led to the development of a website, as the literature revealed the need for a concrete resource that bridged several gaps present in existing resources, including a lack of pre-‐ and post-‐ activities and a general lack of understanding by teachers about how to use the museum space effectively. As an English Language Arts at the high school level, I have chosen to design the resource with high school English teachers in mind. Furthermore, the literature established that English Language Arts field trips to museums are sorely lacking, as few studies even address their existence. My personal experience also reveals there is not a

(12)

wealth of resources available to English teachers for museum field trips. Overall, this project hopes to provide teachers with an available, practical resource that inspires engaging and meaningful museum field trips.

Theoretical framework

Constructivism

Given the nature of learning on field trips, this research is framed from a constructivist perspective. Knowledge, from a constructivist approach, is made from real-‐life experiences and prior knowledge which are combined to attain higher-‐ order thinking goals, such as creativity and complex problem solving (Dewey, 1938; Lombardi, 2011). This philosophical framework understands the learner as an active participant in the learning; he or she must experience in order to learn

(Glasersfeld, 1989). Constructivism also encourages hands-‐on learning, experiential learning, and discovery learning, the latter being the philosophical orientation that framed the galleries in which I worked at the ROM. The discoveries, such as the bat cave previously mentioned, made by the ROM’s visitors were structured by the museum to bridge their physical understanding and their mental or imagined knowledge (Bruner, 1961).

Constructivism’s encouragement of hands-‐on and experiential learning is a natural connection to field trips to museums (Dewey, 1938/2009). Experiences encouraged by the constructivist framework are a part of many existing exhibits and museum spaces and are readily available for student (or teacher) use on field trips.

(13)

Furthermore, studies, such as the one by Mortensen and Smart (2007), which I elaborate upon in Chapter 2, demonstrate the occurrence and value in collaborative and mutually constructed knowledge. Field trips to museums clearly have potential to foster learning within a constructivist setting as there are significant

opportunities for participants to make meaning and understanding. This project heavily relies on the assumption that students learn

meaningfully when engaged actively in the field trip , but they also need effective facilitation by teachers. As Dewey argued, education needs to strike a balance between the student’s “interests and actions” and the teacher’s delivery of knowledge (Dewey, 1902, p.44). The resource that is developed as part of this project is framed by the concept that students, although given parameters, learn when they have choice and freedom to explore and experience.

Furthermore, constructivism’s frame of the teacher as a facilitator who supports and encourages students’ learning is also appropriate for these studies (Glaserfeld, 1989). Naturally, to actively and positively facilitate, one must step outside the traditional educational model, in which students are subjected to “imposition from above and from outside” (Dewey, 1938/2007, p. 1), and expect students to actively explore, question and reflect (Alesandrini & Larson, 2002). As articulated by Alesandrini and Larson (2002), this can be a challenge for any teacher. However, the field trip provides a significant and tangible opportunity for even the most hesitant teacher to adopt this lens and “learn by doing” (Alesandrini & Larson, 2002, p. 118). Although this project develops, in part, resources for students to use independently, the teacher is always a crucial part of a successful field trip. The

(14)

project provides resources for the teacher to effectively frame and guide students during their experience(s). The project is designed within the framework that the teacher acts as a facilitator and is available for consultation and guidance before, during and after the field trip.

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development

This project is also framed by Vygotsky’s notion of the Zone of Proximal Developed (ZPD), a theory that children’s learning depends partly on their prior knowledge in that specific area. (Vygotsky, 1978) New knowledge is acquired by fitting the information into existing mental patterns (schemata). Vygotsky coined the term ZPD to refer to the optimal space for learning, when a child is challenged by new information, but has support – usually from a teacher – to fit new knowledge into existing patterns. It is crucial that the task be challenging, but not too difficult as to discourage the child entirely. Vygotsky posited that some students will be able to take the new information and fit it into their patterns independently. However, many students will struggle and teachers assist by scaffolding their knowledge, helping the student develop mental schema piece by piece into which to fit the new information.

