Designing for and Supporting Family Interaction in Museums

January 1st, 2016

This article was migrated from a previous version of the Knowledge Base. The date stamp does not reflect the original publication date.

Overview 

Note, this Wiki content is based on a manuscript in preparation for publication.

Designing exhibits to support family learning is a widely shared goal among museums. Thus, there have been many efforts to make exhibits more “family friendly” over the last three decades as researchers and evaluators explore learning in the context of family museum experiences (Ellenbogen et al., 2004). In this line of work, families can be broadly defined as intergenerational groups composed of at least one adult and one child. The adult is often a parent, but can also be any significant adult in a child’s life—a nanny, mentor, or other relative.

Since parent-child interaction is often the goal of exhibitions designed to support family learning, the role of the parent or caregiver is critical (Borun, Chambers, & Cleghorn, 1996; Crowley & Callanan, 1998; Diamond, 1986; Ellenbogen et al., 2004; Falk & Dierking, 2000; Martin, Brown, & Russell, 1991; Paris, 2002; Tunnicliffe & Reiss, 2000). Children have been found to stay longer at exhibits and learn more when a caregiver is actively involved (Puchner, Rapoport, & Gaskins, 2001). For example, Gleason and Schauble (2000) found that when parents participated at a science exhibit children performed better experiments and made more powerful inferences. Conversely, when parents are passive rather than active participants, the learning potential of the visit is limited (Brown, 1995).

Findings from Research and Evaluation 

The role of parent is important; and while parents naturally support their children in many ways (Gutwill & Allen, 2010; Melber, 2007), families still benefit from interventions that provide supportive design and training to promote family learning (Boland, Haden, & Ornstein, 2003; Borun & Dritsas, 1997; Melber, 2007). The ways by which museums support family learning can be clustered into three interrelated domains: framing, attention, and conversation.

Framing

Interpretive frames shape the activities children engage in, the conceptual structures that are used during those activities (Klahr & Dunbar, 1989), and influence what information is attended to and remembered (Friedman, 1979; McClelland, 2013). The framing of an exhibit can subsequently influence visitors’ interactions, activities, and conversations. Framing can promote an agenda or goal by offering a particular perspective, suggesting roles, or conveying content through a specific lens. Framing can also encourage families to actively co-participate in an exhibit experience with shared intentions and actions.

Most explicitly, a facilitator can frame an exhibit by telling visitors what is going on. For example, a study at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science included actors at dioramas portraying turn-of-the-century characters (Tinworth, 2009). Labels can also shift the framing of an exhibit in intentional or unintentional ways as Atkins (2009) found when supplies and labels altered a heat camera exhibit from exploratory to “recipe-like” science interactions. Similarly, objects may have particular framing affordances (Eberbach & Crowley, 2005) which can evoke a school-like instructional frame or promote more of an exploratory frame. Kim and Crowley (2010) found that signage can also reframe an exhibit by activating a discipline-specific schema (engineering vs. science), thereby altering exhibit behavior as well as impacting child learning.

Attention

Attention is the act of concentrating on a person, object, or topic. Joint attention, specifically, is achieved when two people knowingly attend to the same aspect of their shared environment (Tomasello, 1995). This social phenomenon has considerable benefits in social learning situations and is studied across fields from developmental psychology to neuroscience. Joint attention can increase stay times and inquiry at exhibits, provide conversational opportunity, alter the depth of processing, and lead to increased learning talk or memory outcomes (Frischen & Tipper, 2004; Gleason & Schauble, 2000; Kim & Mundy, 2012; Mundy & Newell, 2007; Striano, Reid, & Hoehl, 2006; Tessler & Nelson, 1994). Museums use various means to increase attention—though not necessarily joint attention- such as manipulating objects, language, and lighting.

Objects can harness attention. The Family Learning Project found that the “selection, construction, and arrangement of museum objects can influence the reading, learning, conversing, and exploring that takes place at the exhibit” (Paris, 2002, p. 323). Seeking to identify what characteristics of objects attract attention, Sandifer (2003) tracked where visitors stopped and stayed at an interactive science museum. He concluded that technological novelty and open-endedness were the two exhibit characteristics important for increasing time spent at exhibits.

