museum education and school art: different ends and different means

National Art Education Association

Museum Education and School Art: Different Ends and Different MeansAuthor(s): Terry ZellerSource: Art Education, Vol. 38, No. 3 (May, 1985), pp. 6-10Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192885 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 13:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.35 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:20:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3192885?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SCHOOL AND MUSEUM EDUCATION

Museum Education and

School Art: Different Ends

and Different Means

Terry Zeller

o v- Fr .... ?

7!

Af Art, Carnegie Institute, ARTexpress School/Museum Projects. Photo by Claire Stone.

Art Education May 1985

M--

I

I

6



n the summer of 1984, after two years of research and public hear- ings, the American Association of Museums' Commission on

Museums for a New Century issued its report. The findings and recommendations have sparked wide-spread discussion in museums about the nature of museum learning and the educational role of museums. It is the purpose of this essay to explore differences between art education in schools and learnings in art museums, with an eye to implications of these differences for museum-school partnership in light of the Commission's Report.

The most obvious difference between art museum education and school art instruction is the setting and time frame in which each takes place. School art instruction spans several months within the context of a self- contained class or art room. It is a familiar and comfortable setting for children because there they know what is expected of them. Museum learning, however, takes place in public galleries in which desks and art materials are replaced by sculpture, paintings, and decorative arts in unfamiliar surroun- dings. Understandably, teachers often transfer their pedagogical expecta- tions, models of student behavior, and instructional methods from the classroom to the museum and attempt to impose these on an unfamiliar learning environment. By trying to make the museum experience an extension of the classroom or, at the other extreme, mere exposure, the agenda of the school overshadows the unique learning opportunities of the museum.

This approach not only treats the museum merely as a collection of teaching aids designed to augment classroom learning, but more in- sidiously, signals students that museums are places to which no one would ever go voluntarily (Floud, 1952). Gurian (1982) says that using traditional school tours "makes the museum into a school rather than em- phasizing the characteristics that make it a different and unique learning environment" (pp. 18-19). To many teachers and museum educators, a school tour of the museum means relating information to a topic current- ly being studied by the class. Frank Oppenheimer, founder and director of San Francisco's Exploratorium, however, believes museums are parallel educational systems, not mere exten-

sions or supplements to schools (Newson and Siler, 1978). Wolins (1981) stresses the uniqueness of art museums as learning resources and calls for development of programs and approaches to learning from within the museum rather than having the agenda dictated from outside. Museums for a New Century (1984) emphasizes that "where museum programs are used to enrich the curriculum, they are shaped by the needs of the schools, not the strengths of the museum. The museum experience seems auxiliary, and museum educators feel constricted by the limits they feel the schools establish" (p. 67). There is a growing body of opinion and research claiming that museum learning is very different from learning in other situations, par- ticularly in schools. Recent studies of museum visitors must be taken into account in designing museum learning experiences.

Screven (1976) has observed that "the educational goal of museums is not to import facts, but also broad overviews, concepts, stimulation of interest, values, and new ways of think- ing about the world" (p. 271). These sentiments are echoed in Museums for a New Century (1984) which claims that learning in a museum "means to develop the ability to synthesize ideas and form opinions, and shape an aesthetic and cultural sensibility" (p. 58). Studies of why people visit or stay away from museums have important implications for museum learning and for the way educators structure school field trips. A 1972 survey in New York State found that only 3% of frequent museum visitors said school field trips were stimulating interest in museums (Newson, 1977, p. 14). Non- attendance is influenced by prior con- ditioning and by the belief that museums are not places to go for social relaxation, two major factors influenc- ing people's choice of leisure time activity (Nash, 1975; Hood, 1983). In a 1973 Metropolitan Museum of Art survey, 51 %7 perceived that the purpose of museums was to educate the public; in 1975, however, it was found that most visitors do not come to museums primarily to learn (Linn, 1976). In Toledo's Museum of Art, only frequent visitors said they came to the Museum to learn (Hood, 1983). The National Endowment for the Arts found that more than 80% of those who visit museums have attended

college, and a study of visitation to a travelling exhibition of Japanese art, conducted in Boston, Chicago, and Seattle, reported that "it is clear that visitors were as a whole an exceptional- ly well educated group" (Bigman, 1956, p. 10). These studies, and in- house demographic surveys and observations of visitor behavior conducted by many museums, make it clear that museum attendance is high; the major- ity of Americans either do not visit museums or do so infrequently; only a minority do so specifically to learn. In light of this, it seems strange that museums continue basing their school tour program on the agenda of the schools.

