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 Choice
Learning 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 fromclassroom-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 museumworksheets. Analysis of
the museumactivities has yielded four levels of choice that affect learning fromno 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 ndings 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: ybamberg@technion.ac.il
Contract grant sponsor: Israel Science Foundation
Contract 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.
C
2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.
C
2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 91:7595, 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 eld 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 inuence of class preparation to
the visit, and (c) the factors that determine students learning (Grifn, 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 general
framework 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 discussedmainlytheoretically, bylookingat 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 rened denition, 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 concepts informal and nonformal learning. The idea
of free choice emphasizes the unique nature of out-of-school environments that allows the
learner to identify several learning options, in a variety of spaces, and nally, to choose a
specic option, theme, or space for learning. Therefore, we tend to use the concept of free
choice learning environments that 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 dened 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
LEARNING IN A PERSONAL CONTEXT 77
Unlike classroom learning, which is composed of linear sequenced units that rely on
prior knowledge and previously learned scientic 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; Grifn
& 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 (Grifn & 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 specics of their learning is limited (Cox-Petersen, Marsh, Kisiel, & Melber, 2003;
Grifn, 2004; Grifn & 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 (Grifn & 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 mediumsize 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, museum3 is located in a city in the north, and museum4 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 their
exhibits and educational staff. Following Tal and colleagues (Tal et al., 2005), we adopted
the termguides for the museumexplainers. 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 dened here, is natural history and science museums. Although the
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
78 BAMBERGER AND TAL
T
A
B
L
E
1
M
u
s
e
u
m
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
M
u
s
e
u
m
N
o
.
o
f
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
T
a
r
g
e
t
G
r
a
d
e
(
C
o
d
e
)
p
e
r
Y
e
a
r
(
2
0
0
3
)
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
s
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
S
t
a
f
f
1
(
N
C
)
8
,
0
0
0
T
e
l
A
v
i
v
6

1
2
A
z
o
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
c
e
n
t
e
r
,
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
.
F
o
c
u
s
e
s
m
a
i
n
l
y
o
n
a
z
o
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
g
a
r
d
e
n
;
a
i
m
s
t
o
m
a
k
e
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
t
a
l
i
f
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
2
(
M
L
)
1
6
,
0
0
0
T
e
l
A
v
i
v
m
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
r
e
a
1

8
A
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
m
u
s
e
u
m
;
w
a
s
b
u
i
l
t
f
o
r
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
;
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
n
e
x
h
i
b
i
t
w
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
n
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
e
n
t
e
r
,
w
h
i
c
h
h
o
l
d
s
a
f
e
w
h
a
l
l
s
,
a
r
r
a
n
g
e
d
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
y
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
g
u
i
d
e
s
,
h
o
l
d
i
n
g
a
B
A
i
n
b
i
o
l
o
g
y
,
m
o
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
m
h
a
v
e
a
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
d
i
p
l
o
m
a
3
(
S
M
)
8
0
,
0
0
0
N
o
r
t
h
K
-
1
2
T
h
e
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
u
s
e
u
m
o
f
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
;
t
h
e
l
a
r
g
e
s
t
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
;
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
a
v
a
s
t
a
s
s
o
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
e
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
t
t
h
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
f
a
c
u
l
t
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
4
(
B
O
)
7
,
0
0
0
N
o
r
t
h
4

1
1
A
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
m
u
s
e
u
m
;
w
a
s
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
t
h
e
u
n
i
q
u
e
a
r
c
h
e
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
g
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
w
o
m
e
n
(
a
g
e
1
8

