The Effect of Visitors ’ Agendas on Museum Learning

JOHN H. FALK, THEANO MOUSSOURI, AND DOUGLAS COULSON

A B s T R A c T It has been argued that visitors’ pre-visit “agendas” directly influence visits. This study attempted to directly test the effects of different museum visit agendas on visitor learning. Two new tools were developed for this purpose: (1) a tool for measuring visitor agendas; and (2) a tool for measuring visitor learning (Personal Meaning Mapping). Visitor agenda was defined as having two dimensions: motivations and strategies. Personal Meaning Mapping is a constructivist approach that measures change in understanding along four semi-independent dimensions: extent, breadth, depth, and mastery. The study looked at 40 randomly-selected adults who were visiting the National Museum of Natural History’s Geology, Gems and Minerals exhibition. Visitor agendas did significantly impact how, what, and how much individuals learned. Results are discussed in terms of the current debate about education vs. entertainment.

INTRODUCTION

People give many reasons for visiting museums, including social and recreational reasons, educational reasons, and reasons related to culture, awe, and reverence (Falk, 1998; Falk & Dierking, 1992, Gore et al., 1980; Graburn, 1977; Hood, 1983; Macdonald, 1993; McManus, 1992; Merriman, 199 1 ; Miles, 1986; Moussouri, 1997; Prentice, Davies & Beeho, 1997; Rosenfeld, 1980). It has been argued for a number of years that visitors not only have an “agenda” for their visits but that these agendas directly influence visits (Balling, Falk, & Aronson, 1980; Falk & Dierking, 1992; Macdonald, 1993; Moussouri, 1997). Yet systematic investigations to determine the impact of visitor agendas on visitor behavior and learning are virtually nonexistent. To further understanding of this phenomenon, we attempted to test the effects of different museum-visit agendas on visitor learning. To do this required two tools: (1) a tool for measuring visitor agendas; and (2) a tool for measuring visitor learning.

Visitor Agendas-On the basis of a thorough review of the literature coupled with qualitative research focused on the development of the family agenda and the inter- face between the family’s and the museum’s agenda, Moussouri (1 997) concluded that the visitor “agenda” could be viewed as having two dimensions: (1 ) the rnotiva- tions people have for visiting a museum, and (2) the strategies people utilize when

John H. Falk is director of the Iiistiticte for karnitig Iiiiiovatioii, 166 West Street, Annapolis, MD 21401. Theano Moussouri was research associate for this stitdv and Douglas Coulson is a senior associate at PS . Iiiternational, Aiiiiapolis, MD 21403.

107

108 FALK E T A L . 6 T H E E F F E C T S O F V I S I T O R S ’ A G E N D A S

visiting a museum. These two dimensions reflect the two levels at which a museum visit is “planned.” At the first level, museum visiting is seen as fitting within a wider socio-cultural framework-the museum visit as part of the cultural/leisure/educa- tional fabric of society. At the second and narrower level, the visit agenda can be seen as a product of an individual’s or a group’s specific strategies or lists of things “to do” on any given day.

Six categories of motivation were identified; they reflect the functions a museum is perceived to serve in the social/cultural life of visitors. These motivations were: place, education, life-cycle, social event, entertainment, and practical issues. Typically, a visitor would express not one, but several, of these motivations for visiting a museum.

Place is that cluster of reasons given by individuals when they categorize museums as leisure/recreational/cultural destinations emblematic of a locale or region. Many people visit museums for this reason, including individuals on holiday or day trips or who have out-of-town guests.

Education represents a category of reasons related to the aesthetic, informational, or cultural content of the museum. Most visitors mention that they go to museums in order to learn; occasionally something in particular, more often just learning in general.

Life cycle represents museum-going seen as a repeated activity that takes place at certain phases in one’s life, usually related to childhood (e.g., “I was taken to the museum as a child, and now I’m bringing my child to the museum”).

Social event represents a related, but separate, category; museum-going as a “day out” for the whole family, a special social experience with a friend or relative, a chance for individuals to enjoy themselves separately and together.

Entertainment refers to a set of leisure-related reasons for visiting a museum. Most visitors mention that they go to museums in their free time in order to have fun and enjoy themselves, and/or see new and interesting things in a relaxing and aestheti- cally pleasing setting.