Williams (1981) is correct in saying that learning from objects is the core curriculum of the museum visit, and that the primary commitment of museum educators should be the interests of the museum, not those of the school. Museum educators cannot be expected to fit museum learning into whichever pedagogical approach, curriculum model, textbook series, or learning theory is current in the schools, or to base their programs on other models and theories designed primarily for learning in schools. It is clear that designing museum visits in accordance with the needs of schools may satisfy administrators or teachers but does little to give students the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they need for lifelong enjoyment of, and informal learning in, museums.

If children are to see museums as something other than a continuation of classroom exercises, then fun, purposeful play, challenging new experiences, being with friends, self-directed exploration and discovery, and spon- taneity must be major parts of museum learning (Andrews and Asia, 1979; Gottfried, 1980). Bettleheim (1980) believes that the way to get children to enjoy and value museums is to stimulate imagination, arouse curiosity, and give them a chance to experience awe and wonder.

Learning in museums is a random, spontaneous, individualized, and informal process that cannot be imposed on the visitor (Museums for a New Century, 1984; Screven, 1976). Other museum professionals have observed that "social interaction within visitor groups takes up a large percentage of the total time at a science center, museum, or zoo; [these] are not places


I

I

7



for giving extensive information - characteristic of sequential learning in schools" (Laetsch, et al., 1980, p. 17). Newson and Silver (1978) insist that "learning in art museums is not quan- tifiable" (p. 271). Bettleheim (1984), remembering his own early experiences in that place of "wonder" and "miracles," the art museum, thinks people seek interesting and enjoyable entertainment rather than knowledge, in museums. For Margaret Mead (1970), a museum offers opportunities for individuality and freedom that are rare.

Anyone who has spent even a short time observing museum visitors will recognize that they usually come in pairs or small intimate groups for a relaxing, pleasant hour or so, but are also widely different in interests and backgrounds, limited in time, frequently overwhelmed and confused by too much sensory input, and random in their approach to the collections. How different these observations are from traditional school field trips structured to correlate with a specific curriculum unit. Recognizing the realities of museums as informal learning environments, museum educators need to set goals for school field trips that will help young people take advan- tage of a museum's rich cultural resources.

The Commission on Museums for a New Century concluded that "museums are agents of visual, scientific, and historical literacy" where people learn to "synthesize ideas and form opinions, and shape an aesthetic and cultural sensibility" (1984, p. 58). In The Art Museum as Educator, Newson and Silver (1978) studied fifteen school visit programs and summarized what museum educators said were their ob- jectives:

Helping young people feel at home in an art museum and understand its value.

Introducing them to visual experiences that will sharpen their perceptions.

Giving children richer opportunities to make art important for itself and for understanding, and enjoying the art of others. (p. 260)

Other museum educators say they seek to promote conversations with visitors, share understanding through personal interactions, promote fun and playful

activity rather than a catalogue of facts, help visitors become responsible for their own learning, and stimulate creativity and opportunities to learn through play (Weinland and Bennett, 1984; Gottfried, 1980; Wolins, 1981; Fache, 1982). Similar goals were ex- pressed by respondants to a question- naire the author distributed to museum educators attending the 1984 NAEA Convention. Promoting visual percep- tion/literacy, creating positive feelings about art and art museums, and teaching about art appreciation and cultural context were the most frequently cited goals. Asked which methods/tech- niques were most effective for teaching art appreciation and artistic heritage in museums at the primary, intermediate, and secondary levels, the consensus was for a variety of interactive tech- niques such as gallery games, im- provisation, inquiry/discovery, and discussion/dialogue. Though there are similarities between the goals of art museum educators and the NAEA's Purposes, Principles, and Standards for School Art Programs, more than one writer has observed that school art instruction is very much a matter of hands-on activities with a reluctance to include art history, criticism, or the broader cultural contexts of art (Chap- man, 1982; Lanier, 1983; Hastie, 1984; Zimmerman, 1984).