ZPD and scaffolding inform this project because I have seen many field trips go awry simply because I don’t think students (and perhaps teachers) know how to use a museum to its full potential. If teachers could scaffold students’ learning and develop a mental schema for how to meaningfully operate in museum spaces, field trips have potential to be powerful experiences for learning. Vygotsky’s (1978)

(15)

theory also informs this project because I believe the field trip experience can be a scaffold to learning back in the classroom or vice-‐versa, if only teachers understood more effectively how to bridge the two spaces together. This project aims to

promote a challenging, but not overly complex, field trip resource that enables students and teachers to experience a positive and successful museum visit.

Definitions

• Museum: A permanent public space designed to facilitate learning. For the purposes of this project, I am referring traditional museums, hands-‐on learning centres, science centres and historic sites.

• Free-choice learning spaces: Spaces entered into by individuals to “satisfy their needs for relaxation, enjoyment, intellectual or even spiritual fulfillment” (Falk, 2005, p. 265). Falk recognizes that these spaces are traditionally

viewed as museums, parks or other public institutes, but with advancing technological complexity, the term has resonance with other spaces, such as websites.

(16)

Chapter 2: Literature Review Introduction

The topic of field trips is significant in the education field, since many teachers participate in them, they are generally understood as valuable and

worthwhile; and students generally have positive memories of them (Wolins, Jensen & Ulzheimer, 1992; Falk, 2005). Field trips to museums have a special ability to connect students with learning in a context outside their classrooms. Field trips generally demonstrate to students that learning not only exists within the walls of schools, but takes place outside, as well. Museum field trips are also a worthwhile topic because museums have the significant role as places of free-‐choice learning; the visitor has a large degree of control over her experience (Falk, 2005). The benefits of the experience can be increased dramatically when teachers incorporate appropriate strategies (Griffin & Symington, 1997). Also, from my own personal experiences working in museums, there are significant variations on how teachers use the museum space and connect it to students’ classroom learning. As museums are accepted as spaces of free-‐choice learning and provide ample opportunity for visitors to exercise choice and personal selection over prescribed experiences, I am curious as to how teachers take – or do not take – advantage of this opportunity (Falk, 2005; Falk & Dierking, 2000). My guiding questions for this literature review are: What are some strategies teachers can engage with in order to plan a

(17)

teachers support the self-‐directed, free-‐choice nature of the museum during field trips?

Using these guiding questions, I searched the online database ProQuest through the University of Victoria Library website. My search terms included “field trip”, “teacher preparation”, “museum partnership”, “teacher guide”, “field trip worksheet”, “free choice learning in museums”, “museum visits” and “school visits”. While I tried to keep the literature recent, I have also included a few studies that date back more than 10 years because of the very focused nature of my guiding questions.

Pre-visit and post-visit museum field trip activities

A particularly important theme that surfaced from the literature is the need for classroom curriculum to be connected effectively to the museum. In my museum work experience, I saw many school groups without a specific purpose. The

students were either on tours not meant for their grade, thus not directly related to their class activity, or with teacher-‐ or museum-‐prepared worksheets, rushing around the multitude of exhibits gathering answers.

Studies show that a majority of museum field trips do not connect with classroom lessons (Kisiel, 2003). The scholarly literature overwhelmingly indicates that it is valuable in advance of the trip for teachers to prepare students for the trip itself and the subject matter (Noel & Colopy, 2006; Narbors, Edwards & Murray, 2009; Tuffy, 2011). This, unfortunately, does not often occur in reality, as students

(18)

are often unprepared for the experience and do not anticipate follow-‐up activities (Griffin & Symington, 1997). It is also discussed and suggested that teachers have follow-‐up activities about the field trip (Noel & Colopy, 2006; Griffin & Symington, 1997; Tuffy, 2011).