Practical issues also factor into people’s motivations for visiting museums. Exter- nal factors such as weather, proximity to the museum, time availability, crowd con- ditions, and the entrance fee contribute to many visitors’ decision-making process.

A visitor agenda also includes a specific strategy for how to experience the museum or a specific exhibition. Three types of strategies fall along a continuum from unfocused to focused. Visitors with an unfocused strategy are generally unaware of museum/exhibition opportunities and are open to experiencing whatev- er the museum has to offer. They generally say things like: “I’m here to see whatev- er is interesting,” or “I have no particular plan, I just want to see whatever is here.”

Visitors with a moderately focused strategy are aware of museumlexhibition specifics, they may have even planned on seeing a particular exhibition during their visit, but a specific exhibition or aspect of the museum does not represent their sole or even primary objective. An individual with a moderately focused strategy might say something like: “I read about the new exhibit on X in the paper and plan on see- ing that while I’m here.”

CURATOR 4 1 / 2 J U N E 1998 109

Finally, visitors with a focused agenda plan their visit before they go to the museum; usually with a specific goal in mind. Typically, they have a visit routine which they follow and often this is to the exclusion of other things the museum might have to offer. Someone with a focused strategy would say something like: “I’ve only come to see the X exhibit. After that, I’m leaving.”

To measure visitor agendas, we developed two measures. The first was a visitor- motivation instrument that had visitors utilize a five-point Likert-type scale for assessing the relative importance to them of each of the six reasons for visiting the museum. The second was a qualitative rating that classified visitors as a function of their words and behaviors into one of the three visit strategy categories.

Visitor Learning-To assess visitor learning in this study, a new methodology called Personal Meaning Mapping (PMM) was utilized. A brief explanation of this approach is in order. Research in both the cognitive and neurosciences increasingly supports the view that learning is a relative and constructive process (Pope & Gilbert, 1983; Roschelle, 1995; Rosenfield, 1994; Solomon, 1987; Sylwester, 1993). PMM utilizes this Relativist-Constructivist, as opposed to a Positivist-Behaviorist, approach to measuring learning. Specifically, this means it is assumed that each individual brings varied prior experiences and knowledge into a learning situation and that these shape how that individual perceives and processes what he or she experiences. The combination of prior experience and the new experience result in learning, but the resulting learning is unique for each individual, situated within the context in which it was learned. Given the varied starting and ending point of each individual learn- er, traditional methods of assessment, which rely upon everyone starting at the same place (e.g., “no knowledge”) and ending at a similar place (e.g., “the correct answer”) have serious flaws.

PMM does not assume that all learners enter with comparable knowledge and experience, nor does it require that an individual produce a “right” answer in order to demonstrate learning. Instead, PMM is designed to measure how a specified “edu- cational” experience uniquely affects each individual’s personal conceptual, attitudi- nal, and emotional understanding. The assessment assumes that educational interventions generally have an effect on the underlying structure of individuals’ understandings; although exactly what may be learned may vary, the degree of change is what is comparable among individuals and thus quantifiable. A key aspect of PMM is that it accommodates the multi-dimensionality of learning and uses this fact to generate four different equally valid measures of learning.

PMM is proving to be a versatile and reliable tool for assessing learning. Origi- nally developed for use in two Canadian museums to assess public attitudes and knowledge with regard to peoples of the First Nations, variations of this approach have now been utilized in diverse settings and for various assessment purposes (e.g., art, science, history and natural history museums; front-end, formative and summa- tive assessments). The experience gained from these studies contributed to the design and analysis of the data in this research (Luke, Adams and Falk, 1998; Luke 1998).

110 FALK E T AL. * T H E E F F E C T S O F V I S I T O R S ’ A G E N D A S

METHODS

Data Collection-The study was conducted at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), utilizing the newly installed Geology, Gems and Minerals exhibition. The exhibition had undergone extensive front-end and for- mative testing and has been favorably reviewed by a number of sources. Only the gems, minerals, and mines sections of the exhibition were included in this study.

Groups of adult visitors were approached as they were entering the exhibition. Every third group was chosen in an effort to randomize the sample. Only all-adult groups and groups with three or fewer members were chosen. All groups were approached by one of us and asked if they would discuss their perceptions or under- standing of gems and minerals before they entered the exhibition. Those accepting (87%) sat in a quiet alcove and were administered a pre-visit PMM.