2
1
)
;
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
n
a
t
u
r
e
g
u
i
d
e
s
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
LEARNING IN A PERSONAL CONTEXT 79
TABLE 2
Museums, 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 48 (age 9.514.5). 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 identied for
further observations. Then, each data collector videotaped a class visit. The researchers
observed together each tape, identied 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,
student teacher, and student guide 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
scientic 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 day
following 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 worksheets were 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.
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
80 BAMBERGER AND TAL
Each class visit was coded for the museums initials, date of visit, researcher initial and
students grade level. For example, NC/010104/O/6 stands for museum 1 (NC), January 1,
2004, researcher initial (O), and grade 6. The codes were marked on the videotape, on its
written analysis, and on the worksheets. The interviews were coded for student number,
museums initials, and date of visit. For example, S3 SM010104 means student 3, museum
3 (SM), January 1, 2004.
Data Analysis
An inductive data analysis approach was adopted (Erickson, 1998; Lincoln & Guba,
1985) in order to determine the types of choice provided to students on class visits to
science and natural history museums (research question #1). An emergent t was developed
to modify the categories to match with the data by determining the elements in which choice
was provided (Taber, 2000; Rennie et al., 2003). The categories that were modied were the
topic 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.
In order to investigate the way different types of choice affect learning (research question
#2), we focused on the following three dominant domains of learning in museums that refer
to the personal context of the museum experience (Cox-Petersen et al., 2003; Falk &
Dierking, 2000; Gilbert & Priest, 1997; Hein, 1998; Pedretti, 2004):
a. task behavior;
b. linkage to prior knowledge and the school science curriculum;
c. linkage to students life and experiences.
These domains were examined by observations, students interviews, and museums
working sheets.
Observations. Two trained researchers analyzed the videotapes according to the type of
choice and the three domains of learning. The training was aimed to reduce possible discrep-
ancies and to increase judgmental agreement, and encompassed few steps. As with the data
collection training, the researchers analyzed together four observations and discussed the ap-
pearance of the learning domains in the guides and the students conversations. Then, each
researcher individually analyzed one observation, and the summaries were discussed by the
group of three data collectors. The analysis began with preparing a detailed summary of the
scene. This summary included description of students and instructors acting and discussing.
In the second stage, instances of instructor setup, explaining, discussing, summarizing, and
concluding, were coded for the three domains of learning and the provided choice oppor-
tunities. After we agreed upon our analysis scheme, each tape was analyzed individually.
Semistructured interviews. The student interviews were transcribed and coded according
to linkage to prior knowledge and to the classroomscience learning, linkage to the students
life and experiences, and general interest and enjoyment. Classifying the statements that
were obtained from the interview transcripts was executed by two researchers in order to
establish an acceptable level of interjudgmental reliability. The rst fty statements were
coded together by the two researchers, and at the second stage, forty statements were coded
independently and the interrater reliability was 0.8. Cases of disagreements were discussed
and resolved between the researchers.
Museum worksheets. The museum worksheets were scrutinized for the type and extent
of choice that was provided to the students by each activity. The tasks and the questions on
the worksheets were examined according to the elements in which choice was provided:
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
LEARNING IN A PERSONAL CONTEXT 81
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 specic
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
identied two kinds of tasks that gave the students different opportunities:
Limited 1: The space for discovery is restricted to a specic 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, fromthe entire exhibit.
In both types of limited choice, we observed interactions amongst students, between students
and their teacher, and between the students and the museumguide. 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 dened role.
The different choice opportunities, or types of choice, can be presented as levels, with
regard 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 identied. If we look at limited choice 1,
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
82 BAMBERGER AND TAL
T
A
B
L
E
3
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
f
o
r
D
a
t
a
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
D
o
m
a
i
n
s
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
t
o
P
r
i
o
r
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
t
o
S
t
u
d
e
n
t

s
L
i
f
e
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
C
h
o
i
c
e
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
T
a
s
k
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
C
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
a
n
d
E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
T
o
p
i
c
,
s
p
a
c
e
,
o
b
j
e
c
t
s
,
t
i
m
e
,
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
o
r
d
e
r
o
f
e
x
p
l
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
s
k
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
y
t
o
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
,

l
l
i
n
w
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
s
,
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
,
p
r
e
s
s
b
u
t
t
o
n
s
,
t
o
u
c
h
m
o
d
e
l
s
,
r
e
a
d
l
a
b
e
l
s
G
u
i
d
e

s
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
c
h
o
o
l
a
n
d
n
o
n
s
c
h
o
o
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
G
u
i
d
e

s
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

f
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
e
v
e
r
y
d
a
y
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
W
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
s
T
o
p
i
c
,
s
p
a
c
e
,
o
b
j
e
c
t
s
,
a
n
d
o
r
d
e
r
o
f
e
x
p
l
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
s
c
h
o
o
l
a
n
d
n
o
n
s
c
h
o
o
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