In Constantino’s (2008) study, she explored the teacher’s role as effective mediator of students’ experiences on a field trip to a visual art gallery. The

researcher used a case study structure to examine the planning and implementation of a field trip by a grade six teacher, Kate. Data were gathered through observation of the classroom before and after the visit and the field trip itself, semi-‐structured interviews with the art teacher, classroom teachers and a purposeful sample of students. Student artifacts (worksheet and artwork) were also collected. Firstly, Kate developed a unit based on an exhibit of contemporary sculpture by Spanish artist Juan Munoz. She chose the topic based on the artistic attributes and

connections to history and culture, but also revealed her discomfort with the subject because she did not have an art history background.

The unit consisted of nine consecutive 40-‐minute lessons leading up to the field trip, where students participated in creative writing based on Munoz’s installations and drawing lessons (Constantino, 2008). After the field trip, lessons focused on students creating sculptures and planning their own installation. Kate visited the exhibition several times to plan how students would interact with the space. She also prepared using teacher resources from the museum and her own research on the Internet. Kate then led a one-‐hour guided tour with the class by asking them to look at a specific sculpture grouping and then asking open-‐ended

(19)

and guiding questions to draw out themes and ideas. Students responded positively to the unit and referred to prior lessons leading up to the trip as helpful. Their reflections on Munoz’s work indicated understanding and interest in the sculptures. Significantly, Kate’s plan and implementation of a field trip demonstrates her

comfort with the subject matter and the museum as an informal learning place. Her foresight to prepare the students for the museum trip with introductory lessons (including vocabulary and brief explanations of larger artistic concepts) connected students to the visit. Kate’s work to enhance the students’ experience through pre-‐ and post-‐ activities resulted in a meaningful integration of the museum into

students’ (and Kate’s) learning. It is interesting to consider the fact that Kate virtually created all her own materials for this field trip. It seems unlikely that the majority of teachers would have the kind of time and energy to create such a plan, even though it proved to be effective and stimulating.

In Tuffy’s (2011) study, she established that in order for field trips to be effective, teachers must engage in pre-‐activities and post-‐activities. Tuffy’s research included interviews with teachers leading field trips at museums and with museum educators at several American and British museums as well as observations of school and public visits to museum galleries. She established that student

engagement with the museum is increased when students are given background information and develop relationships with the material before the trip. When students have prior knowledge about the subject matter, they will not be

overwhelmed or intimidated by the space. In the same vein, when students have effective follow up, their learning is supported and valued. This study is significant

(20)

because it clearly supports the value of teachers making the museum part of the curriculum through pre-‐ and post-‐ activities. Tuffy argues effectively that museums should be an integrated resource, not a separated excursion. However, Tuffy’s practical solutions for the field trip involve teachers taking extra time to visit the museum prior to their class visit and the implementation of follow-‐up activities, which she suggests teachers may find on the museum website. Although Tuffy directly acknowledged the disconnection between classroom and museum, the solutions offered were impractical as they were time-‐consuming and asked teachers to design and implement lessons and activities in an unfamiliar setting.

Griffin and Symington’s (1997) study focused on the role of classroom teachers before, during and after museum field trips. Researchers conducted their investigation at two Australian museums: the Australian Museum and a smaller scale science centre. Data were collected through observation of 30 class field trips, and interviews with 23 teachers before, during and after the trip and also with informal student interviews with students during the trip. Results indicate that only half of the teachers interviewed could relate the field trip to students’ learning of content or skill. Seventy-‐five percent of the classes had only been prepared for the field trip by being told what institution they were going to, to bring a signed permission slip and money. Most teachers indicated there would be follow-‐up activities back in the classroom, but these mostly entailed collection of worksheets completed during the visit. The majority of students did not expect follow-‐up activities. Only four of the school groups observed were studying in school the subject that was presented at the museum. This study illustrated that field trips to