They were asked to write words, ideas, images, phrases, or thoughts that came to mind related to “gems + minerals” (which appeared in a circle at the center of the page; see Appendix). These written words formed the basis for an open-ended inter- view. Visitors were encouraged to explain why they wrote what they did and to expand on their thoughts and ideas. The discussion allowed them to articulate and negotiate their perceptions and understandings of the words “gems and minerals” in their own words and from their own cognitive frames of reference. Their responses were recorded on the same piece of paper. To discriminate between unprompted and prompted responses, the interview data were recorded in ink of a different color.

Each member of the group completed a PMM and was interviewed separately. The length of the pre-visit interview was intentionally kept to a minimum in defer- ence to visitors’ time constraints. When most of the points were covered, we thanked the visitor and implied that an additional discussion might occur at a later time in the visit. Visitors were not pressured in any way to agree to participate in a post-visit interview. We then unobtrusively tracked the group, observing their movements throughout their visit. In particular, we noted the date and time of the day, how busy the exhibition was, which exhibits, labels, and panels they used and the overall time they spent in this part of the exhibition. We recorded visitors’ ages, gender, compo- sition of the group and ethnic background (sight basis only). Sixty-five individuals completed the initial PMM and were tracked through the exhibition.

The individuals were approached when they exited the mines section and asked if they were willing to continue the discussion. The vast majority seemed to have for- gotten about the earlier comment and a new arrangement had to be negotiated as time was usually a constraint. Once visitors had agreed to be interviewed, the pro- cedures used in the pre-visit data collection were repeated. Visitors wrote words, ideas, thoughts, phrases, images that came to mind in relation to gems and miner- als and were asked to expand on them. The post-visit interview also included ques- tions on visitors’ motivation, visit plans and educational background. Visitors were asked in an open-ended manner why they visited the NMNH and then provided with the six categories of frequently-mentioned reasons: place, education, life cycle, social event, entertainment, and practical issues. Each category was explained, whenever possible utilizing the visitor’s own reasons and motivations as examples. Visitors

CURATOR 4 1 / 2 * J U N E 1 9 9 8 111

were asked to rate the six categories on a five-point scale according to how impor- tant these reasons were to them on the day of the visit. In addition, visitors were asked about their visit plans-including which exhibitions, museums or other sites in Washington they had been to or planned to visit that day-and their highest level of educational attainment. Forty individuals completed the second PMM.

A third PMM interview was conducted by telephone either six to eight weeks or five to six months after the visit. Data collection for this part of the study is incom- plete and will be discussed in a subsequent paper.

Data Analysis-Each individual’s pre-visit knowledge and feelings about gems and minerals were compared with his or her post-visit knowledge and feelings. PMM measures learning by assessing change across four semi-independent dimensions.

Dimension One looked at the change in the quantity of appropriate vocabulary used and is an indication of the extent of someone’s knowledge and feelings. Change scores were determined by counting the number of relevant wordstphrases written down by a visitor on the two PMMS and comparing the difference. Inter-rater relia- bility was 98%.

Dimension Two looked at the breadth of a visitor’s understanding, the range of conceptual understanding. It measured the change in the quantity of appropriate concepts utilized. The authors (JF and TM) independently classified responses into conceptual categories; inter-rater agreement was 95%. Through discussion, termi- nology for categories and disputed classifications were resolved. In all, a total of 34 different conceptual categories were utilized by visitors to describe their under- standing of the topic “gems and minerals.” To assess change in breadth of under- standing, we compared how many of these conceptual categories were utilized by a visitor before and after the visit to the exhibition. A complete list of concepts utilized by visitors is presented in the Appendix.

Dimension Three looked at the depth of visitors’ understanding, how detailed and complex, within a conceptual category, descriptions were. So, for example, with- in the conceptual category “different types of gems” did visitors only list one type of gemstone, or did they list dozens? Were they able to explain why or how or under what circumstances minerals were transformed into gems, or was their knowledge superficial? Only those conceptual categories the visitor was asked to expand upon in the interview were scored; scoring was based on a scale of 1-4 (1 = no elaboration; 4 = significant elaboration. To compensate for the realities of collecting data in a museum where some visitors were talkative and wanted to describe several of their categories in great detail and others were rushed and only wanted to take the time to explain one or two, scores were totaled and averaged. As with Dimension Two, the transcripts of responses were independently rated and differences resolved through discussion; inter-rater agreement was 90%.

