The final section of this digest focuses on the most common research and evaluation methods that have been used to understand and assess learning in museums and galleries. Since this is such a vast subject, it is only possible here to present a flavour of the variety of methods used in the field. These include observations, interviews and audio and video recording. In fact, the use of different methodologies to assess learning also directly reflects the different approaches to learning, each highlighting a different aspect. Each approach has different strengths and limitations and for this reason in some cases it is useful to combine different approaches in order to better understand this complex phenomenon.

Borun, M., Chambers, M. & Cleghorn, A. (1996) ‘Families are Learning in Science Museums’, Curator, 39/2, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA, 123-138.

The methods used in this basic research study include family observations during the visit and interviews after the visit. The questionnaire includes demographic questions. Family behaviours and discussions at specific exhibits were audiotaped and videotaped. This was the first phase of a series of studies on family learning, which built on previous observational studies of families. The methods used in follow-up studies of this project are presented in the two following articles reviewed.

More information on the findings this project and how to get hold of the full papers can be found in the section on ’Family learning’.

Borun, M. and Dritsas, J. (1997) ‘Developing Family-Friendly Exhibits’, Curator, 40/3, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA, 178-196.

This is a formative evaluation study where behavioural checklists were developed and used to record family behaviour and interactions. Family interviews were also carried out. The questions were open-ended and included cognitive and affective questions for all family members. Family observations and interviews were part of an on-going process of exhibit prototyping, testing and modification.

More information on this article is presented in the section on ’Family Learning’.

Borun, M., Chambers, M., Dritsas, J. & Johnson, J. (1997) ‘Enhancing Family Learning Through Exhibits’, Curator, 40/4, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA, 279-295.

During phase three of the PISEC project, researchers utilised a mixed methodology at the core of which were unobtrusive family observations and interviews. During the observations, family behaviour and conversations were narrated into a tape recorder by the observer. The sample included a control group of 200 families and a treatment group of another 200 families. The aim was to test the effectiveness of the four enhanced exhibits. This was assessed by comparing the frequencies of the performance indicators (as defined in phase one) between the control and the treatment group.

More information on this study is included in the section on ’Family learning’.

Coe, J.C. (1988) ‘Children’s Drawings: New Tool for Zoo Exhibit Evaluation’ in Bitgood, S., Roper, J.T., Benefield, Jr. and Benefield, A., (eds), Visitor Studies-1988: Theory, Research and Practice, vol.2, 87-100.

This is the first study that used children’s drawings as an evaluation tool to assess what children learn from zoo exhibits. Children’s interpretations of their own drawings were not included in the study. The interpretation of the drawings was made by the author and was not theory-driven. The aim was to show that drawings are a valid evaluation technique and to encourage its use.

Copies of the ‘Visitor Studies: Theory Research and Practice’ series are held in the Science Museum & Imperial College library and in the Leicester University Library. They can also be ordered by writing to: Brenda Ward, Visitor Studies Association, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1876, USA. E-mail: vsa@lamar.colostate.edu.

Crowley, K. & Callanan, (1997) ‘Describing and Supporting Collaborative Scientific Thinking in Parent-Child Interactions’, Journal of Museum Education, 23, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, USA, 12-17.

The study used videos and tape recordings of family interactions – both verbal and non-verbal – at specific exhibits. The aim was to use research methods that are as unobtrusive as possible. For ethical reasons, researchers obtained written consent of the participating families. The study used a combination of socio-cultural and information-processing theories and methods.

More information about the study and how to obtain printed copies is included in the section on ’Family learning’.

Falk, J. & Dierking, L.D. (1997) [School Field Trips: Assessing Their Long-Term Impact’, Curator, 40/3, 211-218.

Interviews with school children (aged 9-14) and adults (aged 20+) were carried out regarding their recollections of school-trips taken during the early years of their school education. Questions asked covered facets of the personal, social and physical context of the field trips. This is one of the few studies reporting on long-term educational impact of museum field trips. It is also significant as it is one of the first studies on museum recollections.

Copies of the Curator are available in many UK libraries or can be ordered through an inter-library loan.

Falk, J., Moussouri, T. & Coulson, D. (1998) [The Effect of Visitors’ Agendas on Museum Learning’, Curator, vol 41, no 2, 106-120.

This study utilises a new methodology, Personal Meaning Mapping (PMM), to assess learning. PMM is based on a Relativist-Constructivist approach to assessing learning. PMM acknowledges and accommodates the different starting points (prior knowledge and experience) of each individual learner. In this study, visitors were asked to write any words, ideas or thought that came to mind related to gems and minerals. Gems and minerals was the subject of a new exhibition at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC. Visitors were then prompted to explain what they meant and their responses were recorded. The same procedure was followed after the visit. The post-visit interview also included questions on visitors’ motivation, visit plans and educational background.