(21)

museums are not usually connected to classroom material. Teachers seemed to lack an understanding of how to support students’ learning at the museum; instead their focus was on completion and collection of lengthy, survey-‐type worksheets

Noel and Colopy’s (2006) study involved a quantitative assessment of 47 grade four teachers and qualitative interviews with seven museum site educators. The researchers’ teacher survey was guided by questions about how and when teachers intended to use materials provided by the museum during their field trip and what resource characteristics most appealed to teachers. Results indicated that the majority of teachers intended to use curricular materials offered by the sites to prepare for the trip, and 44 of the 47 teachers preferred to receive the material before the trip. Furthermore, half of the teachers surveyed would prefer a short (<45 minutes) lesson plan resource, opposed to multi-‐day, longer or home-‐

enrichment lessons. In interviews, site educators indicated that student preparation of material to be covered during the field trip is the most valuable tool. It

significantly helps students enjoy and engage with the experience. It is clear from this study that both teachers and site educators want students to be prepared for the field trip. A majority of teachers in this study specified they wanted to present a lesson in preparation for the field trip, which indicates they see the value of relating the field trip to the classroom. Unfortunately, this study does not address how many teachers actually do prepare students with such available materials.

(22)

Recognizing the museum as a free-choice space

Another theme that emerged from the literature is the fact that teachers overwhelmingly bring the formality and rigidity of traditional classroom practice to the museum field trip experience (Kisiel, 2003; 2007; Griffin & Symington, 1997). Students are rarely provided opportunity to freely engage meaningfully with the space. Rather, students are often provided with a rigid structure, filled with close-‐ ended questions and then, at the end and on the opposite end of the spectrum, given a lot of time to be “free” in the space without the parameters of how to spend their time effectively. Kisiel (2003; 2007) and Griffin and Symington (1997) reveal the majority of teachers prefer close-‐ended, traditional tools when supporting student learning in museums. Rather than helping students engage with the museum as free-‐choice, the rigidity of classroom experiences, such as worksheets, are

implemented and valued. From my experience working in museum settings, I have seen many visiting school groups use the museum space in this way.

Kisiel (2007), in his study, articulated the specific strategies teachers report using during field trips to local museums and questioned how those align with observed field trip practice. Data for the study were collected through surveys sent to upper level elementary school teachers in the Los Angeles area and were

returned to the researcher by mail. The questionnaire was a combination of close-‐ ended, demographic-‐type questions and open-‐ended questions. Four hundred questionnaires were sent out to randomly selected teachers and 115 were returned. Data were also collected from an in-‐depth study with 10 randomly selected teachers

(23)

who had already booked field trips to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. With each of these 10 teachers, researchers conducted a pre-‐visit interview based on the mailed survey questionnaire, observation of the students and teacher during the visit, and a follow-‐up interview with the teacher. Kisiel concluded that most teachers utilize the structured engagement strategy, which usually involves scavenger hunts or worksheets. Although some teachers also implemented

unstructured strategies, such as free time, interviews revealed that teachers were less comfortable with those practices due to time constraints or the teacher’s perception of prescribed outcomes of the field trip. Overall, this study articulated teachers’ general preference for structured signs of learning was preferred, such as completion of worksheets. This study implied that the majority of teachers may not realize the free-‐choice nature of learning within the museum.

A study already mentioned, Griffin and Symington’s (1997) study also sheds light on the formality of classroom learning in the free-‐choice space. In this study it was observed that most of the teachers focused on students finishing lengthy worksheets based on assignments given out by the venue, later to be marked by the teachers. Generally teachers did not help build connections between exhibits and classroom activity. Furthermore, students expressed their distaste for the

worksheets and said they interfered with viewing the exhibits that personally interested them. Significantly, students articulated to researchers that if they were engaging with the space but not answering questions on the worksheet, they were not learning. Yet students desired more control over their experience on excursions to such venues. This study certainly suggests a serious misunderstanding of what

(24)

learning looks like. This study significantly illustrates the fact that formality of the long questionnaires students are forced to answer during field trips do not foster learning within the free-‐choice space. Rather, they actually misled students as to how to use and learn from the museum.