Finally, Dimension Four looked at mastery, the overall facility with which visi- tors described their understanding. The quality of someone’s understanding ranged from that of a novice to more like that of an expert. Expertise did not have to be lim- ited to a single area; someone could have been knowledgeable in gems but not geol- ogy, in the mining process but not in the process of making and judging fine jewelry.

112 F A L K ET A L . * T H E E F F E C T S O F V I S I T O R S ’ A G E N D A S

Scoring utilized a holistic judgment which, much as someone might grade an essay, qualitatively took into account the totality of the interviewee’s understanding of the topic. Each PMM was scored on a scale of 1-4 (1 = simple, novice-like understand- ing to 4 = highly detailed, expert-like understanding). As with the previous dimen- sions, the transcripts of responses were independently rated and differences resolved through discussion; inter-rater agreement was 93%.

Time spent in the exhibition was analyzed, as were such independent variables as motivation for visiting, visit strategy, museum crowdedness, time of day, age, social group, and gender. Analyses included analysis of variance, t-tests, chi squares and correlations.

RESULTS

Only 40 individuals were included in this current analysis, those individuals com- pleting both a pre- and post-visit PMM. All were over the age of 17 (42%, 18-29 years; 38%, 30-54 years; 20%, 55 years and older); 52% were female (N=21); 90% were white; 10% were Asian-American (no other racelethnicities were present in the sample). Twenty-three percent of the visitors in the sample were alone. Time spent in the exhibition ranged from 10 to 70 minutes with a normal distribution; mean time was 35 minutes. As it was a newly-installed exhibition, none of the visitors had ever seen this particular exhibition before, although half (57%) had previously visit- ed the NMNH.

Overall, there was evidence that visitors learned as shown by significant change along three of the four PMM learning dimensions:

Dimension One-Change in extent of vocabulary (t=lO.289, p=.OOO). Dimension Two-Change in number of concepts. A complete list of concepts uti-

lized by visitors is presented in the Appendix. The breadth of knowledge and feelings as measured by change in the quantity of different conceptual categories used to describe gems and minerals (t= 12.096, p=.OOO).

Dimension Three-There was no significant change in Dimension Three-the depth of knowledge and feelings as measured by change in the quantity of descrip- tors used in explaining conceptual categories (t= 1.807, p=.078).

Dimension Four-Change in mastery of topic as judged by the change in the qual- ity of the individual’s overall understanding of the topic (t=3.819, p=.OOO).

There was a relationship between learning and length of stay, which ranged from 10 minutes to 70 minutes. Individuals who spent longer amounts of time in the exhibition showed significantly greater concept learning, Dimension Two (F=7.93 1, p=.008) and mastery learning, Dimension Four (F=12.693, p=.OOl) than did those who spent less time in the exhibition.

Visitors’ motivations significantly affected how and what they learned from the exhibition. Visitor importance scores for each of the six motivations were rescaled as either a “low” or a “high” motivation (low=rating of 1-3; high=rating of 4-5). The four outcome measures of learning were compared across the two levels (low and high) for each of the six agenda motivations. There were four statistically significant interactions:

CURATOR 4112 * J U N E 1998 I13

Entertainment High

1. Individuals with a high education motivation scored significantly higher than indi- viduals with a low education motivation on Dimension Two (number of concepts)

2. Individuals with a high entertainment motivation scored significantly higher than those with a low entertainment motivation on Dimension One (extent of vocabulary)

3. Individuals with a high entertainment motivation scored significantly higher than those with a low entertainment motivation on Dimension Four (mastery)

4. Individuals with a low practical issues motivation scored significantly higher than individuals with a high practical issues motivation on Dimension Two (number of concepts) (F=5.066, p=.030).

Education and entertainment motivations interacted in an interesting way; they emerged as highly independent dimensions. Individuals with a high education moti- vation, regardless of their entertainment motivation, showed significant conceptual learning (Dimension Two). Individuals with a high entertainment motivation, regardless of their educational motivation, showed significant vocabulary develop- ment (Dimension One) and overall mastery of the topic (Dimension Four). Individ- uals with both a high education and entertainment motivation showed gains in all three-vocabulary, concepts, and mastery; individuals with a low education and entertainment motivation evidenced no gains in vocabulary, concepts, or mastery. These relationships are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Learning outcomes for education and entertainment motivation categories.