If art instruction is to become a part of the educational mainstream and pre- pare students for lifelong learning, there is an urgent need for fundamental reforms in the way art teachers are trained. Chapman (1982), who has called such reform the most important ingredient in improving art in the schools, observes that "the skills required to teach the lay public and youth about art are not the inevitable result of deep engagement with studio activities. The role of the teacher is not that of a creator of art, but that of a translator, interpreter, and lifelong student of art" (p. 95). Chapman's notion of the role of the art teacher has more in common with what art museum educators are doing than it does with current practices in art rooms in America's schools. The Com- mission on Museums for a New Cen- tury also recognizes the need for reform of teacher education in its recommendation that "learning based on objects is such a critical part of the educational process that no teacher should be permitted to overlook its

potential" (1984, p. 68). The Commis- sion believes that training teachers to use museum resources should be an integral part of teacher education.

While it is incumbent upon museums to make their resources available to the broadest possible public, it is equally incumbent upon schools to see that young people are prepared to utilize such resources. It is vital that museum educators understand learning theory and become familiar with current practices in schools that use museum services. Their responsibility, however, is to students, not the instructional objec- tives of teachers. Museum educators are responsible for helping young people recognize the exciting potential of museums for purposeful leisure time


I I I

8



activity. While working with school groups, museum educators should be laying foundations for lifelong learning rather than providing enrichment to classroom learning. Teachers should recognize that museums, though publically financed, do not exist primarily for school field trips; it behooves them to become familiar with how people learn in museums as well as how children learn in classrooms. Many art education programs are not providing art teachers with the course work and practical experience they need to give young people the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to enjoy and value what is available in museums.

The NAEA should take the lead, reforming art education by changing

its Standards for Art Teacher Prepara- tion Programs that recommends a nine-hour minimum in art history, aesthetics, and/or criticism while proposing 21 hours of studio work as an absolute minimum. This emphasis on studio and crafts courses in art education curricula of most colleges and universities reduces course work about art history and criticism to simple surveys that do not treat the complex and challenging ideas available in the history and philosophy of art. Responsibility also rests with university art education departments that perpetuate the artist-educator model by hiring faculty whose training is primarily in studio arts. Vacancy listings in The Chronicle of Higher

Education, NAEA News, and the College Art Association placement service call for "demonstrated background in creative production" or "studio, experience," "competency in studio art" or "ability to teach jewelry and two-dimensional design" rather than expertise in art history or museum experience. Art education departments would do well to look at methods of art museum education and the work of the Getty Institute for Education in the Arts (Duke, 1983; Greer and Rush, 1985) for initiating reform of teacher training programs. The discipline- based approach taken by the Getty Institute incorporates many of the goals of museum education. This approach, however, could be strength-

Photo credit: Museum of Art, Carnegie Institute, ARTexpress


I

9



ened were it to include greater attention to the broader social, intellectual, performing, and popular arts contexts of the visual arts. Teachers trained in a discipline-based approch to art instruction would be better able to contribute to a strong museum-school partnership.

A museum-school partnership, with school field trips, museum outreach programs, teacher workshops, and museum-designed pre- and post-visit materials geared to the needs and interests of the schools, would undergo fundamental changes if museum educators reassess their roles within the museum and come to grips with the realities of a shrinking school-age population and increasing median age of the population. Museums for a New Century (1984) recommends that greater attention be paid to adult programs. While it calls for a national colloquium of participants from government, business, the academic community, and schools and museums to discuss the mutually enriching rela- tionship museums and schools should have, its recommendations for struc- tural/organizational changes in museums hold important implications for museum-school partnership. The museum profession already recognizes that people learn in museums in different ways than in other educational institutions; as research documents how this type of learning takes place, museum education will change to max- imize such learning. No one should doubt that such changes will influence the program and services museums provide.