Kisiel’s (2003) study focused on the characteristics of typical worksheets teachers use during a museum field trip to a natural history museum. Twelve worksheets were collected from twelve different schools over a two-‐month period (April and December). Ten teachers were interviewed and eight school visits were observed. Qualitative data analysis was used to analyze worksheets, interviews and observations. Significantly, questions were counted and differences in worksheet styles and strategies were evident. The worksheets were categorized into two themes: survey (lower-‐order thinking skills, specific answers) or concept oriented (higher-‐order thinking skills, open ended). A majority of the worksheets were survey format. Teachers reported the goal of the field trip for students was to “see as much as possible” (Kisiel, 2003, p.13) or as a general opportunity to learn outside the classroom. Clearly, the teachers wanted the experience to be valuable for

students as each teacher took the time to prepare a worksheet. However, this study strongly demonstrates the good intentions of the teacher, but the lack of

understanding of the museum as a place of free-‐choice learning. Unfortunately, this study, like Griffin and Symington’s (1997), only addressed field trips to science-‐ based museums.

(25)

Asking the right questions

Another theme that emerged was that the questions that are asked to students during field trips can dramatically affect the experience of the museum visit. Mortensen and Smart (2007) demonstrated that carefully planned, open-‐ ended questions on museum worksheets provide important opportunity for students to connect their prior knowledge and can guide students to use exhibits effectively. Burchenal and Grohe (2007), meanwhile, articulated, in their study, the value of teaching students how to question or critique art. When students are empowered with this ability, they are able to confidently use the museum space independently. Finally, although not directly related to the field trip experience, Hohenstein and Tran’s (2007) study reveals the potential for appropriate, open-‐ ended questions on museum exhibit labels to inspire conversation and mutually constructed meaning by visitors. Each of these studies reveals the potential for teachers to support learning in museums by asking the right questions.

Mortensen and Smart (2007) articulated that a well-‐designed worksheet can enhance student experience and actually expose students to curriculum while on a museum visit. This study built upon Kisiel’s (2003) study of 12 museum worksheets and the authors designed a Chaperone’s Guide for the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. The guide was intended to orient visitors, provide open-‐ended questions directly connected to the science curriculum that would facilitate dialogue among small groups. The researchers observed 23 control groups and 24

(26)

indicated that the use of the Chaperone’s Guide increased the likelihood the groups would discuss exhibits and connect them naturally to curricular goals back in the classrooms. The study also demonstrated the guide kept students focused and engaged with the museum, as the guide stressed examination of exhibits and their labels. Clearly worksheets have enormous potential to focus students, learning within the free-‐choice nature of the museum space.

Another study by Burchenal and Grohe (2007) again demonstrated the power of open-‐ended questions. This study looked at a specific program called “Thinking Through Art” developed at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston. The program was designed to enhance students critical-‐thinking skills, such as observation, interpretation and problem finding. The program consists of

elementary classes participating in multiple visits to the museum where students are asked three questions designed to prompt observations and supply evidence: What is going on in this picture? What do you see that makes you say that? What more can we find? For the purpose of their study, researchers observed two classes who engaged with the “Thinking Through Art” program and two control groups. All four groups were recorded as they discussed a specific art poster and as they

participated in an “untour” through which they explored a single museum gallery on their own. Researchers then coded students’ conversation with a facilitator through the use of a rubric that outlined seven areas of critical thinking skills. Results

indicate that groups who had participated in “Thinking Through Art” demonstrated significantly more instances of critical-‐thinking skills and they were also likely to provide evidence for what they were thinking. Significantly, this study demonstrates

(27)

the power of well-‐crafted questions to focus students on the exhibits. These students were able to move freely about the museum space. Nevertheless, the “Thinking Through Art” program empowered them to interpret and use the space effectively. If teachers had access to a resource that provided a model for open-‐ ended questions such as these, museum experiences would likely be rewarding and empowering for students.