(F=6.344, p=.016).

(F=4.681, p=.037).

(F=5.082, p=.0307).

vocabulary and mastery learning, (1 8%)

Entertainment Low no vocabulary, concept, or mastery learning, (20%)

Education High

concept learning, (2 8%)

vocabulary, concept, and mastery learning (34%)

Note: Percentages indicate the proportion of the 40 visitors represented in each cell.

By contrast, education and practical issues were highly correlated. Individuals with a high educational motivation had a low practical motivation, and individuals with a high practical motivation had a low education motivation. These two motivations were essentially the inverse of each other.

The length of time visitors spent in the exhibition was compared across the rat- ings (high vs. low) for each of the six motivations visitors gave for their visit. There was only one statistically significant interaction: individuals with a high entertain- ment motivation stayed significantly longer in the exhibition than did those with a

114 FALK E T AL. T H E E F F E C T S O F V I S I T O R S ’ A G E N D A S

low entertainment motivation (F=8.3 10, p=.006). The four dimensions of learning and length of stay in the exhibition were com-

pared to the three types of museum visit strategies (unfocused, moderately-focused, and focused). Only Dimension Four, mastery, was found to have been significantly affected by visit strategy (F=4.061, p=.O5 1). Individuals with a focused strategy showed significantly greater gains than did individuals with either an unfocused or moderately-focused strategy.

There was also a significant effect between visit strategies and length of visit (F=6.632, p=.003). Individuals with an unfocused strategy spent the least amount of time ( x =25 minutes); individuals with either a moderately-focused (x=44 minutes) or focused (x =41 minutes) strategy spent considerably more time in the exhibition; the difference between time spent by those with a focused and those with a moder- ately-focused strategy was not significant.

There were no significant correlations between visit strategies and the six visit motivations.

There were no significant differences in visitor learning or length of stay in the exhibition as a function of age, gender, level of education, time of day of the visit, or crowdedness of the exhibition.

There was a significant effect of social group on learning. Individuals who went through the exhibition by themselves showed significantly more learning along Dimension One (extent of vocabulary) than did individuals who went through the exhibition as part of a group (F=5.352, p=.026). There was no effect of social group on length of stay.

DISCUSSION

This study yielded both straightforward and highly provocative results. First, the research provided reassuring evidence that visitors to a museum exhibition learn even in the short term. Importantly, the research highlights that visitor learning can be viewed as occurring along several different, measurable dimensions. The majority of the individuals visiting Geology, Gems and Minerals showed significant gains in their ability to describe gems and minerals as evidenced by an increase in the vocab- ulary used to describe them. The majority also showed significant gains in concep- tual understanding of the subject as evidenced by an increase in the number of conceptual categories they used to describe gems and minerals after their visit. And the majority showed significant improvement in their mastery of gems and minerals as a topic as evidenced by a qualitatively enhanced presentation of their knowledge and understanding. Only along one dimension of learning, the depth of conceptual frameworks, did the majority of visitors to the exhibition fail to demonstrate signif- icant change.

This research confirmed the hypothesis that an individual’s motivation for visit- ing a museum significantly impacts how, what, and how much heishe learns at that museum. The motivations that yielded the greatest effect were the motivations of education and entertainment. However, the relationship between these two different motivations and learning did not necessarily square with preconceived notions. As

CURATOR 41/2 9 J U N E 1998 115

would be expected, individuals voicing a strong educational motivation showed sig- nificantly greater learning than did those expressing a low educational motivation. Less expected, a similar relationship existed amongst those individuals voicing strong entertainment motivations. In fact, individuals with a high entertainment motivation demonstrated greater learning along two dimensions of learning as well as a greater commitment of time to the exhibition than did those with a low enter- tainment motivation. These significant differences were independent of individuals’ expressed educational motivations.

Much has been debated and written lately within the museum community about whether museums should emphasize education or entertainment, treating these two variables as if they were mutually exclusive. This research confirms the wisdom of many (e.g., Friedman, 1997; Lucas, 1991; Mintz, 1994) who have claimed that these two dimensions are not mutually exclusive. Rather than education and entertain- ment being two ends of a single continuum, the results of this study reinforce the belief that education and entertainment represent separate continua altogether. All visitors we interviewed seemed to believe that both of these motivations were rele- vant and important, in fact, intrinsic ingredients of the museum experience. What varied among individuals was the relative importance of these two motivations; for some individuals, entertainment (or education) was relatively high and for some, rel- atively low. As Table 1 shows, not only was there a relatively even distribution among visitors of the four possible combinations of high and low education and high and low entertainment motivation, with a slight bias toward “high” in both categories, but these different combinations resulted in significantly different learning out- comes for visitors.