Scripted changes to conversation can also affect attention and memory. Tessler and Nelson (1994) refer to this as the “social-interactive effect on encoding,” which was made explicitly clear in their study in which mothers were either asked to talk as they normally would or only respond to their child, but not initiate or elaborate. This conversation intervention showed just how important joint attention is to memory and encoding, for only objects that were talked about by both child and adult were later recalled by the child. Haden et al. (2001) followed up on this study with similar findings.

Changing how objects are physically viewed can also influence joint attention. Tison-Povis and Crowley (2015) looked at how to promote joint attention at dioramas with static, taxidermy animals. Through a lighting intervention, parent-child pairs used a flashlight to explore the dioramas in the darkened condition. This method of restricting the visual field resulted in significantly more joint attention compared to the control group, who saw the dioramas under full light. Once joint attention was established around an object, families were more likely to engage in learning talk about that object. This finding shows how simple exhibit interventions can prompt joint attention and mediate learning.

Conversation

Family learning happens in conversation and museums can influence this exchange. Parents can facilitate museum experiences through talk (e.g., Borun, Chambers, & Cleghorn, 1996; Gutwill, 2002; Gutwill & Buennagel, 2003; Leinhardt, Crowley, & Knutson, 2002) and have been found to adjust the support they provide (i.e. changing their verbal scaffolding) based on how challenging and interesting they judge the context to be for their child (FLING, 2011; Melber, 2007; Palmquist & Crowley, 2007). It is well established that conversation during an activity influences learning and memory (Fivush et al., 2006; Haden, Ornstein, Eckerman, & Didow, 2001; Hendrick, San Sousi, Haden, & Ornstein, 2009; Ornstein et al., 2004; Ornstein, Haden, & Hendrick, 2004; Tessler & Nelson, 1994). Guided by sociocultural theory (e.g., Vygotsky, 1962, 1978) parent-child conversation in museums has been looked at as both a way to mediate and measure learning (Ash, 2004; Callanan & Jipson, 2001; Haden, 2010; Leinhardt, Crowley, & Knutson, 2002).

Parents can use conversation as a tool for focusing attention, determining child understandings, making connections, and sharing information (Ash, 2004; Braswell & Callanan, 2003; Crowley et al., 2001; Diamond, 1986; Dierking, 1989; Szechter & Carey, 2009). Some parents have particular conversational routines and question asking styles including quiz-like or open-ended question asking (Ash, 2004), which is thought to impact learning differently. Haas (1997) has argued that open-ended questions from a caregiver result in increased learning compared to no guidance or prescriptive guidance at exhibits. Similarly, it seems to enhance a child’s learning when a parent provides associative talk that links current experience with past experiences and knowledge Crowley and Jacobs (2002). Wh-questions (such as asking who, what, where, when, why, or how) are a key part of conversation-eliciting speech (Leech et. al., 2013). Parents have been shown to adopt wh-question strategies as a result of training both outside (Boland, Haden, & Ornstein, 2003; Hendrick, Haden & Ornstein, 2009) and inside the museum context (Benjamin, Haden, & Wilkerson, 2010; Eberbach & Crowley, under revision; Falk & Dierking, 2000; Leinhardt & Knutson, 2004). Encouraging parents without topical knowledge to simply talk about objects is not sufficient for stimulating good explanations and rich learning conversations (Kim & Crowley, 2010). Yet, having content knowledge does not, in and of itself, guarantee deeper, more elaborative exhibit conversations, which could contribute to information sharing and processing (Fender & Crowley, 2007).

Directions for Future Research 

More evaluation and research investigating the impacts of framing, joint attention, and conversation in exhibit design would further our understanding of family learning in museums. To tap into the power of framing, thoughtful consideration must be given to how exhibits cue visitors implicitly or explicitly to activate a particular frame. There is ample room in the literature to build on our knowledge of framing’s affordances in a family learning context. To capitalize on the benefits of joint attention the development of measures for joint attention and the related act of joint engagement would be useful. A fairly large body of work exists around conversation in museums, however, in 2010, Benjamin and colleagues called for more research on “how to promote particular forms of verbal engagement during events that will influence children’s understanding and remembering” (p.502). Ultimately, it is the shared or joint aspect of learning, the co-participation, the parent-child as partner learners that still needs to be supported, designed for, and researched.

References 

Ash, D. 2004. How families use questions at dioramas: Ideas for exhibit design. Curator. 47 (1): 84-99.