Copies of the Curator are available in many UK libraries or through an inter-library loan.

Hein, G.E (1998) Learning in the Museum, Routledge, London.

This book offers an overview of different research methods and approaches utilised by a number of researchers and evaluators to study learning in museums and galleries in North America and the UK. It presents both the historic literature and current efforts to assess learning together with findings of these studies. The chapters that are particularly relevant to research methodology and methods are Early Visitor Studies (p. 41-53), The Countenance of Visitor Studies (p.54-77) and Studying Visitors (p. 100-134).

Copies of this book can be found in many libraries and bookshops in the UK.

Hilke, D.D. & Balling, J. (1985) The Family as a Learning System: An Observational Study of Families in Museums, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, USA.

This is an observational study, looking at family behaviour and interactions at a metropolitan museum of natural history. It developed very detailed observational sheets describing all the family behaviours and interactions observed.

More information on this study in presented in the section on ’Family learning’.

Korpan, C., Bisanz, G., Bisanz, J., Boehme, C.& Lynch, M. (1997) [What did you Learn Outside of School Today? Using Structured Interviews to Document Home and Community Activities Related to Science and Technology’, Science Education, vol 81, issue no 6, 651-662.

Structured interviews with parents were used to explore their children’s participation in informal science-related activities. Two different interview procedures were developed: one for parents of pre-school and one for parents of school-age children. Both of them included the following sections: information about the child, watching television, adult-child reading activities, science activities at home, community outreach programmes and children asking their parents science and technology-related questions.

Copies of Science Education are available in many UK libraries or through inter-library loan.

Macdonald, S. (1993) ‘Museum Visiting’, Series: Representations: Places and Identities, Sociology and Social Anthropology Working Papers, No 1, Keele University, UK.

This is a qualitative study that entailed unobtrusively observing family visitors’ movements and conducting semi-structured family interviews. The study was carried out at the ‘Food for Thought’ gallery at the Science Museum in London. Its significance in terms of its methodology lies in the fact that it followed the development of the exhibition on a day-to-day basis and also studied visitors’ responses to it.

Copies of this study can be found in many libraries and bookshops in the UK. It can also be ordered through an inter-library loan.

McManus, P. (1987) ‘It’s the Company you Keep… The Social Determination of Learning-Related Behaviour in a Science Museum’, The International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 6, Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd, 263-270.

This study combined visitor observations and recordings of visitor conversations at specific exhibits. One of the exhibits used was a static display while the other two were interactive. Observations helped place conversations in context. This article reports findings from the unobtrusive observations while the following one reports on findings from the discourse analysis of visitors’ conversations.

For more information on this and the following studies, see the section on ’Family learning’.

McManus, P. (1988) ‘Good Companions – More on the Social Determination of Learning-Related Behaviour in a Science Museum’, The International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 7, Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd, 37-44.

For information on the methods used and the findings from this study, see the previous article and the section on ’Family learning’.

Moussouri, T. (1997a) Family Agendas and Family Learning in Hands-On Museums, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Leicester, Leicester, England.

A mixed methodology was developed for the needs of this study. The methods used were observations and in-depth interviews with family members. The social nature of the groups was maintained by involving all family members in the interview. Children’s drawings were also collected as well as children’s interpretations of them. Field notes (family summaries) based on the overall impression families gave to the researcher were kept.

More information on this study can be found in the section on ’Family learning’.

Price, S. & Hein, G.E. (1991) ‘More than a Field Trip: Science Programmes for Elementary School Groups at Museums’, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 13, No. 5, Taylor & Francis Ltd., 505-519.

Programme evaluation methods include observations of the programme and interviews with both museum staff and teachers. In some cases, interviews are carried out with participating children, school administrators and parents. Materials used during the programme, curriculum materials and other documentation such as staff notes and memos are also analysed. This paper reports on the evaluation approach used by the Programme Evaluation and Research Group (PERG) of the Lesley College Graduate School in Boston. The authors note that it has been developed and refined over the years.

Copies of the International Journal of Science Education are available in many UK libraries or can be ordered through an inter-library loan.

Vom Lehn, D., Heath, C. & Hindmarsh, J. (1999) ‘Discovering Science: Action and Interaction at the Exhibit-Face’, The Management Centre, King’s College London, London, UK.

For the purposes of this study, researchers used video-recordings of visitors’ naturally occurring behaviours as well as recordings of their conversations. The study was carried out at the ’Challenge of Materials’ Gallery at the Science Museum in London. The focus of this paper was the relation between visitor behaviour and the physical environment of a museum exhibition.

Requests for copies of this paper can be e-mailed to Dirk vom Lehn at: dirk.vom@kcl.ac.uk.