High Education Motivation-Those intent on learning about gems and minerals focused on the conceptual information provided in the exhibition. These individuals added whole new conceptual categories to their repertoire. Visitors’ educational motivation, high or low, did not appear to significantly influence how much time they spent in the exhibition.

High Entertainment Motivation-Those individuals intent on an enjoyable and entertaining experience seemed to focus more concretely on the objects. The results of this behavior were significant gains in visitors’ ability to describe and list more dif- ferent kinds of gems and minerals after the visit as well as a significantly improved ability to talk about the topic of gems and minerals after the visit. Perhaps what could be characterized as a greater enthusiasm for the experience also manifested itself in how this group of visitors utilized the exhibition. Individuals with a high entertainment motivation spent significantly longer in the exhibition than did indi- viduals with a low entertainment motivation. Thus individuals who placed a high value on the entertainment and enjoyment aspects of an exhibition spent more time in the exhibition and demonstrated greater learning than did those who were less concerned with entertainment. It is also possible that visitors found this exhibition entertaining.

116 FALK ET AL. * T H E E F F E C T S O F V I S I T O R S ’ A G E N D A S

Other Motivations-There was no evidence that having or not having a social event, life cycle, or place motivation for the visit directly affected learning. Individuals whose visit to the museum was strongly motivated by price, convenience, or some other practical reason tended to also have a low education motivation and evidenced less learning than did those who came for other reasons. In other words, individuals who came to the museum “to get out of the cold” or just because “it’s an inexpensive way to spend the day,” seemingly were less “educationally” motivated about the exhi- bition, and thus less likely to experience conceptual learning.

Visit Strategy-The strategy employed by visitors-unfocused, moderately focused, focused-appeared to also have a significant impact on visitors’ learning as well as visitor behavior. Visitors with a focused visit strategy showed significantly greater mastery learning than did visitors with either a moderately-focused or unfocused visit strategy. Visitors with either a focused or moderately-focused visit strategy spent more time in the exhibition than did visitors with an unfocused strategy. At the two ends of the continua, the results seem clear. Individuals with a focused strategy, those individuals who single-mindedly and purposefully set out to visit the exhibi- tion, spent more time in the exhibition and showed significantly greater mastery learning than did other visitors. Individuals with an unfocused strategy, those indi- viduals who more or less just wandered into the exhibition, spent less time in the exhibition and showed less mastery learning than other visitors.

Individuals with a moderately-focused strategy who purposefully but not single- mindedly visited the exhibition and spent as much time there as those with a focused strategy, only learned amounts comparable to what unfocused-strategy visitors learned. This suggests problems with only using a three-point scale along this contin- uum. Also particularly striking was that visit-strategy and visit-motivation variables appeared to be independent of each other. The two dimensions of agenda we defined, sociocultural purposes and the daily visit plans of individuals, were not correlated.

Visit Agenda-It is probably worthwhile noting that 13% (10 individuals) of those we initially approached and 39% (25 individuals) of those we approached for a sec- ond time after their visit refused to be interviewed. In an ironic way, these data too must be taken as evidence for the importance of visitors’ agendas and how those agendas impact on their time and behavior in the museum. By inference, these indi- viduals’ agenda was to see the museum, not to participate in a research study.

CONCLUSfONS This research provides further support for the idea that museums can and do affect visitor learning. The research also supports the hypothesis that visitors’ pre-visit agendas directly influence their in-museum behavior and learning. These findings also raise a number of important issues, including the need to redefinelrethink how we use the terms education and entertaiiiment, the need to better understand the complexities of visitors’ pre-visit agendas, and the need to rethink how, as a field, we market the museum experience.