Atkins, L. J., Velez, L., Goudy, D., and Dunbar, K. N. 2009. The unintended effects of interactive objects and labels in the science museum. Science Education. 93 (1): 161-184.

Benjamin, N., Haden, C.A., and Wilkerson, E. 2010. Enhancing building conversations, and learning through caregiver-child interactions in a children’s museum. Developmental Psychology. 46 (2): 505-515.

Boland, A. M., Haden, C. A., and Ornstein, P. A. 2003. Boosting children’s memory by training mothers in the use of an elaborative conversational style as an event unfolds. Journal of Cognition and Development. 4: 39–65.

Borun, M., Chambers, M., and Cleghorn, A. 1996. Families are learning in science museums. Curator. 39 (2): 124-138.

Borun, M., and Dritsas, J. 1997. Developing family-friendly exhibits. Curator. 40 (3): 178-196.

Braswell, G. S., and Callanan, M. 2003. Learning to draw recognizable graphic representations during mother-child interactions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 49 (4): 471-494.

Brown, C. 1995. Making the Most of Family Visits: Some Observations of Parents with Children in a Museum Science Centre. Museum Management and Curatorship. 4 (1): 65-71.

Callanan, M. A., and Jipson, J. L. 2001. Explanatory conversations and young children’s developing scientific literacy. In Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional science. K. Crowley, C. Schunn, and T. Okada, eds., 19-44. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crowley, K., and Callanan, M. 1998. Describing and supporting collaborative scientific thinking in parent-child interaction. Journal of Museum Education. 23 (1): 12-17.

Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Jipson, J. L., Galco, J., Topping, K., and Shrager, J. 2001. Shared scientific thinking in everyday parent-child activity. Science Education. 85 (6): 712-732.

Crowley, K., and Jacobs, M. 2002. Islands of expertise and the development of family scientific literacy. In Learning conversations in museums, G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley and K. Knutson, eds., 333–356. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dierking, L. 1989. The Family Museum Experience: Implications for Research. Journal of Museum Education. 14 (2): 9-11.

Eberbach, C.E., and Crowley, K. under revision. From seeing to observing: How parents and children learn to see science in a botanical garden. Journal of the Learning Sciences.

Eberbach, C., and Crowley, K. 2005. From living to virtual. Curator. 83 (3): 317-338.

Ellenbogen, K. M., Luke, J. J., and Dierking, L. D. 2004. Family learning research in museums: An emerging disciplinary matrix? Science Education. 88 (51): 48-58.

Falk, J., and Dierking, L. 2000. Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Fender, J.G., and Crowley, K. 2007. How parent explanation changes what children learn from everyday scientific thinking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 28: 189-210.

Fivush, R., Haden, C. A. and Reese, E. 2006. Elaborating on elaborations: Role of maternal reminiscing style in cognitive and socioemotional development. Child Development. 77: 1568–1588.

FLING 2011. Family Learning in Interactive Galleries Research Project Three-Museum Case Study Summary. The First Center for the Visual Arts, Nashville, TN, The High Museum of Art, Atlanta, GA, The Speed Art Museum, Louisville, KY, Marinna Adams, Ed.D and Jeanine Ancelet, M.A. Audience Focus Inc.

Friedman, A. 1979. Framing pictures: The role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist. Journal for Experimental Psychology: General. 108: 316-355.

Frischen A., and Tipper, S. 2004. Orienting attention via observed shift evokes longer term inhibitory effects: Implications for social interactions, attention, and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 133 (4): 516–533.

Gleason, M. E., and Schauble, L. 2000. Parents’ assistance of their children’s scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction. 17: 343– 378.

Gutwill, J. P., and Allen, S. 2010.  Facilitating family group inquiry at science museum exhibits. Science Education. 94 (4): 710-742.

Gutwill, J.P., and Buennagel, S. 2003. Floating Objects Version 4 with Two Blowers: Testing Label & Number of Objects. Formative Evaluation Report. San Francisco, Exploratorium. Retrieved from www.exploratorium.edu/partner/evaluation.

Gutwill, J.P. 2002. Spinning Blackboard. Formative Evaluation Report. San Francisco, Exploratorium. Retrieved from www.exploratorium.edu/partner/evaluation.

