THE EFFECT OF COLLABORATIVE GALLERY ACTIVITES ON THE OUTCOME OF COMPLEX THINKING

Sarah Reusche Jess Unger Anna Wada Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Brown University

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction and Background Literature ............................................................... 2 a. Research Focus ................................................................................................. 2 b. Themes and Context.......................................................................................... 3 II. Design ...................................................................................................................... 4 a. Pilot Research ..................................................................................................... 4 b. Subjects ............................................................................................................... 5 c. Research Activities ............................................................................................. 5 d. Coding and Analysis .......................................................................................... 7 e. Results .................................................................................................................. 9 III. Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................... 10 a. Summary ........................................................................................................... 10 b. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 11 Bibliography .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix.......................................................................................................................14

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND LITERATURE

a. Research Focus
Object-based learning in museums could become a powerful educational experience outside of the classroom, providing an opportunity for students to reflect on the object and its broader context. Guidance and meta-cognition are key factors in ensuring that students encounter and interact with objects in a meaningful manner. (Shuh, 1999) The Project Zero research group at Harvard University developed strategies called thinking routines that would help educators to create a thoughtful learning environment. (Ritchart, et al., 2006) Thinking routines encourage students to learn how to think rather than what to think, and give participants a tool for complex inquiry that can be used in the future beyond the walls of the classroom or gallery. (Ritchart, 2007, 138) In order to determine the most effective ways for students to use thinking routines, our project analyzed the complexity of thinking that occurred when students engaged in the thinking routines as individuals, as pairs, and as large groups. We attempt to understand whether group size affects the complexity of thinking that could be achieved through educational gallery activities in the museum. This project was undertaken for Dr. Shari Tishmans fall 2011 Museums and Learning course in Harvard Graduate
Think-Puzzle-Explore

School of Education.

To help students connect to prior knowledge, to stimulate curiosity and to lay the groundwork for independent inquiry -from the Project Zero website

b. Themes and Context

The guided inquiry of a thinking routine follows a constructivist model of thinking that emphasizes the personal and social process of constructing meaning, rather than the acquisition of true knowledge. (Hein, 1998) Based on the constructivist model, the meaning-making process depends not only on the authoritative information provided by the museum but also through dialog with other visitors. Falk and Dierking, for instance, conceptualized the Contextual Model of Learning as a roadmap for understanding the complex processes through which children learn from objects and prior experience in informal settings. (Dierking, 2002) The model lays out the sociocultural context as one of the multiple factors that shape the individual learning experience. Sociocultural theory focuses on the process of meaning-making that occurs when an individual acts in social contexts that are shaped by mediators. In the museum, the mediators could be docents, signs, or other interactive features. (Schauble, 1997) This broad framework includes the larger historical and cultural setting in which learning occurs, but direct social interaction among the visitors is also a vital factor that shapes the museum learning experience. Paris explains several benefits of social interaction for learning. First, it introduces new ideas that incite curiosity for further exploration, and encourages the discussion of alternative perspectives. Collaboration also develops awareness in the individuals responsibility within the group to help achieve a common goal. Finally, social interaction helps increase productivity and allows participants to learn from each other. (Paris, 1997) Packer and Ballentynes research on solitary versus social learning in museum settings, on the other hand, suggests that individual and shared

experiences each have their own advantages. Solitary experiences invite personal reflection while social experiences encourage discussion of ideas, and both are valuable settings in which to achieve the constructivist model of learning. (Packer and Ballantyne, 2005) Their research tested the unfacilitated museum-going experiences with adults. Our study evaluates childrens facilitated learning experience through looking at the extent to which children analyze objects, and connect their observations to prior experiences. Our study builds on the assumption that this particular sociocultural context does influence the childrens learning experience; the question remains, however, as to just how deeply direct social interaction affects the quality of learning.

II. DESIGN

a.

Pilot Research
Pilot research suggested that the

participants should be given the basic information necessary to begin productive inquiry into the object. Without information such as what the object is and where it came from, participants would feel frustrated by the lack of background and have a

hard time beginning think, puzzle, explore routine.

b. Subjects
Prior to the gallery visit, the student participants had taken part in a curriculum called Think Like an Archaeologist. This program is run in collaboration with the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology at Brown University, and the Rhode Island School of Design Museum. During four classroom sessions, representatives from a collaborative institution would teach Providence sixth graders some of the concepts behind archaeology. Students were introduced to a variety of concepts, including how to use objects to make inferences about the people who made it, and how to determine the age of an object based on its position within the ground. In addition, they were exposed to experiences similar to lab work, and began discussing how and why objects were displayed in different museums. These four classroom sessions, in combination with the museum visit, are intended to provide sixth graders with a deeper social studies educational experience by developing critical thinking skills. Additionally, the minors were protected by a blanket waiver signed by their parents before the field trips, and our research activities were designed to comply with Harvard Universitys Institutional Review Board.