C U R A T O R 4112 * J U N E 1998 117

The finding that individuals expressing a high education motivation showed sig- nificantly greater learning will no doubt find easy resonance with most museum pro- fessionals. By contrast, the finding that individuals expressing a high entertainment motivation showed both significantly greater learning and spent more time in the exhibition will no doubt not resonate as well. Our feeling is that the discrepancy lies primarily in our, not the visitors’, heads. Within academic circles, within which museums can legitimately claim to reside, the words “education” and “entertain- ment” are laden with a great deal of baggage. To the academic, “education” connotes importance and quality, while “entertainment” suggests vacuousness and frivolity; and maybe for some in the general public these meanings also hold true. However, what most museum professionals forget is how much self-selection enters into museum-going. Individuals who go to museums are going for a learning-oriented experience. The museum-going public’s idea of entertainment, at least for that time when they are at the museum, is not the same as that of the theme-park-going or shopping-mall-going public. “We really enjoy it when we’re here ... and also learning. So it’s educational, not just a theme-park-type-like place.” Most museum visitors see no apparent conflict between fun and learning. This was succinctly summarized by one visitor who said, “We expect to enjoy ourselves and learn new things.” Those people who enjoy learning, particularly the free-choice learning afforded by a museum, consider learning in a museum entertaining.

Just as complicated are the meanings surrounding the word. There are many in the public, and unfortunately in the museum community as well, who still seem to think that the word “education” is a synonym for “school.” Thus, some museum- goers correctly assume they are going to be entertained, but erroneously assume that they are not going to be educated. No doubt there are some with the opposite assumptions as well. As a profession, we need to work harder to both understand these nuances and, ideally, to help reinvent for the public more appropriate defini- tions of these terms.

A second issue that emerges from this research is the multi-dimensionality of the visitor agenda; what we have separately identified as “motivation” and “strategy.” These two dimensions do appear to be independent, and influenced visitor behavior and learning in interesting ways. Rather than seeing this study as an end point in our understanding of the complex interactions of motivation and strategy, we see this as a beginning. In this case, the old saying “this research suggests the need for further research” is really true. Given the powerful and complex role that a visitor’s agenda has on in-museum experiences, further research is indeed warranted.

Finally, the findings of this research argue for the need to better understand the relationship of marketing and the museum experience. As marketing becomes more central to the long-term health and vitality of museums, it is essential that those marketing efforts be grounded in empirical research. This research confirms the assertion made by Falk and Dierking (1992) that the visitor experience is strongly affected by events that happen prior to the visitor’s arrival at the door of the museum. Hence, the emphasis used in a marketing campaign, e.g., entertainment, education- al, social, practical issues can dramatically affect how visitors utilize the museum and what they learn. In particular, education and entertainment should not be

118 FALK ET A L . 0 T H E EFFECTS OF VISITORS’ A G E N D A S

viewed as mutually exclusive motivations for coming to a museum but rather as complementary aspects of a complex leisure experience.

Individuals who strongly desired an educational and an entertaining experience were the real winners in the present study. They learned more than those caught in the either/or bind.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Linda Deck of the National Museum of Natural History for her help and support throughout this project, also Robert Sullivan for his support of the research enter- prise at NMNH. Thanks also to Marianna Adams, Courtney Abrams, David Anderson, Lynn Dierking, Dana Holland and Jessica Luke of the Institute for Learning Innovation for their insightful comments at different stages of this research. Finally, our thanks to the visitors who modified their agendas so as to share their time and thoughts with us.

REFERENCES

Balling, J.D.; Falk, J.H.; and Aronson, R.A. (1980). Pre-trip Orientations: An Exploration of Their Effects on Learning from a Single Visit Field Trip to a Zoological Park. Final Report, National Science Foundation, Grant #SED77-18913.

Falk, J.H. (1998). “Visitors: Who Does, Who Doesn’t, and Why.” Museum News 7712: 3 8 4 3 . , and Dierking, L.D. (1992). The Museum Experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback

Books. Friedman, A. (1997). “Are Science Centers and Theme Parks Merging?” Informal Science

Review 2511: 4-5. Gore, L.; Mahnken, M.; Nordstrom, J.; and Wells, D. (1980). “A profile of Visitors: The Dallas

Museum of Natural History.” Unpublished manuscript. University of Dallas, Irving, TX. Graburn, N.H. (1977). “The Museum and the Visitor Experience.” In: The Visitor and the

Museum (pp. 5-32). Prepared for the 72nd Annual Conference of the American Associa- tion of Museums, Seattle, WA.

Hood, M.G. (1983). “Staying Away: Why People Choose Not to Visit Museums.” Museum News 6212: 50-57.