In Witmer, Luke and Adams’ (2000) article analyzes a partnership between Washington, DC schools and the National Gallery of Art is analyzed and the results, like Burchenal and Grohe (2007), demonstrate the power of asking the right questions. The partnership analyzed by Witmer et al., is titled “Art Around the Corner”, and includes multiple visits to the museum, studio and writing projects, several inquiry-‐based tours and culminates in a presentation to friends and family on Family Day. Students learn to ask questions about art through repeated guided exposure to museum space. Significantly, one of the goals of the project is “[t]o enhance students’ abilities to analyze, discuss and interpret original works of art” (Witmer et al., p. 47). This article details the results of a 1998 study by Luke, Adams and Falk which revealed that students who had participated in “Art Around the Corner” three years prior, still scored significantly higher in critical thinking skills than those who had not participated (Witmer et al., 2000). After being asked to give their impressions of a painting, students who had participated in “Art Around the Corner” used more description, more detailed vocabulary and provided more support for their ideas (Witmer et al., 2000). This study clearly demonstrates the

(28)

potential for field trips to museums as rewarding and potentially when students are asked, and are taught to ask, the right questions.

Although not directly related to the field trip experience, Hohenstein and Tran’s (2007) study has significant implications for questions asked in museums. The study used a Vygotskian framework of conversation as a social mechanism from which meanings are mutually constructed, in order to examine conversations

stimulated from questions or statements on museum labels. The study took place at a science museum and involved labeling three exhibits (a model Victorian workshop, a bowl from Hiroshima, Japan and a section of a car) with three label conditions: the exhibit’s Current Label, Current Label with Added Question “Why is this here?” and Simplified Text with Question. The exhibits were then videotaped under each label condition for approximately 6 hours and 839 episodes were recorded. Qualitative research analysis was conducted and 464 episodes that included conversations were transcribed, coded and analyzed. Specifically, the study sought to understand how the label affected how many open-‐ended, self-‐generated questions would be asked in conversation following reading the label. The study’s findings indicate that the addition of the question “Why is this here?” to the original label may promote more open-‐ended questions and explanations. However, the label’s effectiveness on this dialogue varied among the exhibits. One conclusion was that guided questions can stimulate visitor inquiry and reflection, but the question must be appropriate and applicable to the nature of the displayed object. Although not directly linked to a school-‐based educational context, this study demonstrates that if the right questions

(29)

are asked, conversation and thus, mutually constructed knowledge, have the potential to arise.

Who plans the field trip? The teacher or the museum?

Another theme that emerged from the literature is that there needs to be preparation done for field trips by teachers and museums. Although museums seek out class visits and are generally prepared with staff for such field trips, much of the research indicates the teacher as the official planner of the experience (Narbors, Edwards & Murray, 2012). From my experience, teachers use study guides devised by the museum or gallery, worksheets downloaded from the museum website or engage directly with a docent for a tour. Each of these, from my perspective, demonstrates the teacher’s understanding that the museum holds much of the responsibility for the museum experience. I have already indicated that Wilmer et al. (2000) and Burchenel and Grohe (2007) hinted at the power of direct partnerships between schools and museums. Rebar (2012) and Narbors, Edwards and Murray (2009), however, highlighted the lack of teacher training and general awareness of how to prepare for a successful field trip. Brodie and Wiebe (1999) and Tran (2006), however, demonstrate that museum staff do not meet tensions that arise when teachers’ expectations are not met during the field trip. Although both museum staff and teachers may be fulfilling their own agendas and desired outcomes, they are not working together. If there were a way for teachers and museum staff to articulate their expectations and desired outcomes, there is potential for far richer, more