c. Research Activities
Approximately 135 sixth grade students participated in a designated thinking routine at the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, facilitated by a gallery educator. Groups of 45 students at a time came to the gallery and were split into three groups. Each group went to a station where a facilitator guided the session using the Think

Puzzle Explore thinking routine to investigate a particular object. This routine encourages the students to draw from prior experience to make observations, ponder questions, and determine the best paths to satisfy their curiosity. (http://www.pz.harvard.edu/at/think_puzzle_explore.cfm) As the students completed the thinking routine, they filled out worksheets (if working as individuals/pairs) or contributed to a group brainstorm (if working as a large group member). At each gallery learning station, the participants were given one minute to look at the selected object closely while the facilitator provided basic information about the object including the name of the culture or civilization that made it, the location, and particularly unique aspects of its creation. Then, participants were given two minutes to respond to each question of the thinking routine. To correspond with the Think element of the routine, we asked What do you think you know about the society this object came from; for the Puzzle element we asked, What do you wish you knew about this object or the society it came from; and for Explore we asked How would you explore this topic further? The participants were

told to think of as many answers as they could to the open ended questions. The facilitator read the questions aloud and then monitored the time. The first group of forty-five students was instructed to fill out the worksheet quietly by themselves. The second group of forty-five students were paired off by the facilitator and asked to fill out worksheets in tandem. The third group of forty-five (after being divided and sent to one of the three stations) worked as a group of fifteen to come up with answers. After the activity, the small groups rotated until they had completed the activity at each station, assuring balanced data collection. This procedure was repeated three times with three different groups of approximately forty-five students. At each station, students were encouraged to not only look closely at an object within a case, but also given the opportunity to touch replica items, or the object itself. They were therefore encouraged to experience the items with other senses beyond just sight. After students had completed the thinking routine, the facilitator asked them to share their responses for each of the three questions. Many students were curious to find out what the facilitator knew about the object, and if time permitted the facilitator would share.

d. Coding and Analysis

The responses on the worksheets were analyzed to identify the quality of each participants thinking. Blooms taxonomy of educational objectives, a widely accepted categorization for various ways of learning, proved a natural fit for our own data analysis. (Bloom 1956, Bissell and Lemons 2006) We worked off of a detailed version of our coding scheme to ensure consistency. By assigning a number to the

levels of thinking, we were able to do some quantitative analysis of our qualitative data. Since the overall learning outcome was more important to our research than the level of thinking for each part of the three question instrument, we coded the highest level of thinking attained on the worksheet. The average level of thinking was calculated based on the code we assigned to Blooms taxonomy. Since the taxonomy is a scale, we assigned the ascending levels of cognition numbers: one for the most basic cognition through three for the most complex cognition. The most basic level of thinking in Blooms taxonomy is knowledge, meaning the ability to describe, recite, or quote information. We coded this information as level one. Level two was comprehension, or inferring by applying some previous knowledge to the object. Level three included three different, but equally complex kinds of thinking: evaluation, analysis and creativity. Once the data was coded according to Blooms taxonomy, the average level of thinking can be calculated as a weighted mean. The resulting output can be compared among participants working as individuals, pairs and groups, and correlated back to the level of cognition in Blooms taxonomy.1

Average level of thinking = [(Number of worksheets whose highest level of cognition is coding level 1 1)+(Number of worksheets whose highest level of cognition is coding level 2 2)+(Number of worksheets whose highest level of cognition is coding level 3 3)] Total number of work sheets

Ideas per thinker was another important analytic to judge the effect of group work on gallery thinking. Ideas per thinker was calculated as total ideas divided by the number of worksheets, divided by thinkers per worksheet.2

e. Results
The group activity yielded the most complex cognition with an average level of 2.9, whereas individual and pair activities had an average level of thinking as 2.2 and 2.4, respectively. Working in pairs caused 9% increase the average level of complex cognition over individuals, with a margin of error of 5%. This slight increase in complex thinking may not outweigh the time it takes a facilitator to pair individuals and manage irrelevant socializing amongst young students. However, the increase in complex cognition apparent in group work proves it to be a valuable endeavor. Working as a group yielded a 17% increase in complex cognition over students working in pairs, and a 24% increase over individuals. While all groups had an average of thinking in the range of comprehension, the 24% increase in advanced cognition that groups had over individuals is significant. As the complexity of thinking went up with the number of participants, the number of responses per participant went down. Individuals had an average of 6 ideas per section; pairs, 4; and group participants, 1.7.

