“Exhibition
also would be more useful if they allowed audiences to relate the
displayed information to their own ideas, perspectives, and
questions. This is a basic tenet of contemporary theories of
education, and George Hein suggests that museums should be guided by
a similar principle: For visitors to learn from displays, museums
must allow them to ‘connect what they see, do and feel with what
they already know, understand and acknowledge.’”
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L.
S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. New York, NY:
Routledge. P.123
Barton and Levstik focus this
chapter on the ways in which people express historical knowledge,
especially things that they themselves have learned. They have
already discussed doing so for personal enjoyment and because there
are some kinds of government or state requirements related to the
subject. They choose to devote the last few pages of the chapter,
more than in the previous two sections combined (at a rough estimate)
to the display of historical knowledge as a service to the public,
particularly in museums. In this section they have already
criticized museums that have not allowed a full picture of the issue
or historical time period to be displayed, or ones that do not have a
purpose other than displaying their collections of artifacts. In
this particular section Barton and Levstik argue that museums should
go beyond the basic presentation of facts, beyond advancing whatever
their particular agenda is, and create exhibits that let visitors
really interact on an intellectual level. They should structure
information in such a way that people can relate what they’re
seeing (regardless of time period or topic) to what they already
know. Barton and Levstik suggest that museum visitors of all ages
will be unable to learn anything from the museum unless it can in
some way be made relevant or relatable to what they already know.
Where this quote and this entire
section holds the greatest relevance for me in terms of teaching
social studies at a secondary level has to do with presenting
information and making connections. Barton and Levstik’s argument
about museums seems a little shaky with regards to the implication
that the museum is supposed to do all the work in terms of presenting
information in a way that everyone is going to be able to easily
relate to it or easily draw connections. However I believe that any
museum visitor must be responsible for pulling their intellectual
weight as well. The museum should not be expected to make the
connections between their subject matter and the type of prior
knowledge the visitors may have (assuming of course that it is easy
to predict and generalize about this) explicitly clear. Museums do
not have to ‘allow’ visitors to make connections, visitors should
be willing and able to do so themselves. Similarly, there is a
tension in teaching social studies at the secondary level of where
and how to draw the line between providing students with necessary
information and expecting the students to take a step beyond
explaining basic facts and detail why a time period or historical
event was important. They are at a level where they can at least
begin to take this step. This does not mean that teachers should
just throw information at them and expect these connections to come
naturally, especially early in the secondary years, but there is a
new level of expectation for students to work towards making these
connections. The role of the teacher shifts from more of an
information conduit to a guide. Teachers need to provide background
information (especially for topics that are less familiar to
students) and they need to scaffold processes, but it is the
student's job to take that leap and make that connection. Similar to
museum visitors, students need to be willing and able to make
connections themselves. There is only so much presenting of
information that teachers can do without students getting involved in
thinking about historical topics and their connections. This is a
crucial skill particularly in the social studies and one which should
be integrated into the calendar and curriculum at every available
point so that students will build up their skills over time as they
build their dexterity at this skill.
Katherine,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your perspective on this piece from Barton and Levstik, as it was very different from mine. It is interesting that, in essence, you believe Barton and Levstik are letting museum visitors off the hook, saying that it is not their responsibility to bring their own curiosity, knowledge and critical thinking to the table.
While I didn't initially react this way, I do somewhat agree with your point; too many people pass uncritically through museums and 'living museums' like Williamsburg and Jamestown. People should do a little more work to frame their visits, to put what they are seeing into perspective and context, and to examine the messages of museums and exhibits.
That said, I think that Barton and Levstik are correct to argue that some (or perhaps most) museums make it difficult to do this without a high degree of knowledge. It is difficult for the average visitor to critique what they see at Williamburg, for example, or the National Constitution Center, because they don't spend a lot of time thinking about the content presented. They are, perhaps, an accountant who is trying to have an enjoyable, educational Columbus Day weekend with her kids, or a young family visiting Philadelphia for the first time. I think there is only so much lifting that these visitors can be expected to do. It is in this gap in public knowledge that museums can be most useful, but it is also where they have the most power to shape narratives and meaning.
Katherine,
ReplyDeleteThanks for providing a different and interesting perspective on the role of museums. By definition, their role is to exhibit information to the public and allow for a great deal of learning to take place. That being said, however, it is analogous to the classroom in that museum goers, like students in a school, are under some responsibility to meet the teachers, as it were, halfway. Museums present an interesting place to apply differentiation through the form of diverse media and exhibits that will appeal to all sorts of learners, and it is a shame that some do not do this as well as others.
I enjoyed reading about the role that teachers can play in facilitating learning at museums. Whereas in my experience teachers have seen field trips as a sort of "break", field trips can actually be highly integrated into the coursework and used to further mastery of the class material. As we saw at the art museum, there are often staff specially trained to work with schools, and coordination with the teacher can vastly improve the outcome.
While it is difficult for museums to present exhibits and knowledge without asking for a great deal of background knowledge, doing so would also be an excellent way to engage the public at large (and students in particular), and foster a love of history across society.