To Percolate, Simmer and Stew

In my reflection from our second class I mentioned the notion of constructivism and how I hoped to grapple with this epistemological viewpoint and its relationship to both technology and research – so I was pleasantly surprised to read Conole and Dykes’s (2004) discussion of affordances of information and communication technologies and the resulting conversation with Boyle and Cook (2004) as it helped to focus my thoughts on the topic a bit.

I read this series of papers through the lens of my own experiences and current research interests which are distinctly influenced by constructivism. Most of my work utilizes Falk and Dierking’s (2000) contextual model of learning. This framework, which often provides the basis for research in the field of informal learning environments, posits that learning occurs in four distinct yet interconnected contexts; the personal, the socio-cultural and the physical all throughout the context of time. It looks something like this:

 (Falk & Dierking, 2000)

This framework of learning is strongly based in the concepts of constructivism particularly as it relates to the structure and design of museum exhibits. Hein (1998) describes the constructivist museum as one which uses the prior knowledge of the learner (personal), considers the accessibility of the exhibit (personal and socio-cultural), makes opportunities for the shared experiences of visitors (socio-cultural) and considers the effects of the learning space (physical).

I’d like to think a little on how Hein might apply a few components of Conole and Dyke's  taxonomy of ICT to a constructivist museum (I’m going to focus on Hein because it is his article I have with me). For the sake of brevity I will look at Accessibility, Diversity, Communication and Collaboration and Reflection. These four concepts were selected due to their current overwhelming presence within a constructivist museum as presented by Hein and their strong relation to the contextual model of learning.

The concept of Accessibility addresses both the physical and personal contexts of learning. Within the museum community the concept of accessibility typically refers to the application of the principles of Universal Design to assist those with physical and mental challenges in experiencing the museum exhibit in the least restrictive manner possible. While important, this definition differs significantly from how Conole and Dyke describe accessibility. To them accessibility references the access people have to vast amounts of information and how they organize and use the information present. In the past access to information at museums was strictly controlled. Objects were selected and labels printed to provide a brief insight into why the curator (the authority) felt the object was significant. With the advent of social tagging, footnotes and QR codes constructivists museums have vastly expanded the amount of information available to visitors. In addition the development of online museums and companion sites have also increased the accessibility of a museum’s holdings to a larger public. To this point museums have done very little to assist visitors in navigating and managing this plethora of information – and I doubt much thought has been put into the process! From the viewpoint of a constructivism museum however, the access to information is a welcomed addition to the learning process. The concept of Accessibility meets both the personal and physical requirement of museum learning.

Diversity rests on belief that technology can “provide a means by which people can be exposed to experiences very different to their own and extend their experiences beyond their own communities” (Conole & Dyke, 117). For Hein the constructivist museum must also address concerns regarding diversity and can utilize technology. Videos and computer applications used to fill gaps of information which a traditionally curated collection might overlook such as the experiences of women and ethnic minorities during a particular timeframe.

Technology increases the ease with which people can Communicate and Collaborate with others. In the socio-cultural context of learning the social group holds a strong influence over the visitors learning experience. Shared experiences are a key part of the museum learning process (Hein, 1998). Between 5-10% of visitors attend museums alone (p. 172) and groups of visitors tend to be either family groups or homogeneous in makeup. Therefor in traditional museum environments there is limited opportunity to communicate and collaborate with those outside of a small social group and for those visitors who attend alone with anyone.  Through the use of technology constructivists museums have begun to incorporate platforms for visitors to record and share their thoughts with those outside of their social group. Social media and the use of hash tags have exposed visitors to a variety of thoughts regarding certain exhibits, pieces of art and artifacts to which they have not been previously exposed. Also museums have begun to incorporate Google Meet Ups, Live Tweets Tours of Exhibits, Chat Rooms and other forms of communication.

Reflection is the final component addressed in this post. Time is the foundation the contextual model of learning (Falk & Dierking, 2000). Visitors not only need time to engage with the exhibit, but hey need time to reflect on the experience after they have left the museum (Hein, 1998; Conole & Dyke, 2004). Technology allows visitors to both capture and return to the experience for further reflection and to continue conversation outside of the museums walls thus extending the discussion and expanding the time available for reflection and learning.*

*My thoughts on how technology can be used for reflection in museums are still being reflected upon. As Hein (1998) would say “Ideas still need to ‘percolate,’ ‘simmer,’ or ‘stew’ if they are to end up more than ‘half baked.’” (p. 172)