Lucas, A.M. (1991 ). “ ‘Info-tainment’ and Informal Sources for Learning Science.” Internation- al Journal of Science Education 13/51: 495-504.

Luke, J. (1998). “Art Around the Comer: An Assessment of the Long-Term Impact of a Multi- Visit Program on Elementary Students.” Interpretation of Art, unpublished masters the- sis, University of Toronto, Canada.

, Adams, M., and Falk, J. (1998). “Art Around the Corner: Longitudinal Impact Study.” Unpublished report, Institute for Learning Innovation: Annapolis, MD,

Macdonald, S. ( I 993). Museum Visiting, Series: Representations: Places and Identities. Sociol- ogy and Social Anthropology Working Papers, No 1 . Keele, WG: Keele University.

McManus, P. ( I 992). “Topics in Museums and Science Education.” Studies in Science Educa- tion 20: 157-182.

Merriman, N. (1991). Beyond the Glass Case. Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press. Miles, R. ( I 986). “Museum Audiences.” The International Jounml of Museum Management and

Mintz, A. 1994. “That’s Edutainment.” Museum News 7316: 32-35. Moussouri, T.( 1997). “Family Agendas and Family Learning in Hands-on Museums.” Unpub-

Curatorship : 73-80.

lished Ph.D. thesis, University of Leicester, Leicester, England.

C U R A T O R 41/2 0 J U N E 1998 119

Pope, M., and Gilbert, J. (1983). “Personal Experience and the Construction of Knowledge in Science.” Science Education 67: 193-203.

Prentice, R., Davies, A,, & Beeho, A. 1997. “Seeking Generic Motivations for Visiting and Not Visiting Museums and Like Cultural Attractions.” Museum and Curatorship 16/1: 45-70.

Roschelle, J. (1 995). “Learning in Interactive Environments: Prior Knowledge and New Expe- rience.” In J. Falk and L. Dierking (Eds.) Public Institutions for Personal Learning. Wash- ington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Rosenfeld, S. (1980). “Informal Learning in Zoos: Naturalistic Studies of Family Groups.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.

Rosenfield, I. (1988). The Invention of Memory: A New View of the Brain. New York. NY Basic Books.

Solomon, J. ( I 987). “Social Influences on the Construction of Pupils’ Understanding of Sci- ence.” Studies in Science Education 14: 63-83.

Sylwester, R. (1995). A Celebration of Neurons: An Educator? Guide to the Human Brain. Alex- andria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

APPEND I X

Description of conceptual categories utilized by visitors (arranged alphabetically by code): Appreciation, e.g., descriptions of how much a visitor appreciated getting to see this collection Caves C1: geography of minerals C2: concept related to studying & making gems (uses “light” in an aesthetic rather than scien-

C3: concept related to chemical/physical naturelstructure of gems (uses “light” in a scientific

C4: plate techtonics and other geological concepts/formation processes C5: concepts related to structure and properties of minerals C6: concepts related to mining processes C-I: cultural identity (e.g., “I’m from India and I was looking for gems from India.”) Environmental issues GE: gems (talks about gems as a category of things) Health (e.g., use of certain minerals in vitamins) Hobbies Icon (e.g., Hope Diamond) Interest (expressions of personal interest in topic) J: jewelry Learning experience Museum-related (general comments on visits, exhibitions, museum code) MI: minerals (talks about minerals as a category of things) MN: mining and manufacturing related Natural resources 0: other related activities associated with gems & minerals (a miscellaneous category) OR: ores (enumeration of different kinds) PA: practical applications (e.g., using diamonds as drill bits) PC: popular culture; movies, or stars were often used as a reference point SM: subject matter (field of study, e.g., geology, astronomy, chemistry) S/C: socio-culturaUeconomic, specific efforts to relate gems and/or minerals to cultural, politi-

cal or economic lives of people in the past or present Social relationshipdsituations (e.g., “my aunt owned a ...”) SS: social status (e.g., relation between gems and wealth)

tific sense)

rather than aesthetic sense)

120 FALK E T A L . T H E E F F E C T S O F V I S I T O R S ’ A G E N D A S

T 1 : types of gems T2: types of ores T3: types of minerals T4: other categories of stuff, e.g., fossils T5: rocks

A visitor’s rough notes in response to “Write words, images, phrases, or thoughts that come to mind related to the words ‘gems and minerals.’”