Haden, C.A. 2010. Talking about science in museums. Child Development Perspectives. 4 1: 62-67.

Haden, C.A., Ornstein, P.A., Eckerman, C.O., & Didow, S.M. (2001). Mother-child conversational interactions as events unfold: linkages to subsequent remembering. Child Development. 72 (4): 1016-1031.

Kim, K., and Mundy, P. 2012. Joint attention, social-cognition, and recognition memory in adults. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 6: 1-11.

Kim, K.Y., and Crowley, K. 2010. Negotiating the goal of museum inquiry: How families engineer and experiment. In Instructional explanations in the disciplines, M.K. Stein and L. Kucan, eds., 51-65. New York, NY: Springer.

Klahr, D., and Dunbar, K. 1989. Developmental differences in scientific discovery processes. In Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon, D. Klahr and K. Kotovsky, eds., 109-143. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Leech, K.A., Salo, V.C., Rowe, M.L., and Cabrera, N.J. 2013. Father input and child vocabulary development: the importance of Wh questions and clarification requests. Seminars in Speech and Language. 34 (4): 249-59.

Leinhardt, G. and Knutson, K. 2004. Listening in on museum conversations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., and Knutson, K. 2002. Learning conversations in museums. Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Martin, M., Brown, S., and Russell, T. 1991. A study of child-adult interaction at a natural history centre. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 17 (2-3): 355-369.

McClelland, J.L. 2013. Incorporating rapid neocortical learning of new schema-consistent information into complementary learning systems theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 142 (4): 1190-1210.

Melber, L. M. 2007. Maternal scaffolding in two museum exhibition halls. Curator. 50 (3): 341-354.

Mundy, P., & Newell, L. 2007. Attention, joint attention and social cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 16 (5): 269-274.

Ornstein, P. A., Haden, C. A., and Hedrick, A. M. 2004. Learning to remember: Social-communicative exchanges and the development of children’s memory skills. Developmental Review. 24: 374–395.

Palmquist, S. D. & Crowley, K. 2007. From teachers to testers: Parents’ role in child expertise development in informal settings. Science Education. 91 (5): 712-732.

Paris, S. G. ed. 2002. Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Puchner, L., Rapoport, R., and Gaskins, S. 2001. Learning in children’s museums: Is it really happening? Curator: The Museum Journal. 44 (3): 237–259.

Sandifer, C. 2003. Technological novelty and open-endedness: two characteristics of interactive exhibits that contribute to the holding of visitor attention in a science museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 40 (2): 121-137.

Striano, T., Reid V., and Hoehl, S. 2006. Neural mechanisms of joint attention in infancy. European Journal of Neuroscience. 23 (10): 2819 – 2823.

Swartz, M., and Crowley, K. 2004. Parent beliefs about teaching and learning in a chidren’s museum. Visitor Studies. 7 (2): 4-16.

Szechter, L. E., and Carey, E. J. 2009. Gravitating toward science: Parent-Child interactions at a gravitational-wave observatory. Science Education. 93: 846-858.

Tessler, M., and Nelson, K. 1994. Making memories: The influence of joint encoding on later recall by young children. Consciousness and Cognition. 3 (3-4): 307-326.

Tinworth, K. 2009. Enactor program: Diorama study. Denver, CO: Denver Museum of Nature and Science. Retrieved from InformalScience.org. http://informalscience.org/evaluation/ic-000-000003-317/Enactor_Program_…

Tison-Povis, K., and Crowley, K. 2015. Family learning in object-based museums: the role of joint attention. Visitor Studies. 18 (2): 168-182.

Tomasello, M. 1995. Joint attention as social cognition. In Joint attention: Its origins and role in development, C. Moore and P.J. Dunham, eds., 103-130. Erlbaum, NJ: Psychology Press.

Tunnicliffe, S.D., and Reiss, M.J. 2000. What sense do children make of three dimensional life-sized “representations” of animals? School Science and Mathematics. 100 (3): 128 – 138

Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and language. New York: Wiley.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Linkedin   Youtube   Facebook   Instagram
Search: repository | repository and website pages | website pages
NSF logo

This material is supported by National Science Foundation award DRL-2229061, with previous support under DRL-1612739, DRL-1842633, DRL-1212803, and DRL-0638981. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations contained within InformalScience.org are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.

NSF AISL Project Meetings

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact Us