As they approach the twenty-first century, museum professionals are reassessing the educational function of museums and the nature of museum learning. With educational functions more fully integrated into broader realms of interpretation, and more attention being paid to adults' needs, the time, staff, and money for school programs may well be diminished, par- ticularly if school field trips decline as a result of school budget cuts. Art programs in many communities are suffer- ing from low enrollments or experienc- ing cuts in funding while art museums continue to provide leisure learning classes and recreational opportunities for millions of Americans; it behooves both art teachers and those who train them to reevaluate their priorities for, and approach to, art education i

Dr. Terry Zeller is Chairperson, Department of Education, Rochester Museum and Science Center, Rochester, New York.

References

Andrews, K. and Asia, C. (1979). Teenagers' attitudes about art museums. Curator, 22 (3), 224-232.

Bettleheim, B. (1984). Children, curiosity and museums. In S. Nichols (Ed.). Museum Education Anthology. Washington, D.C.: Museum Education Roundtable, 16-19.

Bigman, S.K. (1956, June) (1956, September). Art exhibit audiences. The Museologist, 59, 6-16; 60, 2-6.

Chapman, L.H. (1982). Instant art, instant culture. New York: Teachers College Press.

Duke, L.L. (1983). The Getty center for education in the arts. Art Education, 36 (5), 4-8.

Fache, C. (1982). Educational games. Copenhagen, Denmark: Museums and Education. ICOM/CECA, 57-60.

Floud, P. (1952). Teaching problems in working with children. Paris, France: Museums and Young People. ICOM, 22-34.

Greer, W.D. (1984). A discipline-based view of art education. Studies in Art Education, 25 (4), 212-218.

Greer, W.D., and Rush, J.C. (1985). A grand experiment: The Getty institute for educators on the visual arts. Art Education, 37 (1), 24, 33-35.

Gottfried, J. (1980). Do children learn on school field trips? Curator, 22 (3), 165-174.

Gurian, E.H. (1982). Museums' relation- ship to education. Copenhagen, Denmark:

Museums and Education. ICOM/CECA, 17-20.

Hastie, W.R. (1984). A search for ex- cellence. Art Education, 37 (4), 10-11.

Hood, M.C. (1983). Staying away: Why people choose not to visit museums. Museum News, 64 (4), 50-57.

Laetsch, W.M., Diamond, J., Gottfried, J.L., and Rosenfeld, S. (1980). Children and family groups in science centers. Science and Children, 17 (6), 14-17.

Lanier, V. (1983). Beyond aesthetic education. Art Education, 36(6), 31-32, 34, 36.

Linn, M.C. (1976). Exhibit evaluation - informed decision making, Curator, 19 (4), 291-302.

Mead, M. (1970). Museums in a media- saturated world. Museum News, 49 (1), 23-25.

Museums for a new century. (1984). Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums.

Newsom, B.Y. (1977). The art museum and the school. American Education, 13 (10), 12-16.

Newson, B.Y., and Silver, A.Z. (1978). The art museum as educator. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Screven, C.G. (1976). Exhibit evaluation: A goal-referenced approach. Curator, 19 (4), 271-290.

Williams, P. (1981). Relations between consenting institutions. In S. Lehman and K. Igoe (Eds.). Museum-School Partner- ships. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums, 16-20.

Wolins, I. (1981). A catalyst for museums: Examining the role of art museum education. The Museologist, 155, 17-20.

Zimmerman, E. (1984). What art teachers are not teaching, art students are not learning. Art Education, 37 (4), 12-15.

aum Education Department, Omaha, Nebraska. Photo by Roxanne Gryder

_i- -

10

I



museum education and school art: different ends and different means

Documents