e
v
e
r
y
d
a
y
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
f
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
t
h
e
s
c
i
e
n
t
i

c
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
,
e
n
j
o
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
v
i
s
i
t
,
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
a
b
o
u
t
a
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
c
h
o
o
l
a
n
d
n
o
n
s
c
h
o
o
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
v
e
r
y
d
a
y
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
,
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
LEARNING IN A PERSONAL CONTEXT 83
TABLE 4
Choice 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 for limited choice within 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 reect the
sequential nature of choice that enables even more levels between the no choice to free
choice poles. We could have dened 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 choice and differentiated
between the two levels by numbering, to point out to the possibility of dening other levels
of limited choice within the continuum.
Most of the 29 visits we observed were of the no choice (45%) and the free choice levels
(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 on reproduction was of the no choice level, the limbs and motion activity 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 choice to
limited or free choice according 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.
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
84 BAMBERGER AND TAL
TABLE 5
Level 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.
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
LEARNING IN A PERSONAL CONTEXT 85
In museums 2 and 4, the students sat on the oor 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 scientic
phenomena or principles related to one or two objects for about 1015 minutes. Only then,
the students were allowed to freely explore the hands-on exhibition. Quite often, the guides
used jargon and unfamiliar scientic 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 reected 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 rst airplane?
Students: The Wright brothers.
Guide: Do you know their names? (SM\190105\Y\8)
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
86 BAMBERGER AND TAL
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 no
choice 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 geography
of 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 (ippers)?
(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
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
LEARNING IN A PERSONAL CONTEXT 87
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 heard
about bats, but never saw one. This was my rst 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 other no choice guiding
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 as limited
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 specic area in
the museum; nding 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 difcult stopping them
from doing the tasks and calling them to join the next activity. They kept lying on the oor
and writing their answers.
In some visits at museum4, the activities were identied 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:
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
88 BAMBERGER AND TAL
(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 (the
labels) 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 difculties 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 sheets
refer 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 the limited choice work-
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 own
life:
(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)
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
LEARNING IN A PERSONAL CONTEXT 89
(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 reections 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 lled 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 identied
as cognitive, at which students talked about a phenomenon or a scientic 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 reected 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)
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
90 BAMBERGER AND TAL
The students that were quoted in the rst and the second quotes were satised 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 scientic
ideas and some boredom of the free exploration, with no directions.
Linkage to Prior Knowledge and School Curriculum. Free choice exploration, 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 specic scientic 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 t.
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 of free choice activities, 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 reected 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 ll 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.
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
LEARNING IN A PERSONAL CONTEXT 91
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 nding
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 insufcient 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
ew 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 limited and free choice activities. It might be that directed learning in limited choice
activities encourages more engagement, expressed by students discussions about phenom-
ena or scientic 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 identied 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 dened here as no
choice level, free exploration with regard to the previous list was dened as free choice
level, and activities that allowed various extents of choice opportunities with regard to these
constituents were characterized as limited choice level. The levels identied 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 allowed limited choice offered scaffolding and control to the
students and enhanced deeper involvement in the learning process, compared with no choice
and free choice activities. This is congruent with previous studies, about the effectiveness
of using worksheets in class visits to museums, that found them helpful in organizing and
improving the students learning (Grifn, 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,
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
92 BAMBERGER AND TAL
T
A
B
L
E
6
L
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
C
h
o
i
c
e
b
y
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
D
o
m
a
i
n
s
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
t
o
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

L
i
f
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
C
h
o
i
c
e
T
a
s
k
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
t
o
P
r
i
o
r
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
C
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
a
n
d
E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
N
o
c
h
o
i
c
e
V
a
r
i
e
d
;
g
u
i
d
e
d
e
p
e
n
d
a
n
t
T
h
e
g
u
i
d
e
s
m
a
d
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
n
o
n
s
c
h
o
o
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
b
y
a
s
k
i
n
g
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
t
h
e
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
.
T
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
m
a
d
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
s
c
h
o
o
l
a
n
d
n
o
n
s
c
h
o
o
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
V
a
r
i
e
d
;
g
u
i
d
e
d
e
p
e
n
d
a
n
t
;
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
m
a
d
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
l
i
f
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
c
h
o
i
c
e
M
o
s
t
l
y
o
n
-
t
a
s
k
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
.
T
h
e
g
u
i
d
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
h
a
v
e
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
n
a
v
i
g
a
t
i
n
g
r
o
l
e
N
o
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
s
.
T
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
m
a
d
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
s
c
h
o
o
l
a
n
d
n
o
n
s
c
h
o
o
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
A
f
e
w
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
i
n
w
o
r
k
s
h
e
e
t
s
;
m
a
i
n
l
y
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