Ideas per thinker=total ideas number of worksheets thinkers per worksheet

III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

a. Summary
Working as a group creates fewer discreet ideas per thinker, but a higher overall level of cognition. The process of complex cognition in group learning was guided by the opportunity for students to build on each others answers. After one observation was made, they could look to other components of the object for different answers. For instance, when a student observed that a Mayan cup had pretty decorations, another added that this indicated the society was artistic. Another student guessed that they must be a method of recording observations and daily events. Yet another connected it to what he already knew about Mayan sacrificial ceremonies. Pairs had similar developments in thinking - one pair observing that the society was artistic, had a lot of time on their hands, or was a specialized society. Although individuals also demonstrated deeper levels of thinking that described the society as creative, religious, or artistic, they rarely listed more than one element about the society. Sharing interpretations in a group allowed students to explore alternative views, or pursue an idea in greater depth. There was a smaller difference in the level of cognition between pairs and individuals, compared to groups and individuals. This may point to the fact that simply sharing ideas are not enough to generate deeper levels of thinking. Pairs seemed to be working together by coming up with a list of individual ideas, rather than discussing the relevance of an idea and focusing on one idea to develop it further. They also occasionally copied off each others worksheets, which we did not prevent them from doing. Therefore pairs had a larger number of ideas than individuals (29% more on

10

average), but pair work did not make notable differences on the quality of ideas. The presence of a facilitator may also influence what students notice about a museum object, and how they connect it to knowledge beyond the object itself. As facilitators during the group sessions, we made a point to not answer questions or reveal information until after the data collection was over. While we also restrained affirmation or denial of responses, it is possible that subtle body language and facial expressions could have created positive reinforcement for more complex thinking. On some occasions, group work also revealed students who were excited to share their ideas, and were openly eager to find out what was interesting about the seemingly dull object. The open dialog allowed students to be guided by their own curiosity to shape their learning in the museum.

b. Conclusion
Past theoretical work has indicated that socially mediated learning could occur within a group with shared experience and knowledge, or between the individual and facilitator. (Dierking, 2002) Our study suggests that group work has several advantages for the facilitated museum activity, due to the interaction that occurs among the group of students, and the docents position as a mediator in the group discussion. Analyzing a gallery object as a group can encourage students to refine the quality of thinking over the quantity of responses. It can teach the participant about the object he or she is exploring while also teaching the skill of self-directed learning from objects. Additionally, it not only develops strong thinking skills, but encourages participants practice building ideas as a team by listening respectfully to each other, sharing insights, and synthesizing their combined knowledge for the best final outcome. From

11

the museum perspective, it can be useful for activity evaluation as the facilitator is able to follow the students train of thought. Speaking ideas aloud may reveal the thinking process that is undocumented on a worksheet that only invites the students final conclusions. Group work should be encouraged in the museum as an activity that educates, and nurtures life skills that would be useful in situations far beyond the walls of the gallery, including scientific inquiry, mechanical problem solving, and critical thinking.

12

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aviles, Christopher B. "Understanding and Testing for "Critical Thinking" with Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives." Proc. of Annual Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education (1999), San Francisco, CA. Print. Beyer, Barry. Improving Student Thinking. The Clearing House, Vol. 71, No. 5 (May - Jun., 1998), 262-267. Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Bissell, Ahrash N. and Paula P. Lemons. A New Method for Assessing Critical Thinking in the Classroom BioScience , Vol. 56, No. 1 (January 2006), 66-72 Dierking, Lynn D. The Role of Context in Childrens Learning from Objects and Experiences pp. 3-18 in Perspectives on Object-Centered Learning in Museums. Scott G. Paris, Ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, 2002. Shuh, John H Teaching yourself to teach with objects in The Educational Role of the Museum 2nd ed., ed. E. Hooper-Greenhill, 1999. 80-91 Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2005). Solitary vs. shared: Exploring the social dimensions of museum learning. Curator, 48(2), 177-192. Ritchhart, Ron. Cultivating a Culture of Thinking in Museums. The Journal of Museum Education, Vol. 32, No. 2, Critical-Thinking Skills in the Museum (Summer, 2007) 137-153. Published by: Left Coast Press, Inc. Ritchhart, Ron, Patricia Palmer, Mark Church, and Shari Tishman. Thinking Routines: Establishing Patterns of Thinking in the Classroom Harvard Graduate School of Education. Paper prepared for the AERA Conference, April, 2006

13

APPENDIX
Ideas Per Thinker
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Individual Pairs Group Anna Jess Sarah

Average Level of Thinking (On a 1-3 Coding Scale)

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Individual Pair Group

Anna Jess Sarah

14