h
e
a
l
t
h
.
T
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
l
i
f
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
F
r
e
e
c
h
o
i
c
e
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
m
a
i
n
l
y
e
x
c
i
t
e
d
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
b
u
t
t
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
b
o
t
h
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
(
e
n
j
o
y
m
e
n
t
)
a
n
d
f
r
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
c
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
o
p
i
c
o
f
t
h
e
v
i
s
i
t
.
T
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
m
a
d
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
s
c
h
o
o
l
a
n
d
n
o
n
s
c
h
o
o
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
w
h
i
l
e
o
b
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
l
i
v
i
n
g
o
r
s
t
u
f
f
e
d
a
n
i
m
a
l
s
T
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
l
i
f
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
LEARNING IN A PERSONAL CONTEXT 93
1986). Our ndings 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 choice
activities, 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 choice activities as fun
but not as a learning experience. This nding supports previous research (Grifn, 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 identied, 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
reection for the students of the things they learned.
It is widely agreed that a meaningful eld trip has to include a few constituents: clear
connections between the eld 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 ndings 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 learning
outcome, meaning measuring exactly what new knowledge students have gained. On the
contrary, nowadays, we expect complex multidimensional outcome that reect 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
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
94 BAMBERGER AND TAL
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 ndings indicate that museum educational staff is not aware of the ideas and work
done in the eld of learning in Free Choice Learning Environments. This causes the
implementation of either authoritative knowledge transmission model of teaching that was
expressed by the no choice activities, or a totally undirected free choice exploration. 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), 200218.
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. 6777). 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.
Grifn, J. (2004). Research on students and museums: Looking more closely at the students in school groups.
Science Education, 88(S1), S59S70.
Grifn, J., &Symington, D. (1997). Moving fromtask-oriented to learning-oriented strategies on school excursions
to museums. Science Education, 81, 763779.
Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the museum. London: Routledge.
Heimlich, J. E. (1993). Nonformal environmental education: Toward a working denition. ERIC Clearinghouse
for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, SE 053 515.
Hofstein, A., & Orion, N. (1994). Factors that inuence learning during a scientic eld trip in a natural
environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 10971119.
Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Studies in
Science Education, 28, 87112.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1997). Museum learners as active post-modernists: Contextualising constructivism. Journal
of Education in Museums, 18, 14.
Kisiel, J. F. (2003). Teachers, museums and worksheets: A closer look at a learning experience. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 14(1), 321.
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce
LEARNING IN A PERSONAL CONTEXT 95
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 eld trips as an integral part of the science
curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 325331.
Pedretti, E. (2002). T. Kuhn meets T. Rex: Critical conversations and new directions in science centers and science
museums. Studies in Science Education, 37, 142.
Pedretti, E. (2004). Perspectives on learning through critical issues-based science centre exhibitions. Science
Education, 88(S1), S34S47.
Rennie, L. J., & Johnston D. J. (2004). The nature of learning and its implications for research on learning from
museums. Science Education, 88(S1), S4S16.
Rennie, L. J., & McClafferty, T. P. (1996). Science centers and science learning. Studies in Science Education,
27, 5398.
Rennie, L. J., & Williams, G. F. (2002). Science centers and scientic literacy: Promoting a relationship with
science. Science Education, 86(5), 706726.
Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancing research on science
learning 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., & Beneeld, 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, 469487.
Tal, R. T. (2001). Incorporating eld trips as science learning environment enrichmentAn interpretive study.
Learning Environment Research, 4, 2549.
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-museumstaff relationships: School visits to the Educational Center
of a Science Museum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6, 2546.
Tal, T., Bamberger, Y., & Morag, O. (2005). Guided school visits to natural history museums in Israel: Teachers
roles. Science Education, 89, 920935.
Science Education DOI 10.1002/sce